Immaculate Conception and assumption

[MariaG]

What i continually see here is not a serious engagement of the issues. For example when i state something is not found in scripture it usually some kind of “implicit” argument. That in and of itself is not an argument but an assertion. When i show from historical sources that this was not mentioned for centuries, people will fall back on some kind of “oral tradition”. When i ask where i ask for evidence of a oral tradition, again more assertions.
All these are questions about the catholic faith and yet many mock me for asking them instead of seriously looking at these things.
So what is the truth about the immaculate conception and assumption? What i see here is that those believe it primarily on the premise that the catholic church claims it so and that is enough.
i don’t see most catholics here want to know the truth.

Well, the Marian doctrines are more difficult for various reasons.

How about the Real Presence of Christ? Do you believe in that? If not, why not do a discussion on that? It has alot of scripture and was mentioned in before 300AD.

Or Infant baptism? It has some ECF on it.

Regenerational baptism?

Confession?

All of those have scripture and writings of the ECF before 300AD.

Would you like to discuss those?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

It would have to be true. Entrust to faithful men. Pillar and foundation of truth…

I could go on. But scripture EXPLICITLY tells us where to look for the truth and for explanation of God’s inspired word. Islam is not the pillar and foundation of truth therefore whatever they say, is suspect.

To think that a saint will not recieve a crown in heaven is directly contradicting explicit scripture.

2 Tim 4:8 - Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.

James 1:12 - Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him.

1 Peter 5:4 - And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory.

Rev. 2:10 -Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.

…

I will stop here so we can discuss this scripture Explanations have been given many times and will doubtless be given again many times in the future to others, but we can do so again, and again and again…

God Bless,
Maria

But what of these scriptures? You asked about the crowning in heaven.

Can we agree that Mary has a crown in heaven at the very least, in the same manner that all others in heaven have one?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[cranster]

On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII defined the doctrine of the Assumption in these words: “We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”(Munificentissimus Deus, 44.)

“Revealed dogma” here means "a fact contained within the deposit of revelation given to us by God, now solemnly proposed by the Pope to be believed as such by all the faithful.(Lawrence P. Everett, “Mary’s Death and Bodily Assumption” in J. Carol, Mariology, vol. 2, 461.)

The argument from fittingness has an honorable pedigree, which should be respected. The argument is implicit in the Bible itself. Look at Hebrews 2:10 and 7:26, for example. Furthermore, the argument is properly used, not as a substantive proof of a doctrine, but as a supportive suasion to a doctrine already proved. Fittingness is not invented by theologians. It comes to light by the working of the Holy Spirit in the Church, guiding it into the whole truth.

“The Church [sees] the Assumption . . . implicitly contained within the complete notion of the divine maternity. ‘The Church sees it there, not as the result of a logical deduction, still less as mere fittingness, but as one element of that miracle of miracles which God willed his Mother to be. The Church sees it with a supernatural insight imparted by the divine Spirit who dwells within her.’”(Everett, 475. )

“When the Church defines a truth, it does not canonize human logic. It defines because, under the guidance of the Spirit of truth, it discerns the truth. . . . It supposes a supernatural illumination proceeding from faith, grace, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, a supernatural insight enabling the believer to discern, in fellowship with the Church, the implications of revelation proposed to him by the magisterium.”(Cyril Vollert, A Theology of Mary (New York: Herder and Herder, 1965), 233-234.)

Catholics accept the teachings of the magisterium because we believe in Jesus Christ and in the great promises he made to us about the work the Holy Spirit does in the Church: “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you” John 14:26); “When he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth” (John 16:13). Without qualification, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), a divine promise that has failed if the Church has ever fallen or could fall into error in Christian doctrine. To think that Jesus could not, did not, or never intended to make good on these promises, that he left his Church to fall into any error whatever of doctrine or morality, is to question his power, his goodness, his truthfulness, and ultimately his divinity.

Paul teaches that the Church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). He teaches that the relation of Christ to his Church is that of bridegroom to bride (Eph. 5:23-32). This teaching is true, and the Scripture cannot be broken: “The Church is subordinate to Christ” (v. 24)–not was or may be or ought to have been–but is. “Christ nourishes and cherishes the Church as his own flesh” (v. 29). Christ and the Church are one. Genesis 2:24, “the two of them become one flesh,” used of man and wife in their marriage covenant, finds its ultimate meaning and fulfillment in the union between Christ and his Church. This “great mystery” (v. 32) is precisely the marriage covenant between Christ and his Church.

There are some who accuse the Catholic Church of apostasy from Christ and his teachings. It is he and his teachings that refute that charge. It is profoundly unbiblical to suggest that at some point in the third or fourth century or whenever (opponents are vague on their calendar of events) Christ the bridegroom divorced his Church-bride on grounds of infidelity (from which he had promised to preserve her), lived a bachelor for about 1200 years, and then married more than 22,000 denominations.(Martin Marty of the University of Chicago Divinity School gives this number in U.S. News and World Report, March 4, 1991, 51.)

The Holy Spirit has been given to us and abides in us. God’s gifts are irrevocable. “It is not that the word of God has failed . . . for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 9:6, 11:29). At this point, the infallibility of revelation meets the infallibility of the teaching Church, both guaranteed by the same Spirit: “The Holy Spirit, who revealed in the apostles, ever afterwards assists in the Church, that the Church may remember the truth in entirety, penetrate it deeply, and teach it alone.”(Vollert, 227-228.)

to be continued…

 

[cranster]

continued…

Is Scripture alone (sola scriptura) the Word of God and the repository of all his revelation? No, it is not. The revealed Word of God is contained in both Scripture and oral Tradition.

Writing to the Thessalonians, Paul says: “He has also called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” (2 Thess. 2:14-15). Here the apostle equates his gospel, i.e., the Word of God that he has taught, with traditions.

Then he distinguishes and divides these traditions into two: oral statement (oral Tradition) and letter (written Tradition), the latter of which in time would come to be recognized by the Church as sacred Scripture. CRI’s error is to reject this Bible teaching, which witnesses to the equal dignity of oral and written Tradition.

Furthermore, in an important way, oral tradition holds the primacy. The earliest Christians until about A.D. 51 had none of the books of the New Testament, for none had yet been written. Of course, they had the Old Testament, but the whole message of Jesus and about Jesus was preserved as oral Tradition. The Church, then as now, regarded this Tradition as “equal in authority to the Word of God.” Its Tradition about Jesus at that time was the New Covenant Word of God.

When New Testament Scripture was finally formed, it had to be recognized as such by the Church. This took considerable time. Nowhere in the written books of Scripture do we read the titles of the inspired books. Scripture does not provide its own canon–the Church did that, following its oral Tradition.

Nowhere in any book of the Old or the New Testament is the principle sola scriptura (Scripture as the only source of revelation) to be found. This principle was invented centuries later and so falls under the stricture of Galatians 1:6-10. It must be rejected if one wishes to follow the teachings of the Bible.

The deposit of revelation was complete upon the death of the last apostle. The Church from that day proposes no new doctrine, but only works out the implications of the revelation entrusted to the apostles–and there must be implications for thinking people. The Church is thus the scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, like the head of a household who brings forth from his storeroom both the new and the old (Matt. 13:52).

From the very beginning, the Church, by its teaching authority, residing in the apostles and their successors, developed the implications of its doctrine and absolutized its oral Tradition. (Remember that at the beginning, from the first Pentecost, the Church had only oral Tradition about Jesus and his teaching.)

Read the tenth, eleventh, and fifteenth chapters of Acts. In 10:9-16 Peter received a vision in which God revoked the Jewish kosher food laws. Shocked and doubtful, Peter pondered the vision. He became the type and figure of the Church’s magisterium as it ponders the meaning of revelation. Peter then received a delegation of Gentiles, sent to beg him to come and visit the centurion Cornelius, a Gentile, in his home (vv. 17-23).

Why did he go with them, though it was “unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile” (v. 28)? He went because “God has shown me that I should not call any person profane or unclean” (v. 28). Peter here has engaged in the development of doctrine. His vision had to do with animals. By his apostolic authority Peter drew forth the vision’s implication that no person is unclean.

Later in Jerusalem, the Christians of the Judaizing faction confronted and rebuked Peter (11:2-3). He explained what had happened and so silenced them. As the events in Acts 10 and 11 were going on, everything was done orally. Writing it all down under divine inspiration, as Luke later did, did not increase its validity. Oral and written Tradition are equally valid, then as now. Acts 10 and 11 show that it is unbiblical to deny this.

Acts 15 is a nice mix of oral and written tradition: James quotes Old Testament Scripture (Amos 9:11-12), and the apostles and presbyters (the magisterium) write a letter, now a part of the New Testament, thanks to Luke and God’s inspiration. There is plenty of discussion (oral Tradition), which Luke wove later into his narrative, thus making it written Tradition or Scripture.

ja4,

We truly believe Jesus promise to us. There is no error in the entire teaching of the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. We do not believe Jesus lied to us. He gave us the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

Impressive argumentation.

Rejoice, Flower of Incorruption!

 

[cranster]

Grace and Peace,

Impressive argumentation.

Rejoice, Flower of Incorruption!

Thank Fr. Mateo. It’s his argument.

 

[cranster]

ja4,

What makes me truly sad is that you seem to think you are justified in attacking the Bride of Christ… His Church. Jesus has given us the fullness of truth by the Holy spirit through Her three pillars… Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. You argue that She does not interpret Scripture in it’s proper context. Through the Magisterium She absolutely does and cannot interpret it any other way than it’s proper context. Jesus promised the gates of hell will not prevail against Her, and that the Holy Spirit will be Her guide. He did not divorce Her and remarry. He has always been and always will be faithful to Her.

The Pope’s infallibility only pertains to “Ex Cathedra” when he is speaking “From the Chair”. He has to announce that is what he is doing when he is speaking on matters of faith and morals. It’s only happened a handful of times. All of the things spoken by the popes that you say are infallible are not unless it was under the condition of “Ex Cathedra”.

The Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are both “Ex Cathedra” and are not only safe to believe but required to believe.

The Assumption in particular from my understanding is based on fittingness with Mary viewed in her total relationship to Jesus. There are also implicit Scriptural references as well, and you’ve been shown. This doctrine was derived from the entire deposit of the faith, and not Scripture alone.

You are demanding that we defend these dogmas from Scripture alone, and we won’t do that because they aren’t derived from Scripture alone.

I would prayerfully ask you to consider that when you attack the Bride of Christ… His Church… and the authority given Her by Him, that you are attacking Jesus Christ Himself because they are one flesh. The bottom line issue is authority, and that is what you reject. Please pray about this.

 

[NonDenom]

NotWorthy

Nothing less than perfect would suit for Jesus’ introduction into the world as man.

You mean like being born in a dirty old barn and laid in manger filled with straw?

 

[clmowry]

You mean like being born in a dirty old barn and laid in manger filled with straw?

Yes. Perfectly “poor” and perfectly “humble” just like his mother.

Chuck

 

[guanophore]

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Now Bill Clinton might say that “All” doesn’t really mean "All’, but I don’t think Jesus would. I don’t want to hear that Jesus is included in ALL, because he IS God.

In fact, Jesus declared that there are some that are righteous, which is enough by itself to indicate that you are interpreting these passages incorrectly.

“There was once a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. That man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil” (Job 1)
Quote:

If you think 5:10 and 18 applies to all human beings ever born of a man and a woman look at verse 14.

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

You are misunderstanding the meaning. But, if you have an arguement about it, you will have to take it up with Jesus.

Matt 9:13
“For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

If “all” have sinned, who are the righteous to which the Lord refers?

Could it be the parents of John?

Luke 1:5-7
5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years."

Or maybe He was talking about the saints?

Matt 27:52-53
52 the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the **saints who had fallen asleep **were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

There were righteous people, granted there were not many, but Jesus says he did not come to call the righteous, but sinners. Paul is talking about sinners in that verse, in the context of comparing Gentile sinners with Jewish sinners.

 

[guanophore]

Seriously. Go to the beginning of your posts here in these forums and your dialogues. This is what you are doing. Ask yourself why you came here? Do you come here with questions about the Catholic faith? Or did you come here to try to share the “truth” with Catholics who are blinded?

I did this with ja4’s posts. For a long time I thought he was sincerely looking for information, but I fnally realized that everything you say in your posts about him is right. When I looked back over the posts, I found that his goal is to pull Catholics away from their faith, in the hope that they will come to a Bible Church that does not teach the false gospel that the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[guanophore]

What i continually see here is not a serious engagement of the issues. For example when i state something is not found in scripture it usually some kind of “implicit” argument. That in and of itself is not an argument but an assertion. When i show from historical sources that this was not mentioned for centuries, people will fall back on some kind of “oral tradition”. When i ask where i ask for evidence of a oral tradition, again more assertions.
All these are questions about the catholic faith and yet many mock me for asking them instead of seriously looking at these things.
So what is the truth about the immaculate conception and assumption? What i see here is that those believe it primarily on the premise that the catholic church claims it so and that is enough.
i don’t see most catholics here want to know the truth.

This begs the question, ja4, why are you here? Now that you can see that most Catholics here are not interested in your fundamentalist Sola Scriptura “truth”, why do you keep trolling?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

In fact, Jesus declared that there are some that are righteous, which is enough by itself to indicate that you are interpreting these passages incorrectly.

“There was once a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. That man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil” (Job 1)
Quote:

If you think 5:10 and 18 applies to all human beings ever born of a man and a woman look at verse 14.

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

You are misunderstanding the meaning. But, if you have an arguement about it, you will have to take it up with Jesus.

Matt 9:13
“For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

If “all” have sinned, who are the righteous to which the Lord refers?

Could it be the parents of John?

Luke 1:5-7
5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years."

Or maybe He was talking about the saints?

Matt 27:52-53
52 the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the **saints who had fallen asleep **were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

There were righteous people, granted there were not many, but Jesus says he did not come to call the righteous, but sinners. Paul is talking about sinners in that verse, in the context of comparing Gentile sinners with Jewish sinners.

bump…

 

[guanophore]

What i continually see here is not a serious engagement of the issues. For example when i state something is not found in scripture it usually some kind of “implicit” argument. That in and of itself is not an argument but an assertion. When i show from historical sources that this was not mentioned for centuries, people will fall back on some kind of “oral tradition”. When i ask where i ask for evidence of a oral tradition, again more assertions.
All these are questions about the catholic faith and yet many mock me for asking them instead of seriously looking at these things.
So what is the truth about the immaculate conception and assumption? What i see here is that those believe it primarily on the premise that the catholic church claims it so and that is enough.
i don’t see most catholics here want to know the truth.

This begs the question, ja4, why are you here? Now that you can see that most Catholics here are not interested in your fundamentalist Sola Scriptura “truth”, why do you keep trolling?

 

[Good_Fella]

The problem is that those who want to claim these doctrines are in scripture refuse or ignore this continually. I have yet to see either from you or anyone an exposition of the passages used to demonstrate that it does teach the catholic position. No defense from catholics at all.

Are you suggesting that we have provided an exposition of the passages used to demonstrate the Protestant position or positions? Seriously, you haven’t done anything but make repeated abstract generalizations, so there is no need for us to provide you with lengthy expositions. Why don’t you provide some expositions of the Protestant position(s) first? Then we can respond to yours with ours. Saying, “You’re taking Scripture out of context” or “It’s not in Scripture” or “The Apostles didn’t teach that” over and over again isn’t exactly a Protestant exposition. It’s nothing but chattering. :tsktsk:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[MariaG]

I did this with ja4’s posts. For a long time I thought he was sincerely looking for information, but I fnally realized that everything you say in your posts about him is right. When I looked back over the posts, I found that his goal is to pull Catholics away from their faith, in the hope that they will come to a Bible Church that does not teach the false gospel that the Catholic Church teaches.

Yes, sadly I think you are right.

I am always saddened when people won’t use basic logic along with their faith.

To think that God allowed the Church to wallow in error for 1500 years completely astounds me. It goes agains basic logic and scripture.

Scripture warns that there will be those who come along, and they prefer to believe their johnny come lately interpetations than to confront the fact that they are the ones who have been misled.

It IS hard. Because they do have Christ. And so they think we must not have Christ nor the truth. They are wrong on both counts.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;2846870]Are you suggesting that we have provided an exposition of the passages used to demonstrate the Protestant position or positions?

No. I’m saying that for the most part the expositions given by those who claim Mary was immaculately conceived and her assumption have not been given a contextual exposition of the passages used. I have even used catholic sources at times to show that with what others say here don’t agree.

Seriously, you haven’t done anything but make repeated abstract generalizations, so there is no need for us to provide you with lengthy expositions.

It catholics who are making the claim that Mary was immaculately conceived and assumed. Not me. I have looked at what is offered as a exposition of the passages used and they fail when you take the context of the passage into consideration.

Why don’t you provide some expositions of the Protestant position(s) first? Then we can respond to yours with ours. Saying, “You’re taking Scripture out of context” or “It’s not in Scripture” or “The Apostles didn’t teach that” over and over again isn’t exactly a Protestant exposition. It’s nothing but chattering. :tsktsk

:
How would i go about using the scriptures to show that Mary was immaculately conceived or assumed into heaven when they never teach such a thing?

Usually what i get from the defenders for these doctrines is that its “implicit”. Even this response has not been demonstrated how this could be.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

No. I’m saying that for the most part the expositions given by those who claim Mary was immaculately conceived and her assumption have not been given a contextual exposition of the passages used. I have even used catholic sources at times to show that with what others say here don’t agree.

It catholics who are making the claim that Mary was immaculately conceived and assumed. Not me. I have looked at what is offered as a exposition of the passages used and they fail when you take the context of the passage into consideration.

:How would i go about using the scriptures to show that Mary was immaculately conceived or assumed into heaven when they never teach such a thing?

Usually what i get from the defenders for these doctrines is that its “implicit”. Even this response has not been demonstrated how this could be.

Again, you simply generalize. It’s up to you to show how Catholics have taken Scripture out of context instead of just telling them that they have. Meanwhile, your understanding of the nature of Scripture is faulty. You believe that each passage has to be taken literally and that it contains only one meaning. Isaiah 7:14 has a double meaning. For the prophet and the Jews the virgin with child is a ‘near term sign’, not the Messiah and his mother; the suffering servant is Israel, not Jesus. Further, Church doctrine does not necessarily have to be found explicitly in Scripture. Our definition of the Holy Trinity arises by what lies implicitly in the texts of the OT and NT, etc. The Deposit of faith consists of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation. The early Christians held beliefs before the NT scriptures were even written: See Luke’s intro. You cannot accept Catholic exegesis because you embrace the false doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’ which is unscriptural. There is no verse in the Bible that supports this false concept which originated with Martin Luther.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

Assumption.

The ark of the old covenant disappeared from scripture. Then it was shown to be in heaven in Revelations.

Mary being the ark of the new covenant follows suit.
She disappeared from scripture after the Gospels. Then she is seen right after the ark of the old covenant as the Woman.

Coincidence?

Not in the holy writ!

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;2848610]Again, you simply generalize. It’s up to you to show how Catholics have taken Scripture out of context instead of just telling them that they have.

I have done that repeatedly by asking them to show that the context supports what they are saying. That has not been done.

Meanwhile, your understanding of the nature of Scripture is faulty. You believe that each passage has to be taken literally and that it contains only one meaning. Isaiah 7:14 has a double meaning.

That depends. Where this happens is where the NT writers use OT scriptures to interpret something from the OT. However, these are rare.

For the prophet and the Jews the virgin with child is a ‘near term sign’, not the Messiah and his mother; the suffering servant is Israel, not Jesus. Further, Church doctrine does not necessarily have to be found explicitly in Scripture.

This is where the most criticism is to be found. How does the catholic church define how this “implicit” method is to be? What are its boundaries?

Our definition of the Holy Trinity arises by what lies implicitly in the texts of the OT and NT, etc.

The Deposit of faith consists of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Scripture comes from Sacred Tradition: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation.

Is Sacred Tradition being “formed” today in the catholic church?

The early Christians held beliefs before the NT scriptures were even written: See Luke’s intro.

Did they adhere to beliefs that were not recorded in the NT?

You cannot accept Catholic exegesis because you embrace the false doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’ which is unscriptural. There is no verse in the Bible that supports this false concept which originated with Martin Luther.

Actually i happen to agree with some catholic exegesis on particular passages i have studied. They are not always wrong.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella