Immaculate Conception and assumption

[Randy_Carson]

Thats all we can go by i.e. what is written. Now if you have some documentation before 377 then please show it.

Heh. If we’re going by dates in order to determine whether a doctrine is valid or not, then answer these questions for me:

1. When was the doctrine of sola fide first taught and by whom? (hint: it wasn’t Paul in the New Testament)
2. When was the doctrine of sola scriptura taught and by whom? (hint: it wasn’t any New Testament author).
3. When did someone first hold up a consecrated host and say, “This is NOT His body”?
4. Since all Christian churches taught that artificial birth control was a sin prior to 1930 and most teach that it is acceptable today, were these churches teaching error before that date or are they teaching error now?

Since most Protestants date the founding of their denominations and the major doctrines they espouse (dispensationalism and the rapture date from 1830) from only the past few centuries (decades in some cases), it seems laughable that these same folks would question a doctrine for which we have written evidence that is more than 1500 years old.

My $.02. :tiphat:

 

[misslollipops]

Heh. If we’re going by dates in order to determine whether a doctrine is valid or not, then answer these questions for me:

1. When was the doctrine of sola fide first taught and by whom? (hint: it wasn’t Paul in the New Testament)
2. When was the doctrine of sola scriptura taught and by whom? (hint: it wasn’t any New Testament author).
3. When did someone first hold up a consecrated host and say, “This is NOT His body”?
4. Since all Christian churches taught that artificial birth control was a sin prior to 1930 and most teach that it is acceptable today, were these churches teaching error before that date or are they teaching error now?

Since most Protestants date the founding of their denominations and the major doctrines they espouse (dispensationalism and the rapture date from 1830) from only the past few centuries (decades in some cases), it seems laughable that these same folks would question a doctrine for which we have written evidence that is more than 1500 years old.

My $.02. :tiphat:

Are we forgetting that the assumption was made dogma in1950?

 

[MariaG]

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.

For anyone interested in the truth instead of William Webster

From New Advent

THE REPLY OF HONORIUS

It was now for the pope to pronounce a dogmatic decision and save the situation. He did nothing of the sort. His answer to Sergius did not decide the question, did not authoritatively declare the faith of the Roman Church, did not claim to speak with the voice of Peter; it condemned nothing, it defined nothing. Honorius entirely agrees with the caution which Sergius recommends. He praises Sergius for eventually dropping the new expression “one operation”, but he unfortunately also agrees with him that it will be well to avoid “two operations” also; for if the former sounds Eutychian, the latter may be judged to be Nestorian. Another passage is even more difficult to account for. Following the lead of Sergius, who had said that “two operations” might lead people to think two contrary wills were admitted in Christ, Honorius (after explaining the communicatio idiomatum, by which it can be said that God was crucified, and that the Man came down from heaven) adds: “Wherefore we acknowledge one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, for evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin.” Other passages in the letter are orthodox. But it is plain that the pope simply followed Sergius, without going more deeply into the question. The letter cannot be called a private one, for it is an official reply to a formal consultation. It had, however, less publicity than a modern Encyclical. As the letter does not define or condemn, and does not bind the Church to accept its teaching, it is of course impossible to regard it as an ex cathedra utterance. But before, and even just after, the Vatican Council such a view was sometimes urged, though almost solely by the opponents of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Part of a second letter of Honorius to Sergius was read at the eighth council. It disapproves rather more strongly of the mention of either one operation or two; but it has the merit of referring to the words of St. Leo which Sergius had cited.

 

[MariaG]

Are we forgetting that the assumption was made dogma in1950?

You are not saying that this is when this was invented are you?

Declaring something as dogma usually meant there was controversy in the Church and an issue needed to be settled, not that this was when it was invented.

 

[dessert]

So, these are boiled peanuts?

Don’t they do that in the south? First time I had one was when I went down there. My FIL is from Georgia!
D.

 

[misslollipops]

You are not saying that this is when this was invented are you?
Declaring something as dogma usually meant there was controversy in the Church and an issue needed to be settled, not that this was when it was invented.

I am glad you recognize it was invented.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Moderators – I think some people here have crossed the line and need to review the RULES of these fora.

Misslollipops --you’ve been posting long enough that you should know this. It is one thing to bring an article of our faith up to question. . .

It is something else entirely to claim a dogma of our faith as ‘invented’. Your remark was not only out of order, it was, sad to say, ill mannered and childish.

 

[VociMike]

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

That’s like asking where in the first half of the alphabet is the letter Z. The deposit of faith includes scripture, but is not limited to scripture.

And besides that, there is supporting scripture for both doctrines.

Thats all we can go by i.e. what is written. Now if you have some documentation before 377 then please show it.

That’s not true. We can and should and must go by the Church founded by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit in preserving all that the apostles were taught. Show me where “all we can go by is what is written” is even found in the bible.

Good question. The point is that is that the earliest documentation is 377.

Which means nothing. The real point is that in 377 the Church did not make a peep of protest that these teachings were false. If you disagree, produce your evidence.

I didn’t say it was invented then but mentioned. If it happened it would have to be probably no later than 99 assuming she had a normal life span.

Well if you’re not claiming that this teaching was invented as opposed to being handed down from the apostles, then what is the point of mentioning 377? Are you agreeing that it was handed down from the apostles, or denying it?

 

[VociMike]

Are we forgetting that the assumption was made dogma in1950?

Are you confusing “made dogma” with “first taught”? Sounds like it.

 

[misslollipops]

Moderators – I think some people here have crossed the line and need to review the RULES of these fora.

Misslollipops --you’ve been posting long enough that you should know this. It is one thing to bring an article of our faith up to question. . .

It is something else entirely to claim a dogma of our faith as ‘invented’. Your remark was not only out of order, it was, sad to say, ill mannered and childish.

Maria g said it was invented. Check post

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What Maria SAID was a QUESTION TO YOU, Misslollipops. (That’s why she put this little mark at the end of the sentence - ? ). She asked YOU if YOU were confused enough to THINK that the dogma was INVENTED. See?

You are not saying that this is when this was invented are you?

She then went on to explain

Declaring something as dogma usually meant there was controversy in the Church and an issue needed to be settled, not that this was when it was invented

.

This does not mean she claims dogma is ‘invented’, or that it was ‘invented’ earlier and then ‘made’ dogma. It means that dogma is declared when there is a controversy over a teaching. . .not TO INVENT A TEACHING. “Invention” is never there to begin with–claiming a dogma is an ‘invention’ is a red herring.

 

[misslollipops]

What Maria SAID was a QUESTION TO YOU, Misslollipops. (That’s why she put this little mark at the end of the sentence - ? ). She asked YOU if YOU were confused enough to THINK that the dogma was INVENTED. See? She then went on to explain .

This does not mean she claims dogma is ‘invented’, or that it was ‘invented’ earlier and then ‘made’ dogma. It means that dogma is declared when there is a controversy over a teaching. . .not TO INVENT A TEACHING. “Invention” is never there to begin with–claiming a dogma is an ‘invention’ is a red herring.

She said it first not me. That is my point.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Thats all we can go by i.e. what is written. Now if you have some documentation before 377 then please show it.

Only if one rejects the authority of the Church, and subscribes to the un-biblical, man-made tradition of “Sola Scriptura”.

:Luke 11:27-28
27And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

So how is this passage supposedly speaking of Mary “negatively”, given that Mary did indeed hear the word of God, and kept it at the Annunciation?

Luke 1:38
“‘I am the Lord’s servant,’ Mary answered. ‘May it be to me as you have said.’ Then the angel left her.”)

:
Furthermore, it is widely accepted by many that the woman in rev12 is not Mary but the nation of Israel

And it is widely accepted by many that the earth is flat, that ET was a non-fiction movie, and that Elvis is alive. So what?

What Maria SAID was a QUESTION TO YOU, Misslollipops. (That’s why she put this little mark at the end of the sentence - ?

Lollipops can read, but as with scripture, she prefers to twist or ignore words that question or refute her claims.

Chris

 

[Tantum_ergo]

She asked if YOU THOUGHT IT WAS INVENTED.

Obviously you think it was as you stated,

I am glad you recognize it was invented.

Well, when Maria gets back I am sure she will inform you --as I am doing–that

IT WAS NOT INVENTED.

So let’s not get into any more derailing, okay? Your belief that Maria ‘said’ the dogma was invented was incorrect.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

From Munificentissimus Deus–the ex cathedra dogma of the Assumption of Mary, Pius XII:

God, who from all eternity regards Mary with a most favorable and unique affection, has “when the fullness of time came”[2] put the plan of his providence into effect in such a way that all the privileges and prerogatives he had granted to her in his sovereign generosity were to shine forth in her in a kind of perfect harmony. And, although the Church has always recognized this supreme generosity and the perfect harmony of graces and has daily studied them more and more throughout the course of the centuries, still it is in our own age that the privilege of the bodily Assumption into heaven of Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, has certainly shone forth more clearly.
4. That privilege has shone forth in new radiance since our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the loving Mother of God’s Immaculate Conception. These two privileges are most closely bound to one another. Christ overcame sin and death by his own death, and one who through Baptism has been born again in a supernatural way has conquered sin and death through the same Christ. Yet, according to the general rule, God does not will to grant to the just the full effect of the victory over death until the end of time has come. And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul.

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.
2. Thus, when it was solemnly proclaimed that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, was from the very beginning free from the taint of original sin, the minds of the faithful were filled with a stronger hope that the day might soon come when the dogma of the Virgin Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven would also be defined by the Church’s supreme teaching authority.
3. Actually it was seen that not only individual Catholics, but also those who could speak for nations or ecclesiastical provinces, and even a considerable number of the Fathers of the Vatican Council, urgently petitioned the Apostolic See to this effect.
4. During the course of time such postulations and petitions did not decrease but rather grew continually in number and in urgency. In this cause there were pious crusades of prayer. Many outstanding theologians eagerly and zealously carried out investigations on this subject either privately or in public ecclesiastical institutions and in other schools where the sacred disciplines are taught. Marian Congresses, both national and international in scope, have been held in many parts of the Catholic world. These studies and investigations have brought out into even clearer light the fact that the dogma of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption into heaven is contained in the deposit of Christian faith entrusted to the Church. They have resulted in many more petitions, begging and urging the Apostolic See that this truth be solemnly defined.

Note that the teaching of the Assumption was always taught by the Church but that it became most clear in the 20th century --not INVENTED in the 20th century.

 

[NotWorthy]

Maria g said it was invented. Check post

misslolipops? Do you have the same skills when interpreting Scripture?

How do you apply these interpretation skills to Psalm 53?
*** Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” ***

 

[misslollipops]

misslolipops? Do you have the same skills when interpreting Scripture?

How do you apply these interpretation skills to Psalm 53?
*** Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” ***

I never said there is no God. But I did say Mary is not God.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And no Catholic says that Mary is God either.

 

[NotWorthy]

I never said there is no God. But I did say Mary is not God.

I’m just seeing how your interpretation skills were since you demonstrated it so well on Maria’s quote regarding “the invention of the IC dogma”.

 

[misslollipops]

And no Catholic says that Mary is God either.

Excellent we agree on something
However I see at the end of your post it says something like ‘I strive to do all things for Mary so I can do them perfectly for Jesus’

Can I assume by that statement that you do things for Mary first. Then you do the same things perfectly for Jesus?

Am I misreading something?

Please clarify this interesting statement.