Immaculate Conception and assumption

[justasking4]

Randy Carson;2814322]Sorry…we aren’t forced into your sola scriptura paradigm…that is your limitation not ours.

Actually the problem is yours. With all its traditions, practices etc you have to defend all of them separately as being true and together as being the truth. Take her supposed assumption. There is no evidence in Scripture for it nor are there any eyewitness accounts to it. This much is admitted by catholic scholars. Now, you are commanded to believe these things which have no support in scripture or history. You must totally disregard your reason and accept that which is commanded of you. Would you believe such things in other areas of your life like this?

Answering the Question, “Where is that in the Bible?”

The Evangelical starts with the assumption that scripture existed first and that tradition was slowly and incrementally added to it as time progressed. However, the original deposit of faith was given to the Apostles years before Scripture was ever penned. The Church was founded on this truth from Christ. Some of this deposit was then written in Scripture, some was scrupulously passed from bishop to bishop as oral tradition, and some was later clarified as dogma by the agreement of the bishops in the councils of the Church.

These sources, of course, should be expected not to contradict each other. If the Church teaches something as true, it is justifiable to check that it is not contradicted by Scripture. But if the Church teaches something and the Bible is silent or ambiguous, that does not mean the teaching is any less truly a part of the original deposit of faith given the Apostles. The focus must shift from what is biblical to what is true. The first is always contained in the second, but all of the second is not necessarily contained in the first.

When an Evangelical asks, “Where is that doctrine in the Bible?”, the correct response is “First show me from Scripture why you believe all Christian doctrines must be in the Bible.” It can be frustrating for Evangelicals to confront this issue, but it is important for them to understand the lack of biblical basis for their question. Truth is at issue here.

Adapted from Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David B. Currie, pp.61-62.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[justasking4]

But the Church never thought she had indeed sinned. That is where doctrine lives, in the Church. Not in the thoughts of individuals, even early fathers.

“Who” is the church that you are referring to here?

 

[guanophore]

What do you do when a pope teaches falsely then? That has happened in history.

Not only has this not happened, it is off topic here!
There is a difference between the Pope expressing his opinion, and ex cathedra statements.

How could the supposed assumption and immaculate conception of Mary be central to the understanding of the incarnation if the apostles themselves knew nothing about it?

Certain heresies about the incarnation emerged centuries after the Apostles died. Certain truths of the faith had to be clarified/defined. In the process of combating the heresies,the Marian doctrines emerged. For example, Jesus =God. Mary gave birth to Jesus. Mary gave birth to God = Theotokos. This was common, and still is, that heresies arise, and the church clarifies the Apostolic Teaching.

Is it not also true that these things were totally unknown for centuries?

No, this is not true. They are unknown to you because you do not accept your own family history, and you accept the NT only as a witness to what was known by the Apostles, so you are limited in what you can accept.

The councils clarified what was taught to them by the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

What did the apostles teach about these things?

Mary’s assumption is not mentioned until 377.

That Jesus is the Son of God, that He and the Father are One, that the HS is God, that the HS overshadowed Mary and made her pregnant. That Mary was Full of Grace, and was the Mother of the Lord.

 

[justasking4]

YADA;2811992]It is not mere speculation that by John in scripture [Revelation 11 and 12] Mary represented as the Ark of the New Covenant. It is not speculation that the Church beleives this. Mary is the new Eve to Jesus’s new Adam.

Have you checked any catholic commentaries on this? Do they agree with you on this?

It is not speculation that the church honors Mary and has throughout the ages [past and to come] in accord with Luke’s Gospel “All generations shall call me Blessed”

It depends what you mean by “honor”. The honor that the catholic church gives Mary goes far beyond honor.

It is not speculation to assert that Mary was saved by a singular act of Jesus,

If you mean that she never sinned, then you are going to have show in Scripture where God did this. Can you show me where?

in the merits of the Cross. Mary and Elizabeth both proclaim Gods goodness and saving graces…we hear of this in Luke…

Also from Luke [and in fullfillment of the Hebrew prophetic witneess] Mary was a Virgin and remained so…all of early Christian belief testifies to this, even the original “protestants - Luther, Calvin and Zwingli” The alternative is rather new; a form of Modernism. In fact, the hostile tone that now accompanies this claim could almost be considered “New Age”.

That Mary remained a virgin goes against the clear scripture that she indeed did have other children after Jesus. It is a perversion of the scriptures to say otherwise.

It is you who fail to recoognize your own 'speculation"

No doubt i have my speculations. Research the scriptural and historical support for these marian doctrines and you will find that its just not there. The assumption is a case in point. No mention in scripture and unknown for centuries. In fact the catholic church admits it doesn’t know what happened to her. This is from catholic sources.

 

[guanophore]

Not formally they haven’t.

Just for clarification, could you provide an example of the false teaching given by a pope?

Please don’t encourage him to derail the thread! He believes the subjects in the title are false teachings.

 

[justasking4]

That Jesus is the Son of God, that He and the Father are One, that the HS is God, that the HS overshadowed Mary and made her pregnant. That Mary was Full of Grace, and was the Mother of the Lord.

How about her immaculate conception and assumption?

 

[guanophore]

Here is one example of a pope teaching falsely.
Pope Honorius, who reigned as bishop of Rome from 625 to 638 A.D. In a number of letters written to Sergius I, patriarch of Constantinople, and several other individuals, Honorius officially embraced the heresy of montheletism, which teaches that Christ had only one will, the divine.

Committing a personal sin is not the same as making formal doctrinal statements. The Immaculate conception and the assumption are formal doctrinal statements, made ex-cathedra. That is what makes them different in degree from a personal belief of the Pope. The faithful are not required to embrace or adopt mistakes made by the pope. The gift of infallibility does not apply to his personal behavior, but to the preservation of the Church. But, that is ANOTHER THREAD!

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2814403]Not only has this not happened, it is off topic here!
There is a difference between the Pope expressing his opinion, and ex cathedra statements.

I agree its off topic. One last though on this; he was condemned as hereitc by a council.

No, this is not true. They are unknown to you because you do not accept your own family history, and you accept the NT only as a witness to what was known by the Apostles, so you are limited in what you can accept.

The councils clarified what was taught to them by the Apostles.

The only thing that we know what the apostles taught is in scripture. That’s all we know and i think you know it to for the mere fact there is no such evidence for anything that the apostles taught outside of Scripture. Is this correct? What specifically did an apostle say about Mary’s supposed assumption or immaculate conception?

 

[guanophore]

Thread pruned of some 22 off-topic posts. If I see any more of this the culprits will face the consequences.
MF

You are so dear! That one gave me a chortle. Thanks for keeping us clean!

 

[dessert]

I agree its off topic. One last though on this; he was condemned as hereitc by a council.

The only thing that we know what the apostles taught is in scripture.**
The apostles didn’t even know they were making history when they went around and started the churches and didn’t write down everhting but spoke many things to each other and the staements that heve been spoken to you and the words you do have as been pointed out to you in scripture you are not believing , ex. Mary a Blessed Virgin full of grace, highly unlikely the angel went around calling everyone that.**
That’s all we know and i think you know it to for the mere fact there is no such evidence for anything that the apostles taught outside of Scripture.**
The apostles were real people, men and women and deacons ordained by the aposltles and Mary was with them for some years after, until she assumed into heaven, some didn’t even write but told their revelations to others who could and they confered with each other. Do you think they would go against what Jesus said?
He told the thief that he as going to be in heaven that day after he died and John and Mary heard him say it, but Jesus on the cross did not write it down, according to you, so how do you know? this is your logic?Is this correct?

** Is this correct? What specifically did an apostle say about Mary’s supposed assumption or immaculate conception?**Blessed Teresa of Calcutta is gone now to heaven but many people that she spoke with and nothing written down not all so these people even bearing witnes are speaking love on the EWTN show tongiht have given witness of how that she shared life with them and said things to her and the way we know only is that they live with her and we only know this is true because Mother Teresa is here and she didn’t write this all down she didn’t have time but 20 years from now some of these people are going to be gone and some may not be written down but passed on but still we know she was blessed. Are you arguing with Luke or John or Matthew or Mark? Just because they aren’t here to tell you to your face?
Read the words because you are living the history now and put the truth into your heart to grow in the wisdom or touch the hands and feet like Thomas or ask the Lord for a sign because He will give it to you. **

D.

 

[justasking4]

D.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I agree its off topic. One last though on this; he was condemned as hereitc by a council.

The only thing that we know what the apostles taught is in scripture.

dessert

The apostles didn’t even know they were making history when they went around and started the churches and didn’t write down everhting but spoke many things to each other and the staements that heve been spoken to you and the words you do have as been pointed out to you in scripture you are not believing , ex. Mary a Blessed Virgin full of grace, highly unlikely the angel went around calling everyone that.

Where do you get the idea i don’t believe Mary was not full of grace and a virgin?

justasking4

That’s all we know and i think you know it to for the mere fact there is no such evidence for anything that the apostles taught outside of Scripture.

dessert
The apostles were real people, men and women and deacons ordained by the aposltles and Mary was with them for some years after, until she assumed into heaven,

There is no evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven. Its all speculation.

dessert
some didn’t even write but told their revelations to others who could and they confered with each other. Do you think they would go against what Jesus said?

The apostles wouldn’t but the catholic church has by promoting these doctrines that the apostles never taught.

dessert
He told the thief that he as going to be in heaven that day after he died and John and Mary heard him say it, but Jesus on the cross did not write it down, according to you, so how do you know? this is your logic?Is this correct?

I believe it because i believe the apostles wrote the truth.

dessert
What specifically did an apostle say about Mary’s supposed assumption or immaculate conception?

Absolutely nothing.

dessert

Blessed Teresa of Calcutta is gone now to heaven but many people that she spoke with and nothing written down not all so these people even bearing witnes are speaking love on the EWTN show tongiht have given witness of how that she shared life with them and said things to her and the way we know only is that they live with her and we only know this is true because Mother Teresa is here and she didn’t write this all down she didn’t have time but 20 years from now some of these people are going to be gone and some may not be written down but passed on but still we know she was blessed. Are you arguing with Luke or John or Matthew or Mark? Just because they aren’t here to tell you to your face?

My argument is the with the catholic church that promotes doctrines that the apostles never taught and are based on speculations. The impact this has on catholics is that it takes their focus off Christ alone.

Read the words because you are living the history now and put the truth into your heart to grow in the wisdom or touch the hands and feet like Thomas or ask the Lord for a sign because He will give it to you.

Let me encourage you to read and immerse yourself in the inspired-inerrant Word of God. It is only by them you will grow and mature in Christ.

 

[guanophore]

How about her immaculate conception and assumption?

Those teachings are what they are based upon. However, it really does not matter. Since you reject the Authority that Jesus placed over His church, it will not matter what was said, when it was said, or whether or not you can see it in scripture. In rejecting the Apostolic Succession, you reject the teachings that come out of it. What is puzzling is how it is you accept some of them, and not others.

 

[justasking4]

Those teachings are what they are based upon. However, it really does not matter. Since you reject the Authority that Jesus placed over His church, it will not matter what was said, when it was said, or whether or not you can see it in scripture. In rejecting the Apostolic Succession, you reject the teachings that come out of it. What is puzzling is how it is you accept some of them, and not others.

i think the primary difference between you (and others who believe the church cannot err) and me is that it can and has because it is composed of fallible men. Not even the HS has stopped men from erring. We already see this in scripture with regards to Peter. The catholic church can be right and has been right on some things. I accept those things if there are solid bibilcal reasons to do so. It appears to me you accept what your church proclaims whether the reasons are good or not. Is this correct?

 

[guanophore]

What specifically did an apostle say about Mary’s supposed assumption or immaculate conception?

The Apostles passed their authority to teach right doctrine to their successors, the Bishops. These entrusted the Teachings to faithful men who could teach others also. This is what is known as the Apostolic Succession. You reject this Authority, and the Teachings that come down to us through it.

2 Tim 1:13-14
“Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; 14 guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.”

Notice that the Apostle instructs Timothy to follow the “pattern of sound words”. This does not exclude scripture, but does not limit the Apostolic Teaching to the scriptures. Notice he instructs Timothy to “guard the truth that has been entrusted by the HS”. This is what the Church has done. These truths have been held by following the pattern of sound words and the truth that is entrusted by the HS. You are not a recipient of it. You are outside the Apostolic Succession, and the Sacred Tradition.

There is no evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven. Its all speculation.

Since you have established your beliefs, and we have established ours, what are you doing here? Why are you on the Catholic Answers Forum, ja4?

The apostles wouldn’t but the catholic church has by promoting these doctrines that the apostles never taught.

Your refusal to receive Apostolic Teaching does not mean it does not exist.

I believe it because i believe the apostles wrote the truth.

Well, it’s a start.

My argument is the with the catholic church that promotes doctrines that the apostles never taught and are based on speculations. The impact this has on catholics is that it takes their focus off Christ alone.

Ok, you made your arguement. Now, what do you want? It has been established for you that we disagre, and that the Apostolic Teaching was not “Christ Alone” as you have been taught. why must you concern yourself with how the “impact this has on Catholics”?

Let me encourage you to read and immerse yourself in the inspired-inerrant Word of God. It is only by them you will grow and mature in Christ.

This sounds very much like an effort to draw Catholics away from their Church, ja4, which is against the forum rules. Is this the answer to my previous question? Are you here to turn Catholics in to “Bible Christians”?

 

[dessert]

Where do you get the idea i don’t believe Mary was not full of grace and a virgin? She was full of grace, without sin can’t have both.

There is no evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven. Its all speculation.
Divine revelation divine specualtion

The apostles wouldn’t but the catholic church has by promoting these doctrines that the apostles never taught.
The Catholic Church is teaching about the divine revelations of the apostles and Paul who had no one to witness what happened to him but they believed him.

I believe it because i believe the apostles wrote the truth. **
Well there you have it, and they told the fathers and so on and so forth. And we are telling you. **

Absolutely nothing.

My argument is the with the catholic church that promotes doctrines that the apostles never taught and are based on speculations.Divine revelations my dear.

The impact this has on catholics is that it takes their focus off Christ alone.**Our focus is on Christ and now we get to the heart of the matter, our focus is on the pure body that held the life of our Lord Jesus Christ and the pure soul that united her soul to the power of the Holy Spirit as the two heart s were united the Immaculate heart of Mary and the Sacred heart of Jesus, the joining of the two hearts. **

Let me encourage you to read and immerse yourself in the inspired-inerrant Word of God. **The living WORD of God said to Mary what would you have me do woman, as they were both united in doing the Fathers will and want and then when you see and hear the word of Jesus into your heart. **

It is only by them you will grow and mature in Christ.**
I desire this for us all. **

By the way I don’t think we are off topic, because just not on the same page or maybe not the same chapter or maybe not the same book?
I pray for you also:thumbsup:
D.

 

[guanophore]

i think the primary difference between you (and others who believe the church cannot err) and me is that it can and has because it is composed of fallible men. Not even the HS has stopped men from erring.

No, ja4, we are not having a difference about this. Catholics accetp that men can err, and that the Church is composed of fallible men. Christ knew this when he chose Peter. He went out of His way, on several occasions, to make sure Peter knew how prone to failure he was as an individual. Nevertheless, He still entrusted Him with the keys. He still entrusted the Divine Deposit of Faith to those Apostles. The same ones about which He said “How long do I have to put up with you!?”

We already see this in scripture with regards to Peter. The catholic church can be right and has been right on some things. I accept those things if there are solid bibilcal reasons to do so. It appears to me you accept what your church proclaims whether the reasons are good or not. Is this correct?

No, it is just that we have diffferent criteria about what is reasonable. To me, it is reasonable to accept the promise of Jesus that He will guard the Church in all Truth, and that He will be with us until the end of the age.

 

[dessert]

i think the primary difference between you (and others who believe the church cannot err) and me is that it can and has because it is composed of fallible men. **
When these fallible men were establishing Christendom they were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit and cannot errer because then you are saying the Holy Spirit can errer **

Not even the HS has stopped men from erring.**
Be careful the wrong doctrines are coming out of you now the Holy Spirit cannot not errer. Is this what your church is teaching you or this the conclusions or speculations human that is that you are hering?**

We already see this in scripture with regards to Peter.**

Where ? and now this leads us to another whole area you are going to say Peter is wrong?
Well if I can’t get rid of Mary then I will knock down Peter, i know aht is coming next I hear this all the time.
Peter made human errs and Jesus knew what he was going to to do and say didn’t he before he had the power of the Holy spirit and when he did say it right Jesus said it is by divine revleation**

The catholic church can be right and has been right on some things.**
Thank you how generous, should we check with you on occasion I’ll tell the pope your name. **

I accept those things if there are solid bibilcal reasons to do so.
We haven’t given you enough is it your ears or what?

It appears to me you accept what your church proclaims whether the reasons are good or not. Is this correct?**
God’s reasons are good enough for me. I hope dear that you can believe in your heart that all is true what we say but you must reason your self. **

D.

 

[Mannyfit75]

At least some ECF’s did believe this but the issue is that there is no evidence of this belief dating back to the apostles.

BTW, the Dormition does not necessarily equal the Assumption. I believe if you go to newadvent.org you will see that they discuss this issue.

They aren’t but they are related. Dormition is the falling asleep of Mary. This tradition also held that Jesus resurrected Mary, and taken her up into heaven. Dormition like its name means falling asleep in death.

By the Fr. Williams Saunders made a commitary on this dormition of Mary.

I believe Byzantine Rite Catholics believe in Dormition of Mary.

The title and the idea of “the sleep of Mary” is more formally known as “the Dormition of Mary.” (Dormition comes from the Latin dormire, meaning “to sleep.”) The title “Dormition” can be misleading because it seems to focus more on the death and burial of Mary. For instance, St. Paul in his First Letter to the Thessalonians wrote of those “who sleep in death” and have “fallen asleep” before the second coming and await the resurrection of the dead (4:13ff). However, the belief surrounding the dormition is intrinsically linked with the assumption of our Blessed Mother, body and soul, into Heaven. With that preliminary answer, we need to review the dogma of the Assumption and how it is related to “dormition” or “sleep.”

So did Mary die first before being assumed? Did she fall “asleep”? Was she buried? The Church does not bind us to a particular answer because the tradition is not clear. In an apocryphal collection of stories called Transitus Mariae (The Passage of Mary), attributed to Bishop St. Melito of Sardis (d. c. 200), Mary died in the presence of the apostles in Jerusalem, and then depending on the story, her body just disappeared, or was buried and then disappeared.

St. John Damascene (d. 749) also recorded an interesting story concerning the Assumption: “St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.”

Assumption of Mary professes that during the course of her life, Mary was taken into heaven both body and soul.

Dormition is that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; where from the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven."

The two connected.

catholicherald.com/saunders/01ws/ws010816.htm

The Feast Day of the Assumption of Mary is Aug 15 and the Dormition of Mary is also on the Aug 15.

 

[dessert]

Just asking 4, I had a godmother for many years, and when she got old she started to tell me stuf all kinds. I thought it all boring she was so much older than I.

Then she got very older in her 80’s and she told me she was not always going to be here and I said why are you telling me this stuff and you are not going to die soon?

Then another ten years went by and she begged me to listen closely and I was listening but not closely but after she pased on I remember but she only told these things to me. She did not requwst others be with me and they were for my ears. I have told others what she said some of the things and they knew some but otheres did not and they wondered how I knew so much about her.

She had taken others aside and told them special things and after she was gone we speak of her each having a part of her and shareing.

So when I took care of her grave and did some things she wanted done because now after she was GONE I remembered but I did not write it down dah! and she did not make it a living will thing,
but I could write it but now I live what she said.

I am living through her words to me and she lives on by my words to others but she haunted me she knew me well, better than I knew me.

She does not haunt me anymore, she is at peace.
I am at peace!
I wish that for you to be at peace!

What did Jesus say my peace I give unto you … how does that go?
D.