Inerrancy v. Infallibility

[davidv]

So then ecyclicals are infallible then?

No, documents cannot be infallible. Only teachings can be infallible.

To say, as an earlier poster did, that some are and some aren’t, that it depends on the wording used, isn’t very useful to rank and file Catholics. Have you tried actually reading an encyclical? I’ve read several from the 19th & 20th centuries. Not easy reading by any stretch, and I’ve got seven years of higher education. And there doesn’t seem to be any standard, giveaway language saying “Hey! What follows is infallible teaching.” or not. Not very helpful.

Infallible, or not, Church teachings are presented to us as a means to help us to heaven. The Holy Spirit protects the teachings of the Church from causing anyone to move away from God. If we obey the teachings of the Church we cannot sin in obeying them, unless we do so with immoral intent.

 

[grannymh]

The Church Fathers wrote historically regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles and subsequent Disciples. They wrote about how “Worship” was conducted including the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the seven Sacraments. Their writings contained the spiritual and theological aspects of Church traditions.

To continue from post 56

When it comes to issues of infallibility, we, being who we are, look at infallibility with questioning minds. We are doing the same thing which people were constantly doing in the time of Jesus when they questioned Him. Both then and now, human beings seek the truth about the ultimate purpose of their lives. Notice how Jesus answers. I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. I am the Good Shepherd. I am the Bread of Life.

At one point (Mark 8: 27-33) Jesus asks His disciples “Who do people say that I am?”. The answers include John the Baptist, Elijah and one of the prophets. Listen carefully as Jesus then turns to His disciples and asks the very important question. “But Who do you say that I am?” Peter, destined to be the head of the Church, answers “You are the Messiah.”

Mark is often considered the soul of brevity. Matthew adds the rest of the conversation which we in our century need to know. Matthew records Peter’s answer as “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.” Jesus affirms Peter’s answer with “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, …”(Matthew 16: 13-20)

Here are some key points, from the above, to think about when thinking about Catholic infallibility.

Mark, who often picks and chooses, chose to highlight the difference between the answers of the crowd and the answer of Peter. It is as if Jesus is preparing for the eventual authority of the Catholic Church. Matthew gives the reason why Peter’s answer is so important. Peter’s answer is crucial because upon this rock Jesus builds His Church.

The Catholic Church must think and act according to Divine Revelation. At this point, Jesus wants His disciples to completely focus on Himself as God and on what should be humans’ relationship with God, past, present, and future. Remember that the Jewish people at that time were expecting a Messiah Who would miraculously free them from Rome. It was important for the disciples to separate themselves from the political influences of their time. Sometimes, it is good to consider that the Apostles needed training for their eventual jobs. Divine Revelation trumps all other kinds of knowledge.

Regarding Divine Revelation. Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect, and unsurpassable Word. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 65-67). While God spoke to us in many and various ways throughout the Old Testament, Jesus Christ is the mediator and fullness of Divine Revelation. (Hebrews 1: 1-4)

Regarding the promise of the Holy Spirit. Jesus taught that the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son. …" (Nicene Creed) would come as a teacher, reminding the Church of what Jesus Christ, Himself, taught. (John Chapter 14) The early Church took these words seriously.

The early Church Fathers were essentially teachers. They chose their subject matter according to the life of Jesus Christ, especially how the New Testament recorded it. Their writings presented what Jesus told us in regard to Who He is, His purpose, His Salvific death and resurrection, and that our purpose, according to our human nature, is to share in God’s own life*. (CCC 355-357)*

Obviously Divine Revelation was priority since Jesus confirmed it. “The Father and I are One.” (John 10: 30. Please read “the Feast of the Dedication”, John 10: 22-42 for the context.)

Thus the writings of the Church Fathers contain spiritual and theological aspects of what Jesus taught. When the first major opposition to Church teachings arrived on the scene, Church Councils searched Holy Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, and local traditions. It is none other than the Holy Spirit Who guides Council decision making. The long process which led to the Nicene Creed is an example of the depth of Church protocol for declaring truth.

Continued on Post 62

 

[grannymh]

Continued from Post 61

The reality is that being brilliant men, the Church Fathers also thought and wrote about the physical/material earth on which we live as well as the surrounding universe. The important thing to realize is that the early Church Councils searched all the writings of the Fathers. This search was conducted by the Holy Spirit Who personally guided them.

The reality is that the writings of the Fathers included both essential and non-essential stuff. Since it was His specific purpose to remind the Church of the essentials for salvation, the Holy Spirit guided the Church Councils to choose the items pertaining to faith in God and to our moral relationships with God and others. For example. Genesis 1:1 is the basis for our faith in God as our Creator.

While knowledge of the created earth and the operations of the created material/physical universe gave glory to the Creator, the Church Councils recognized that the particular knowledge of how creation operated was not necessary for humans to understand the truth of Genesis 1:1. Nor was accurate knowledge of natural science necessary for humans to follow the truths of Jesus Christ Who delineated right from wrong.

Thus, following the wisdom of the Holy Spirit in sorting out what is necessary for us to reach heaven, the Catholic Church continues to proclaim as dogma, only those truths regarding Who God is and Who we are – the category of Faith and Morals.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9

 

[sardegnr]

From post #25 for you: No document is infallible – the defined dogmas and doctrines within are infallible – simply that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

Study post #25.

It’s a simple question. Do Papal Encyclicals constitute the infallible teaching of the Church or not? No one seems to be able to provide a straight answer. Do they provide teachings with which, as Catholics we MUST assent, or do they not? If the answer is, “it depends,” I would like to know on what it depends. To say that the document is not infallible but the teaching contained within it MAY be does nothing more than to beg what I view to be a very simple question.

Why am I so concerned about it? I would like to know why inerrancy of Scripure is not limited to issues of faith & morals (though some misread Dei Verbum to say it is) but Papal infallibility is. I see a disconnect there. During the course of the thread, it morphed to some extent to issues concerning what exactly constituted the infallible teaching of the Church, including encyclicals. So, I’m now asking whether Papal encyclicals constitute the infallible teachings of the Church, because I want to know to what teachings exactly do I need to assent to and on what issues am I free to arrive at my own conclusions? If they’re not, given that the Pope is the successor to Peter, why not? If no one can give a straight answer, then the doctrine of Papal infallibility is flawed in that it becomes apparent that the rank & file Catholic have no ability to comprehend it or what it encompasses.

 

[Abu]

sardegnr
To say that the document is not infallible but the teaching contained within it MAY be does nothing more than to beg what I view to be a very simple question….If no one can give a straight answer, then the doctrine of Papal infallibility is flawed in that it becomes apparent that the rank & file Catholic have no ability to comprehend it or what it encompasses.

sardegnr evades the very simple straight answer in Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, and Lumen Gentium of Vatican II and will never understand it unless and until he chooses to do his homework. Post #25 has supplied the means to understand papal infallibility and there are numerous helps through EWTN questions and answers – there is no “MAY” about it – when a definition is made as prescribed (post #25) in an Encyclical or other papal document THAT definition is infallible. Examples given are from *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical), and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle). Another example is the definition in *Casti Connubii *(Pius XI, 1930). The Popes teach by infallible definitions within a document. All else within is not infallible.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

Christ personally chose His Apostles and this is how He chose to bring them to their senses: to His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 6:51) (Frank Sheed, Christ In Eclipse, Sheed & Ward 1978, p 42). "With individuals He was very much the doctor with a duty not only to tell them what was wrong with them, but to make sure they realized it.” (Ibid. p 40-41).

From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002:
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

Ecumenical Councils confirmed by the Pope can proclaim, and many have, infallible dogmas and doctrines and one example is the dogma on the exercise of papal infallibility in Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I which is the basis for papal infallibility in this thread.

So the concern for you is, having been given the tools, what are you doing to know Christ’s teaching through His Popes when they teach infallibly?

I would like to know why inerrancy of Scripure is not limited to issues of faith & morals (though some misread Dei Verbum to say it is) but Papal infallibility is.

Because God is the author of Sacred Scripture through the human writers, but the sense the authors wish to convey has to be correctly understood. God is not the author of everything from Popes or Ecumenical Councils – here the Holy Spirit keeps the Popes from teaching error when defining a dogma or doctrine as prescribed by Vatican I – the reasons or argumentation is not necessarily protected from error.

This gives the four senses of Scripture:
THE FOUR SENSES OF SACRED SCRIPTURE, by John F. McCarthy (October 1998)
rtforum.org/study/lesson2.html

 

[thistle]

sardegnr evades the very simple straight answer in Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, and Lumen Gentium of Vatican II and will never understand it unless and until he chooses to do his homework. Post #25 has supplied the means to understand papal infallibility and there are numerous helps through EWTN questions and answers – there is no “MAY” about it – when a definition is made as prescribed (post #25) in an Encyclical or other papal document THAT definition is infallible. Examples given are from *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical), and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle). Another example is the definition in *Casti Connubii *(Pius XI, 1930). The Popes teach by infallible definitions within a document. All else within is not infallible.

Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”

Christ personally chose His Apostles and this is how He chose to bring them to their senses: to His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 6:51) (Frank Sheed, Christ In Eclipse, Sheed & Ward 1978, p 42). "With individuals He was very much the doctor with a duty not only to tell them what was wrong with them, but to make sure they realized it.” (Ibid. p 40-41).

From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002:
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

Ecumenical Councils confirmed by the Pope can proclaim, and many have, infallible dogmas and doctrines and one example is the dogma on the exercise of papal infallibility in Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I which is the basis for papal infallibility in this thread.

So the concern for you is, having been given the tools, what are you doing to know Christ’s teaching through His Popes when they teach infallibly?

Because God is the author of Sacred Scripture through the human writers, but the sense the authors wish to convey has to be correctly understood. God is not the author of everything from Popes or Ecumenical Councils –** here the Holy Spirit keeps the Popes from teaching error when defining** a dogma or doctrine as prescribed by Vatican I – the reasons or argumentation is not necessarily protected from error.
This gives the four senses of Scripture:
THE FOUR SENSES OF SACRED SCRIPTURE, by John F. McCarthy (October 1998)
rtforum.org/study/lesson2.html

Absolutely correct.

Munificentissimus Deus (Dogma of the Assumption) is a good example of this.
The infallible teaching within this document is the declaration of the Assumption.
Also within the document are early testimonies by some Church Fathers about Mary dying before being assumed. However, that Mary died is not only not an infallible teaching, it is not a teaching at all.
Not everything in such documents is infallible.

 

[grannymh]

It’s a simple question. Do Papal Encyclicals constitute the infallible teaching of the Church or not? No one seems to be able to provide a straight answer.

Constitute? Teachings? What is the heart of the question? What is being asked is similar to asking if the Chicago Tribune or New York Times prints the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Perhaps the better question to ask is – What is the purpose of Papal Encyclicals in relationship to defined dogma determined by Church Council? Do Papal Encyclicals have multiple purposes?

Instead of a straight black and white answer, wouldn’t it be better to understand the who? how? what? when? where? Why? first?

In other words, Sardegnr, try getting an answer by approaching the issue from another direction(s).

If no one can give a straight answer, then the doctrine of Papal infallibility is flawed in that it becomes apparent that the rank & file Catholic have no ability to comprehend it or what it encompasses.

Begging your pardon. The doctrine of Papal infallibility does not depend on who comprehends it. What the doctrine encompasses is independent because it is based on the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Since I have only seen parts of the declared doctrine, I am speaking from the general concept. If anyone has a link to the actual document, I would appreciate seeing it.
Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

The search for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[grannymh]

Why am I so concerned about it? I would like to know why inerrancy of Scripure is not limited to issues of faith & morals (though some misread Dei Verbum to say it is) but Papal infallibility is. I see a disconnect there.

I have not read much about inerrancy of Scripture, so I cannot answer your question directly. However, I have noticed that many CAF posters do not have a clear idea of why the realm of faith and morals is so exclusive and why high ranking clergy are not limited to its issues.

 

[grannymh]

. So, I’m now asking whether Papal encyclicals constitute the infallible teachings of the Church, because I want to know to what teachings exactly do I need to assent to and on what issues am I free to arrive at my own conclusions?.

If you wish to know Catholic doctrines, it is far easier to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Link: www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

I don’t mean to address this comment to you personally. I often wonder which individual issues are referred to when people talk about accepting or not accepting. I wonder because there are so many, many issues which are debated on CAF. Then I wonder why common sense doesn’t kick in. Obviously, my wondering could be considered off topic so I will not pursue it.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[brb3]

Munificentissimus Deus (Dogma of the Assumption) is a good example of this.
The infallible teaching within this document is the declaration of the Assumption.
Also within the document are early testimonies by some Church Fathers about Mary dying before being assumed. However, that Mary died is not only not an infallible teaching, it is not a teaching at all.
Not everything in such documents is infallible.

…

So … some ECF’s believed Mary died, then was Resurrected ? And, M. D. quotes them … but, discredits their testimony as inaccurate ? Rather, M.D. infallibly teaches she was taken up before her death, by God, w/o seeing death … like Enoch and Elijah ?

 

[grannymh]

…

So … some ECF’s believed Mary died, then was Resurrected ? And, M. D. quotes them … but, discredits their testimony as inaccurate ? Rather, M.D. infallibly teaches she was taken up before her death, by God, w/o seeing death … like Enoch and Elijah ?

Paragraph 966 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, contains the wording of the belief in the Assumption of Mary.
Note: In order to understand the format of paragraph 966, and how to use it, one must first read paragraphs 18 -22, especially paragraphs 20 and 21 which explain the “small print.”

General link to Catechsim. Put paragraph number in search bar*.*
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Please remember it is the Holy Spirit Who guides Church Councils and the few times Ex Cathedra has been formally invoked. Also, remember that a great deal of study over long periods of time goes into the formulation of a doctrine. Not only are all the documents of the Early Church Fathers scrutinized but so also are Holy Scripture, previous dogmas, other papal documents, and local traditions.
Often parts of this process are included in the document to verify that all possible explanations have been exhausted. Usually, this process is easily discernable as separate from the actual wording of the dogma.

In my humble opinion, the huge difficulty with threads on this topic, is the automatic assumption that all Catholic documents are cookie cutter productions hot out of the same oven.

Blessings,
granny

“Amen, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
Luke 23: 33-43

 

[Pete_Holter]

It’s a simple question. Do Papal Encyclicals constitute the infallible teaching of the Church or not? No one seems to be able to provide a straight answer. Do they provide teachings with which, as Catholics we MUST assent, or do they not? If the answer is, “it depends,” I would like to know on what it depends. To say that the document is not infallible but the teaching contained within it MAY be does nothing more than to beg what I view to be a very simple question.

Why am I so concerned about it? I would like to know why inerrancy of Scripure is not limited to issues of faith & morals (though some misread Dei Verbum to say it is) but Papal infallibility is. I see a disconnect there. During the course of the thread, it morphed to some extent to issues concerning what exactly constituted the infallible teaching of the Church, including encyclicals. So, I’m now asking whether Papal encyclicals constitute the infallible teachings of the Church, because I want to know to what teachings exactly do I need to assent to and on what issues am I free to arrive at my own conclusions? If they’re not, given that the Pope is the successor to Peter, why not? If no one can give a straight answer, then the doctrine of Papal infallibility is flawed in that it becomes apparent that the rank & file Catholic have no ability to comprehend it or what it encompasses.

Here is a statement from Pius XII that is helpful:

“What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.

“Although these things seem well said, still they are not free form error. It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: ‘He who heareth you, heareth me’ (Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians” (Humani Generis).

For questions about infallibility, the Commentary on the Professio Fidei and Mysterium Ecclesiae from the CDF are helpful documents to read through.

I hope you have a blessed day!

In Christ,
Pete

 

[PRmerger]

So, I’m now asking whether Papal encyclicals constitute the infallible teachings of the Church, because I want to know to what teachings exactly do I need to assent to and on what issues am I free to arrive at my own conclusions?

Ah. So this is the source, as I suspected, of your question. And, I submit that it is the exact wrong question to be asking as a lover of Christ.

It’s what apologist Mark Shea rather cheekily calls the Minimum Daily Adult Requirement thinking.

No lover asks “What’s the absolute bare minimum amount of contact with my Beloved I can get away with?” Similarly, if, as the Church claims, the fullness of revelation subsists in the Catholic communion, then “How little contact with the fullness of revelation can I get away with?” is the exact wrong question for somebody who is serious about discipleship to Christ.

 

[thistle]

…

So … some ECF’s believed Mary died, then was Resurrected ? And, M. D. quotes them … but, discredits their testimony as inaccurate ? Rather, M.D. infallibly teaches she was taken up before her death, by God, w/o seeing death … like Enoch and Elijah ?

You have no clue what you are talking about. MD does NOT infallibly teach Mary was taken up before death and it does NOT infallibly teach she was taken up after death.
It infallibly declares that she was assumed into Heaven.

MD contains a dogmatic declaration about her Assumption and not about whether she died first or not. Catholics are free to believe Mary died or did not die before being assumed.
The Church does not have a position on this and that is why Pope Pius XII very carefully chose the words about Mary “having completed the course of her earthly life” instead of saying she died. His wording leaves it open.
MD is not about Mary dying or not. It is a dogmatic declaration about Mary’s Assumption.

The paragraph on the Assumption declaration.

1. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, 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.

 

[brb3]

You have no clue what you are talking about. MD does NOT infallibly teach Mary was taken up before death and it does NOT infallibly teach she was taken up after death.
It infallibly declares that she was assumed into Heaven.

MD contains a dogmatic declaration about her Assumption and not about whether she died first or not. Catholics are free to believe Mary died or did not die before being assumed.
The Church does not have a position on this .

Don’t most believe she died … and then was taken up ? At least, isn’t that what the ECF’s believed happened to her ?

 

[PRmerger]

Don’t most believe she died … and then was taken up ?

What do you mean by “most”? Most Christians? Most Catholics?

And actually, what “most” believe is irrelevant, is it not? The CC has not stated one way or the other definitively.

 

[brb3]

Most Catholics?

And actually, what “most” believe is irrelevant, is it not? The CC has not stated one way or the other definitively.

Yeah … most Catholics …

However, a brief search shows it wasn’t til 450 AD’s … when Gregory of Tours started promoting Mary’s Assumption … and Pope Gelasius said there wasn’t any proof on the matter.

 

[PRmerger]

Yeah … most Catholics …

What “most Catholics” believe is really irrelevant.

“Most Catholics” don’t even know what the Immaculate Conception is, so using “most Catholics” as any gauge of truth is absurd.

However, a brief search shows it wasn’t til 450 AD’s … when Gregory of Tours started promoting Mary’s Assumption … and Pope Gelasius said there wasn’t any proof on the matter.

“Started promoting” a teaching is not an indication that it only came to be believed at that moment, brb.

The Assumption was believed from the very earliest decades of Christianity.

 

[thistle]

Don’t most believe she died … and then was taken up ? At least, isn’t that what the ECF’s believed happened to her ?

You are missing the point. I happen to believe Mary died first but my point is that it is not a Church teaching. Catholics are free to believe either she died or did not die first and neither side can claim definitively to be correct. Some Church Fathers believed she died first and some didn’t.
However, none of that is relevant to Mary’s Assumption. Her Assumption is not conditional upon her dying first or not.
The MD is a dogmatic declaration of her Assumption (and nothing more) and that is what we must believe.

 

[brb3]

You are missing the point. I happen to believe Mary died first but my point is that it is not a Church teaching. Catholics are free to believe either she died or did not die first and neither side can claim definitively to be correct. Some Church Fathers believed she died first and some didn’t.
However, none of that is relevant to Mary’s Assumption. Her Assumption is not conditional upon her dying first or not.
The MD is a dogmatic declaration of her Assumption (and nothing more) and that is what we must believe.

You may be missing my point.

Firstly, I strongly relate to the Church general teachings on our Spiritual Mother Mary. And I agree with PR’s point that many Catholics believe errantly on alot of our Church teachings. I know I have errant ideas [held from ignorance] that are slowly getting addressed and hopefully revised, to be more in line with the Church’s teachings.

Discussions/topic here at CAF help me discover my errant ideas … and help me learn the infallible doctrines that will stand the test of time and eternity.

It makes perfect sense that Christ would choose to assume Mary. Lots of great reasons to do so. And, it also would make sense to not promote this fact in the early Church years. Otherwise, many heretics would have wondered off into various tangents of Marian Goddess WORSHIP … claiming she was the co-equal of Christ, and claiming she held salvific powers like her son. At any rate, not much of anything survives in the way of ECF writing to support her Assumption. Much later, once all the other major heresies were defeated by Athanasius, etc … there seems to of been a groundswell of belief among the orthodox laity that Mary was assumed.

All great Saints are presently in Heaven with God as the Church Triumphant. Clearly Mary is #1 in that body of Saints, and particularily able to assist the Church Militant here on earth. Clearly she is the equal, certainly even superior in earthly faith to Christ, when the great Saints of old are being considered. To the degree Christ uses the Church Triumphant to channel his graces to us … Mary would logically be #1 in her heavenly committment /service to Christ in our current age. The fact her bones were not kept, and gravesite not know and didn’t serve as a major pilgrimage site for the early Christians … gives historical support for her Assumption. For all we know, Christ may of told the Apostles and ones privy to her Assumption not to speak of … and that later He would promote the fact, when the Church was ready and could receive it rightly.