Immaculate Conception and assumption

[ChrisWRIT]

The OP asked 2 questions:

1. What do these two doctrines have to do with being a Christian?
2. What do either of these doctrines have to do with the centrality of Jesus as the Savior?

I guess it depends on whether one is looking for a Catholic answer or a Protestant one. (Since its being asked on a Catholic forum, one would think that it’s looking for a Catholic answer, but having read many of the questioner’s posts, I doubt it.)

In any case, since this is a Catholic forum, & I’m Catholic, I’ll give a Catholic answer.

Both questions hinge on the fact that Jesus is fully God and fully Man.

To fulfill the scriptures, Jesus had to be born, in the flesh, of a virgin of the line of David. Mary carried God in the flesh, just as the Ark of the (Old Covenant) carried God. The Ark of the Old Covenant needed to be perfect and holy, and so did Mary, which means she had to be without the stain of sin. How could that be possible, since we are all at least born with the stain or original sin?

Based on Scripture, the Church has infallibly taught that Mary was conceived immaculately, without the stain of original sin, and that she was perfectly obedient, finally resulting in her bodily assumption into heaven by God after her physical death.

Both are referred to implicitly in Scripture, and while one can claim that the Church’s teaching is only speculative - that Jesus preemptively saved his mother from the stain of original sin, and that Mary’s Assumption isn’t directly discussed in the Bible, it is a rejection of Church authority and papal infallibility, which really is the central issue with pretty much every Protestant objection to Catholic teachings they disagree with.

The assumption behind rejecting the authority of the Church, and papal infallibility, is “Sola Scriptura” or its close (and recently discovered) cousin, “Prima Scriptura.”

Both traditions (man-made, by the way) come down to a rejection of Church authority, & claim that "everything it says has to be explicitly in the Bible or it’s wrong.”

(I say “claim” because there are conflicting opinions on what has to be in the Bible or not. Babies are not baptized explicitly in scripture, so infant baptism is forbidden. But then, the Pill isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Bible, so that must be OK.)

Justasking’s attempt at discrediting infallibility confuses infallibility with impeccability - a common confusion even among Catholics.

However, Honarius I didn’t authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, & didn’t claim to speak with the voice of Peter. So while he did teach error, & was later excommunicated for it, he did not teach authoritatively with the voice of Peter, so the gift of papal infallibility cannot be condemned by his example.

What does sola scriptura have to do with asking for documentation?

Given that the “documentation” you always ask for be Biblical, plenty.

You know, it occurs to me that this request for documentation is spurious. We can document many other Catholic “distinctives” much earlier in Church history, but Protestants reject those anyway. it’s not like they’ll accept any Catholic teaching which can be “documented” before year X. No documentation is going to convince them. Heck, even having it clearly stated in the bible is not going to convince them! (Baptism and the Eucharist, anybody?)

Agreed. Sadly, this is typically the case, which is why I believe that most of the protestants who post here are really looking for answers.

Respectfully,

Chris

 

[justasking4]

Thats a good question, you may want to think about it.

This may help you.

I’m still confused. Asking for historical documentation is a valid request.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Agreed. Sadly, this is typically the case, which is why I believe that most of the protestants who post here are really looking for answers.

Ooops. I mean I believe that most of the protestants who post here aren’t really looking for answers.



Chris

 

[YADA]

St. Ephraim, Deacon [306 - 373 AD]

Awake, my harp, your songs
** in praise of the Virgin Mary!**
Lift up your voice and sing
** the wonderful history**
Of the Virgin, the daughter of David
** who gave birth to the Life of the World**

Who loves you is amazed;
and who would understand is silent and confused,
Because he cannot probe the Mother
who gave birth in viginity.
If it is too great to be clarified with words
the disputants ought not on that account cross swords with your Son.

In the womb of Mary the Infant was formed,
who from eternity is equal to the Father.
He imparted to us His greatness,
and took on our infirmity.
He became mortal like us and joined his life to ours,
so that we might die no more.

This Virgin became a Mother
while preserving her virgiity;
And though still a Virgin
she carried a Child in her womb;
And the handmaid and work of His Wisdom
became the Mother of God.

And another hymn by St Ephraim

You alone and your Mother
are more beautiful than any others;
For there is no blemish in you,
** nor any stains upon your Mother**.
Who of my children
can compare in beauty to these?

Bolding mine, taken from The Faith of the Early Fathers Vol 1, Pages 312 and 313

These hyms should have caused a SCANDAL if the beliefs contained were not a part of the faith being believed and taught…It is not just the date of an early writing that matters [as mush has been lost over time…but in the record that we have we are able to identify various beliefs that were challenged and disputed. We also use that record to identify heresies [beliefs that we challenged and failed to gain a hold in the christian community] These hymns did not appear to set off a fire storm of contoversy.

 

[VociMike]

I’m still confused. Asking for historical documentation is a valid request.

But it is never the final arbiter on any Church doctrine. Never has been. Never will be. And that goes for the doctrines you believe also.

 

[dessert]

What do these two doctrines have to do with being a Christian.
The Pope says if you don’t believe them you are anathema.

What do either of these doctrines have to do with the centrality of Jesus as the Savior?

Any help would be appreciated.

It is very simple really Jesus Christ is the High Priest and Our Lady Mary is the Queen.
So they are royalty and I we wouldn’t have it any other way.
:harp: :heaven:
D.

 

[Good_Fella]

What did the apostles teach about these things?
Mary’s assumption is not mentioned until 377.

The Marian prayer ‘Sub Tuum Praesidium’ dates circa A.D. 250. This prayer is an invocation for Mary’s help and protection. So it is obvious that the Christian faithful had already believed in Mary’s Assumption into heaven by this time. Catholics do not present their petitions to someone who is entombed. The tradition of the empty tomb discovered by the apostles three days after Mary’s death must have inspired Christian devotion to Mary in the early Church. The Marian frescoes in the first century Roman catacombs indicate that the Christian faithful had by then invoked the Mother of God,the Mother of the Church, and the new Eve for her intercession, help, and protection. In the fifth century, Bishop Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem, spoke of the empty tomb and the long-standing belief that the apostles found it empty. Produce Mary’s body, and prove it’s hers. Or else, be quiet.

Jesus has already assured us of his Blessed Mother’s Assumption into heaven: “Anyone who ‘curses’ mother or father must be put to death”(Mt 15:4). Jesus is the Word of God, so he would never dismiss his own commandments and go back on his word. Besides, he loves and honours his mother with absolute perfection. Christians who reject the dogma of the Assumption reject our Lord. :yup:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

It is very simple really Jesus Christ is the High Priest and Our Lady Mary is the Queen.
So they are royalty and I we wouldn’t have it any other way.
:harp: :heaven:
D.

So Adonijah continued: “Please ask King Solomon - HE WILL NOT REFUSE YOU to give me Abishag for my wife.”

“Very well,” Bethsheba replied. “I WILL SPEAK TO THE KING FOR YOU.”

When Bethsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. HE HAD A THRONE BROUGHT FOR THE KING’S MOTHER, AND SHE SAT DOWN AT HIS RIGHT HAND. ( A veiled prophecy of the Assumption and Coronation of Mary)

“I have one small request to make of you,” she said. “DO NOT REFUSE ME.”

The King replied, “Make it, my mother; I WILL NOT REFUSE YOU.”

{When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”}

So, she said, “Let Abishag the Shunammite woman be given in marriage to your brother Adonijah.”

{His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”}

1Kings 2:17-2; cf. John 2:3,5

Mary is our Queen Mother, ‘Gebirah’, Mediatrix and Advocatrix to the People of God - the Church.

There was no need for St.Paul to literally write: “Mary was assumed into heaven.” in his pastoral letters to the Christian communities. The Church would discover this truth in time by the guidance of the promised Paraclete:

“But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you things that are coming.”

John 16:13

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

Where in scripture do the apostles teach the immaculate conception or her assumption?

Of all the letters of Paul, that to the Christians at Rome has long held pride of place. It is the longest and most systematic unfolding of the apostle’s thought, expounding the gospel of God’s righteousness that saves all who believe: it reflects a universal outlook, with special implications for Israel’s relation to the Church. Yet, like all of Paul’s letters, Romans too arose out of a specific situation, when the apostle wrote from Greece, likely Corinth between A.D. 56 and 58. Paul speaks in Romans of both Jews and Gentiles. His letter also refers to those “weak in faith” and those “who are strong”. He is concerned with the problem of eating unclean as opposed to clean foods raised by Jewish converts among the Gentile Christians. This gospel of Paul finds its center in salvation and justification through faith in Jesus Christ. While God’s wrath is revealed against all sin and wickedness of Gentile and Jew alike. God’s power to save by divine righteous or justifying action in Christ is also revealed. The consequences and implications for those who believe are set forth, as are results for those in Israel who, to Paul’s great sorrow, disbelieve. The apostle’s hope is that, just as the rejection of the gospel by some in Israel has led to a ministry of salvation for non-Jews, so one day, in God’s mercy “all Israel” will be saved. The fuller ethical response of believers is also drawn out, both with reference to life in Christ’s body and with regard to the world on the basis of the eschatological situation and conditions in the Roman community. The theme of Israel and the Church may be at the heart of the Letter to the Romans. Then the implication of Paul’s exposition of justification by faith rather than by means of the law is that the divine plan of salvation works itself out on a broad theological plane to include the whole of humanity, despite the differences in the content of the given religious system to which a human culture is heir. Romans presents a plan of salvation stretching from Adam through Abraham and Moses to Christ and on to the future revelation of the parousia. It’s outlook is universal. Paul’s Letter to the Romans is a powerful exposition of the doctrine of the supremacy of Christ and faith in Christ as the source of salvation. It is an implicit plea to the Christians in Rome, and all Christians, including those in Corinth, Galatia, and Thessalonika, to hold fast to that faith. They are to resist any pressure put on them to accept a doctrine of salvation through works of the law. At the same time they are not to exaggerate Christian freedom as an abdication of responsibility for others or as a repudiation of God’s law and will. (Forget about “sinning boldly”. )

Now why on earth would Paul mention the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary given the thematic structure of his epistle and his purpose of writing this letter? Why would he do likewise in his other letters or the other apostles in theirs?

Yet Luke tells us of the Immaculate Conception in his gospel: “Hail, full of grace (Chaire kecharitomene), the Lord is with you” (1:28). And Matthew assures us of Mary’s Assumption into heaven: “Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death” (15:4).

“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
{2 Thess 2:15}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[misslollipops]

. And Matthew assures us of Mary’s Assumption into heaven: “Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death” (15:4).
":

This is what you base Mary’s assumption on?

 

[dessert]

So Adonijah continued: “Please ask King Solomon - HE WILL NOT REFUSE YOU to give me Abishag for my wife.”

“Very well,” Bethsheba replied. “I WILL SPEAK TO THE KING FOR YOU.”

When Bethsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. HE HAD A THRONE BROUGHT FOR THE KING’S MOTHER, AND SHE SAT DOWN AT HIS RIGHT HAND. ( A veiled prophecy of the Assumption and Coronation of Mary)

“I have one small request to make of you,” she said. “DO NOT REFUSE ME.”

The King replied, “Make it, my mother; I WILL NOT REFUSE YOU.”

{When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”}

So, she said, “Let Abishag the Shunammite woman be given in marriage to your brother Adonijah.”

{His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”}

1Kings 2:17-2; cf. John 2:3,5

Mary is our Queen Mother, ‘Gebirah’, Mediatrix and Advocatrix to the People of God - the Church.

There was no need for St.Paul to literally write: “Mary was assumed into heaven.” in his pastoral letters to the Christian communities. The Church would discover this truth in time by the guidance of the promised Paraclete:

“But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you things that are coming.”

John 16:13

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

After reading this thread and thinking much about the relationship of our Mother and her Son I am imaginging wonderful fullfilling thoughts of mother -son relationships.

I have two sons and I let them live their life as they wish but we still keep in contact but I am not an overbearring mom as I know they need their space but I know if I really needed them in a pinch they are here.

Could this be connected to the priests role in the church as some women don’t have sons and a maybe not so involved husband so when a woman of the church wants something done he says what is your desire let us talk about it.

And the woman says we must honor the priest.
This may sound manipulative and I do see some a little going on.

My CC that is functioning well this is a very nice flow like a sweet wine and the ladies know what to expect of the priest and he knows how far to trust the ladies, he measures the reequest according to the will of God. And one priest said it is an embarrassment to one or the other if we don’t proceed carefully.
It is kind of new to me so I am watching and observing as the non-C churches I have been in you don’t see this flow that I can recall, it is more man-man sided, or a seperated kind of relationships so it has forced me into a mutual cohesiveness.
D.

 

[dessert]

Of all the letters of Paul, that to the Christians at Rome has long held pride of place. It is the longest and most systematic unfolding of the apostle’s thought, expounding the gospel of God’s righteousness that saves all who believe: it reflects a universal outlook, with special implications for Israel’s relation to the Church. Yet, like all of Paul’s letters, Romans too arose out of a specific situation, when the apostle wrote from Greece, likely Corinth between A.D. 56 and 58. Paul speaks in Romans of both Jews and Gentiles. His letter also refers to those “weak in faith” and those “who are strong”. He is concerned with the problem of eating unclean as opposed to clean foods raised by Jewish converts among the Gentile Christians. This gospel of Paul finds its center in salvation and justification through faith in Jesus Christ. While God’s wrath is revealed against all sin and wickedness of Gentile and Jew alike. God’s power to save by divine righteous or justifying action in Christ is also revealed. The consequences and implications for those who believe are set forth, as are results for those in Israel who, to Paul’s great sorrow, disbelieve. The apostle’s hope is that, just as the rejection of the gospel by some in Israel has led to a ministry of salvation for non-Jews, so one day, in God’s mercy “all Israel” will be saved. The fuller ethical response of believers is also drawn out, both with reference to life in Christ’s body and with regard to the world on the basis of the eschatological situation and conditions in the Roman community. The theme of Israel and the Church may be at the heart of the Letter to the Romans. Then the implication of Paul’s exposition of justification by faith rather than by means of the law is that the divine plan of salvation works itself out on a broad theological plane to include the whole of humanity, despite the differences in the content of the given religious system to which a human culture is heir. Romans presents a plan of salvation stretching from Adam through Abraham and Moses to Christ and on to the future revelation of the parousia. It’s outlook is universal. Paul’s Letter to the Romans is a powerful exposition of the doctrine of the supremacy of Christ and faith in Christ as the source of salvation. It is an implicit plea to the Christians in Rome, and all Christians, including those in Corinth, Galatia, and Thessalonika, to hold fast to that faith. They are to resist any pressure put on them to accept a doctrine of salvation through works of the law. At the same time they are not to exaggerate Christian freedom as an abdication of responsibility for others or as a repudiation of God’s law and will. (Forget about “sinning boldly”. )

Now why on earth would Paul mention the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary given the thematic structure of his epistle and his purpose of writing this letter? Why would he do likewise in his other letters or the other apostles in theirs?

Yet Luke tells us of the Immaculate Conception in his gospel: “Hail, full of grace (Chaire kecharitomene), the Lord is with you” (1:28). And Matthew assures us of Mary’s Assumption into heaven: “Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death” (15:4).

“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
{2 Thess 2:15}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Oh I so totally agree as he said to John behold your mother and John’s representation of all the apostles not just himself.
In a bigger sense the Church the body of Christ and assigning Mary as the Mother of the church, the body. Jesus not thinking of himself in the very last breath but the body of believers to be left and actually assigning roles of priesthood to John.

Yet Jesus even in his last staements still aknowledges Mary’s role as He always did and and in a “sense” assuming her soul with His in that hour, as I am sure John felt the same.

Obviously Paul understood the relationships of mothers and sons and the saving grace and mercy of both in the power of the resurrected Christ. I have been reading books on his epistles lately and he truly had seen and experienced divine wisdom and understanding from Jesus.
D.

 

[NotWorthy]

This is what you base Mary’s assumption on?

Do you read any of Good Fella’s posts?!? Or do you just pick out one statement and refute it as if that’s all GF said about the Assumption. You’ve demonstrated this uncanny ability with MariaG, and now you’re doing it again. Which prompts me to ask, “How can you trust your interpretation skills on Scripture if you so mis-read what others have posted?”:

 

[misslollipops]

Oh I so totally agree as he said to John behold your mother and John’s representation of all the apostles not just himself.
In a bigger sense the Church the body of Christ and assigning Mary as the Mother of the church, the body. Jesus not thinking of himself in the very last breath but the body of believers to be left and actually assigning roles of priesthood to John.

Yet Jesus even in his last staements still aknowledges Mary’s role as He always did and and in a “sense” assuming her soul with His in that hour, as I am sure John felt the same.

Obviously Paul understood the relationships of mothers and sons and the saving grace and mercy of both in the power of the resurrected Christ. I have been reading books on his epistles lately and he truly had seen and experienced divine wisdom and understanding from Jesus.
D.

Luke 14:26 (King James Version)

26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;2809106]Of all the letters of Paul, that to the Christians at Rome has long held pride of place. It is the longest and most systematic unfolding of the apostle’s thought, expounding the gospel of God’s righteousness that saves all who believe: it reflects a universal outlook, with special implications for Israel’s relation to the Church. Yet, like all of Paul’s letters, Romans too arose out of a specific situation, when the apostle wrote from Greece, likely Corinth between A.D. 56 and 58. Paul speaks in Romans of both Jews and Gentiles. His letter also refers to those “weak in faith” and those “who are strong”. He is concerned with the problem of eating unclean as opposed to clean foods raised by Jewish converts among the Gentile Christians. This gospel of Paul finds its center in salvation and justification through faith in Jesus Christ. While God’s wrath is revealed against all sin and wickedness of Gentile and Jew alike. God’s power to save by divine righteous or justifying action in Christ is also revealed. The consequences and implications for those who believe are set forth, as are results for those in Israel who, to Paul’s great sorrow, disbelieve. The apostle’s hope is that, just as the rejection of the gospel by some in Israel has led to a ministry of salvation for non-Jews, so one day, in God’s mercy “all Israel” will be saved. The fuller ethical response of believers is also drawn out, both with reference to life in Christ’s body and with regard to the world on the basis of the eschatological situation and conditions in the Roman community. The theme of Israel and the Church may be at the heart of the Letter to the Romans. Then the implication of Paul’s exposition of justification by faith rather than by means of the law is that the divine plan of salvation works itself out on a broad theological plane to include the whole of humanity, despite the differences in the content of the given religious system to which a human culture is heir. Romans presents a plan of salvation stretching from Adam through Abraham and Moses to Christ and on to the future revelation of the parousia. It’s outlook is universal. Paul’s Letter to the Romans is a powerful exposition of the doctrine of the supremacy of Christ and faith in Christ as the source of salvation. It is an implicit plea to the Christians in Rome, and all Christians, including those in Corinth, Galatia, and Thessalonika, to hold fast to that faith. They are to resist any pressure put on them to accept a doctrine of salvation through works of the law. At the same time they are not to exaggerate Christian freedom as an abdication of responsibility for others or as a repudiation of God’s law and will. (Forget about “sinning boldly”. )

Now why on earth would Paul mention the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary given the thematic structure of his epistle and his purpose of writing this letter? Why would he do likewise in his other letters or the other apostles in theirs?

So you agree then that the immaculate conception and the assumption are not mention in Scripture?

Yet Luke tells us of the Immaculate Conception in his gospel: “Hail, full of grace (Chaire kecharitomene), the Lord is with you” (1:28).

This has nothing to do with these 2 doctrines.

And Matthew assures us of Mary’s Assumption into heaven: “Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death” (15:4).

How does this follow?

“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
{2 Thess 2:15}

Again you would have to the specific traditions that Paul is alluding to here and the only thing we have are his letters and life in Acts. As you may know, its not in those sources.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

dessert;2809598]Oh I so totally agree as he said to John behold your mother and John’s representation of all the apostles not just himself.

If this is the case why is it never mention in any of the writings of the NT. Not one writer ever mentions it.

In a bigger sense the Church the body of Christ and assigning Mary as the Mother of the church, the body. Jesus not thinking of himself in the very last breath but the body of believers to be left and actually assigning roles of priesthood to John.

Since scripture never teaches such a thing lets look at the writings of the fathers and early church. Do any of them make such a claim?

Yet Jesus even in his last staements still aknowledges Mary’s role as He always did and and in a “sense” assuming her soul with His in that hour, as I am sure John felt the same.

Can you clarify?

Obviously Paul understood the relationships of mothers and sons and the saving grace and mercy of both in the power of the resurrected Christ. I have been reading books on his epistles lately and he truly had seen and experienced divine wisdom and understanding from Jesus.
D.

 

[justasking4]

But it is never the final arbiter on any Church doctrine. Never has been. Never will be. And that goes for the doctrines you believe also.

If you don’t have some documentation for this you don’t have any facts to support it. Without that you have speculations.

 

[justasking4]

Tantum ergo;2805985]From Munificentissimus Deus–the ex cathedra dogma of the Assumption of Mary, Pius XII:

1. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

How does the catholic church “willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule” i.e. born sinless or kept from sin?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Didn’t you read it? GOD willed it. . .The Catholic Church (as always) follows the will of God.

 

[justasking4]

Didn’t you read it? GOD willed it. . .The Catholic Church (as always) follows the will of God.

How does he know God willed it?