Immaculate Conception and assumption

[VociMike]

I appreciate your reply but I just don’t see how the lack of evidence can be evidence.

Not “lack of evidence” but “lack of opposition”. Lack of evidence would be if we didn’t know if the Church did or did not object to some teaching e.g. the Assumption. But that is not the situation. We do know that the Church has not objected to the Assumption, and furthermore has positively taught it.

So again, lack of opposition is not lack of evidence. Rather, it is evidence.

 

[Newchasm]

No one doubts immaculate conception or Christ’s nature. The argument is about Mary’s conception and nature. As a protestant, I do not see it central to who Christ was. He was clearly conceived sinless without regard to Mary’s state as such. It need not go back one generation to Mary for Him to be conceived as such. In a same way, Did Mary’s mother need to be without original sin for Mary’s birth to be such. No, this very fact negates the necessity of such for Mary to be immaculately conceived to give birth to Christ. I understand that she is called the “Mother of God” but this honor exists outside of her state (as full of grace) but in her actions of conceiving Christ in my mind.

As far as the assumption/dormition of Mary into heaven; Let us not forget Enoch and Elijah were taken up. They had less honor than Mary. I would not doubt that Mary, the most blessed among women could be given such honor. I don’t denegrate Mary as a Protestant but I don’t venerate her either. It could be true. It is speculative in my mind, but it does not change much.

 

[YADA]

No one doubts **immaculate conception **or Christ’s nature. The argument is about Mary’s conception and nature. As a protestant, I do not see it central to who Christ was. He was clearly conceived sinless without regard to Mary’s state as such. It need not go back one generation to Mary for Him to be conceived as such. In a same way, Did Mary’s mother need to be without original sin for Mary’s birth to be such. No, this very fact negates the necessity of such for Mary to be immaculately conceived to give birth to Christ. I understand that she is called the “Mother of God” but this honor exists outside of her state (as full of grace) but in her actions of conceiving Christ in my mind.

As far as the assumption/dormition of Mary into heaven; Let us not forget Enoch and Elijah were taken up. They had less honor than Mary. I would not doubt that Mary, the most blessed among women could be given such honor. I don’t denegrate Mary as a Protestant but I don’t venerate her either. It could be true. It is speculative in my mind, but it does not change much.

The immaculate conception refers to Mary’s conception not to the conception of Jesus. A common misunderstanding…The immaculate conception means that Mary was ‘saved’ by Jesus at the moment of her conception [preserved from the stain of original sin]. It does not mean that Mary was not concieved in the normal way or that her conception did not involve normal marital relations between her parents. Mary is saved by Jesus through the Cross in the same way we are saved by baptism. Would you accept that Jesus can do anything [being God]. Imagine what you would do for your mother if you were the power that created her very life at the moment of conception…

Mary passed on her “humaness” to Jesus. As Jesus the human could not be stained with sin [personal nor the inherited state of a sinful nature] and Mary became the Ark of the New Covenant [the old Ark could not be touched except by the priestly class of Levi and then not directly - and whose construction was directed - in perfection - by God]. Mary carried the Word Made Flesh, the True Manna from Heaven, the High Priest corresponding with the OT Ark carrying the Torah [word of God - tablets], Manna from the 40 years in the desert and the Staff of Aaron the priest.

I sometimes wonder about the God of Protestantism… While protestnts seem to believe Catholics worship many gods [we don’t by the way] and take away from Jesus…I see the exact opposite in my seperated brethren…Your faith and God seem very small. It appears that you can’t accept the wonders and mysteries of the faith [historically believed - even by the initial reformers] substituting your own beliefs.

Jesus is proclaimd by Mary’s very soul for the ‘wondrous deeds’ He had done for her [Luke]. What are those wondrous deeds, can you tell me? In your reading of the bible…how would you proclaim mary’s blessedness through your life time - as you are instructed to in Luke…? What shows this blessedness through the ages, mighty deeds, lifting up of the lowly…???

We accept the historic understanding, it is a mystery, can we totally grasp it…probably not…we can see and know with certainty that no follower of Jesus has ever been more faithful and true than Mary, she is our model and guide…Mary always points to the Son…What does Mary say? …

“Do whatever He tells you!”

 

[Zooey]

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.

http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/5.gif Ummmmm…You hate your mom & dad, do you???http://bestsmileys.com/sad/6.gif
Well. I don’t, so does that mean, you figurehttp://bestsmileys.com/sad/9.gif I’m in big trouble???

You gotta think these things through a little better…

How does he (she?) know? Why, because when these things first appeared in the surviving written record, the Church roundly denounced them.

Oh wait…never mind…

 

[misslollipops]

hate your mom & dad, do you???http://bestsmileys.com/sad/6.gif
Well. I don’t, so does that mean, you figureYou gotta think these things through a little better…

::

I didn’t write the verse. Those are the words of Jesus.

 

[YADA]

I didn’t write the verse. Those are the words of Jesus.

Yes, they are the words of Jesus…are you following His command? Do you hate your mother and father? If you don’t, then by your reasoning - how can you be a follower of Jesus?

 

[misslollipops]

Yes, they are the words of Jesus…are you following His command? Do you hate your mother and father? If you don’t, then by your reasoning - how can you be a follower of Jesus?

I love them but hate their beliefs

 

[savedsinner]

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.

I didn’t write the verse. Those are the words of Jesus.

I love them but hate their beliefs

Here is the commentary from the Haydock commentary.

Ver. 26. Hate not, &c. The law of Christ does not allow us to hate even our enemies, much less our parents: but the meaning of the text is, that we must be in the at disposition of soul so as to be willing to renounce and part with every thing, how near or dear soever it may be to us, that would keep us from following Christ. (Challoner) — The word hate is not to be taken in its proper sense, but to be expounded by the words of Christ, (Matthew x. 37.) that no man must love his father more than God, &c. (Witham) — Christ wishes to shew us what dispositions are necessary in him who desires to become his disciple; (Theophylactus) and to teach us that we must not be discouraged, if we meet with many hardships and labours in our journey to our heavenly country. (St. Gregory) — And if for our sakes, Christ even renounced his own mother, saying, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? why do you wish to be treated more delicately than your Lord? (St. Ambrose) — He wished also to demonstrate to us, that the hatred he here inculcates, is not to proceed from any disaffection towards our parents, but from charity for ourselves; for immediately he adds, and his own life also. From which words it is evident, that in our love we must hate our brethren as we do ourselves.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is what you base Mary’s assumption on?

Psalm 132:8
8 arise, O LORD, and come to your resting place,
you and the ark of your might.

 

[Randy_Carson]

**John Saward (Protestant) On the Assumption of Mary
**
"The New Testament regards the resurrection of Our Lord not as an isolated event with only isolated repercussions for mankind, but as the beginning of the universal resurrection of the dead [see 1 Cor 15:13,16] . . . Resurrection, we must say again, is communal . . .

"The heart of the doctrine of the resurrection is this sense of the communal, inclusive body of glory. Now I believe that it is precisely this sense of resurrection-relatedness' that is the foundation of the doctrine of the Assumption of Our Blessed Lady . . . while the victory over death that has taken place in Mary may not be general, there is an important sense in which it can be said to be thoroughly normal’, a direct upshot and fruit of Christ’s own victory over sin and death . . .

"It is precisely the typological role of the Assumption, its prefiguring of the general resurrection, which we find most consistently stressed in our earliest witnesses . . . The resurrection of Jesus is not simply typological but effective; it has a causal and not simply iconic relation to the general resurrection. It does not simply prefigure the reassembly of all men but actually sets it in motion. Now Our Lady receives resurrection as we all shall through the power of God; the difference in her case being only its anticipation, its role as sign and type . . .

"Pope Pius saw that the Assumption struck a prophetic blow against the institutionalized individualism of the modern world, its competitive and alienated spirit, demonstrated in a global way in the Second World War, which had ended only five years before, and daily seen in men’s lives. A dogma that is based on an indestructible relationship of Mother and Son, and of the Son with humanity, has much to offer the world . . .

"What is the source of the Assumption? I believe that the ultimate source of the belief is Mary herself; that we know that she is alive and glorified because of our fellowship with her in Christ through the working of the Holy Spirit. That, it seems to me, is the axiom upon which the Assumption as a dogma rests. It cannot be over-emphasized that it does not depend for its truth on the historical reliability of the various apocryphal accounts of the death, burial and assumption of Our Lady. This is the fear of many non-Catholics, and we can allay it at once; the Fathers themselves are emphatic on this point as well and make guarded and sparing use of the apocryphal material . . .

“What sense can we make of the late appearance of the doctrine? . . . There can be no satisfactory answer to all this except in terms of the Church’s Tradition . . . Tradition is an organically growing language, indeed a participation through the Spirit in the language of God himself . . . The Church can only claim to speak and know the truth because of her believing, bodily inherence in Christ, the Word incarnate, and because of the Spirit’s indwelling of her. We know the Assumption to be true not on the basis of interior speculation but through the communal experience and wisdom of the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church . . . The `source’ of the doctrine of the Assumption is ultimately the interpretation within the Church, precipitated by, but not simply a function of, the growing Christological sense of Mary’s role, that Our Lady is risen with Christ, reigns with Him in heaven, and intercedes for us, and that her relics are there, not here. As I hope is now clear, that vision of heavenly reality was fired by the doctrines of Christ, salvation and the Church. It is a vision that Catholic Christendom must never lose or compromise and that the Anglican Church must at all costs regain.” (30)

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Ephesians 6:2
“Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise—

 

[Randy_Carson]

I ask again. Where is it mentioned specifically in scripture?

Sorry…we aren’t forced into your sola scriptura paradigm…that is your limitation not ours.

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:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Are you aware that God did not dwell in the ark itself but remained over the Ark, in between the two Cherubim?

Are you aware that the Spirit of God “overshadowed” Mary so that she conceived and bore a son?

However, we know that New Testament realities always surpass Old Testament types. Therefore, while God was not contained by the Ark in the OT, he chose to become incarnate and dwelt within the Ark in the New.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

What writings in the 2nd century show that the church thought of Mary as being without sin

Early Church Fathers on the Immaculate Conception

Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

St. Irenaeus (180 AD)

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey… having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race… Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the virgin Mary loosed through faith.” (Against the Heresies, Book III [A.D. 180]).

St. Irenaeus uses “virginity” as a sign of sinlessness (i.e. Mary was sinless just as Eve was sinless before the Fall).

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

What writings in the 2nd century show that the church thought of Mary as being…queen of heaven?

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON MARY, QUEEN OF HEAVEN

From early times Christians have believed, and not without reason, that she of whom was born the Son of the Most High received privileges of grace above all other beings created by God. He “will reign in the house of Jacob forever,” “the Prince of Peace,” the “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.” And when Christians reflected upon the intimate connection that obtains between a mother and a son, they readily acknowledged the supreme royal dignity of the Mother of God.

Hence it is not surprising that the early writers of the Church called Mary “the Mother of the King” and “the Mother of the Lord,” basing their stand on the words of St. Gabriel the archangel, who foretold that the Son of Mary would reign forever, and on the words of Elizabeth who greeted her with reverence and called her “the Mother of my Lord.” Thereby they clearly signified that she derived a certain eminence and exalted station from the royal dignity of her Son. This royal dignity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is quite clearly indicated through direct assertion by those who call her “Lady,” “Ruler” and “Queen.”

---

Origen (185-232 AD)

“Thou, my Lady.” (Hom. in S. Lucam, hom. VII; ed. Rauer, Origenes’ Werke, T. IX, p. 48 (ex catena Marcarii Chrysocephali). Cf. PG XIII, 1902 D.)

 

[justasking4]

Mannyfit75;2811988]On the contrary, we find no historical evidence that the Early Church did not believe] in the Immaculate Conception, nor the Assumption / Dormition of Mary.

It seems the New Advent disagrees with you on the assumption:
Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The Church likewise show she did believe that Mary was pure and sinless, and that the course of her life, she died, raise from the dead by her God, and taken upon into heaven by the power of God.

Though back then it was not fully defined.

If you read the fathers you will find that some of them thought she had indeed sinned.

 

[justasking4]

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON MARY, QUEEN OF HEAVEN

From early times Christians have believed, and not without reason, that she of whom was born the Son of the Most High received privileges of grace above all other beings created by God. He “will reign in the house of Jacob forever,” “the Prince of Peace,” the “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.” And when Christians reflected upon the intimate connection that obtains between a mother and a son, they readily acknowledged the supreme royal dignity of the Mother of God.

Hence it is not surprising that the early writers of the Church called Mary “the Mother of the King” and “the Mother of the Lord,” basing their stand on the words of St. Gabriel the archangel, who foretold that the Son of Mary would reign forever, and on the words of Elizabeth who greeted her with reverence and called her “the Mother of my Lord.” Thereby they clearly signified that she derived a certain eminence and exalted station from the royal dignity of her Son. This royal dignity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is quite clearly indicated through direct assertion by those who call her “Lady,” “Ruler” and “Queen.”

---

Origen (185-232 AD)

“Thou, my Lady.” (Hom. in S. Lucam, hom. VII; ed. Rauer, Origenes’ Werke, T. IX, p. 48 (ex catena Marcarii Chrysocephali). Cf. PG XIII, 1902 D.)

Would you happen to have the dates for some of these quotes?

 

[justasking4]

Randy Carson;2814332]Are you aware that the Spirit of God “overshadowed” Mary so that she conceived and bore a son?

yes.

However, we know that New Testament realities always surpass Old Testament types. Therefore, while God was not contained by the Ark in the OT, he chose to become incarnate and dwelt within the Ark in the New.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

The problem here is that the NT never uses the Ark as a metaphor for Mary. Mary as an ark type does not fit her when you study what the ark was and its function.

 

[VociMike]

If you read the fathers you will find that some of them thought she had indeed sinned.

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.

 

[guanophore]

You’re never going to help anyone convert by telling them that they risk not being saved.

Somebody better tell that to Jesus quick!

Luke 13:5
5 I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."

Why the hang up???
Because,
deep down,
anti-Catholics hate Mary.
They don’t hate Joseph, they don’t have knee-jerk reactions when the Protestant reformers are praised, they don’t get upset if you speak with great admiration of Noah or Samson or Nathan or David or even Deborah or Jael. But start speaking admirably and highly of Mary and you’ll lose your fundy audience REALLY quick. There is simply something about her that inwardly they can’t stand, and that attitude does not come from God.

If they examined themselves and their emotions closely,
they would come to realize that.

Maybe it is because her offspring’s heel is doing that head crushing thing?