Mary - sinner - Romans 3?

[rinnie]

And may I return the favor:

The very first mention found in Church teaching denies the claim of Mary’s sinless perfection: (Origen at Alexandria (185-232))

No documentation from the Church during this same era is found to disagree with Origen claim.

It was almost two hundred later before the first documented instance of a Church official making claim to the immaculate conception of Mary.(ie St. Ephram)

Unlike Origen, St. Ephram did have opposition to his claim. St. Basil & St. Chrysostom both disagreed with Ephram and claim Mary sinned

Really? The RCC teaches and has always taught that the Virgin Mary was free from sin and her body AND soul was raised right into heaven.

Now tell me this, if the Church taught as you claim that Mary was NOT sinless why did they say her body was not buried because it would not decay because she had no sin and was raised directly to heaven. The Church has ALWAYS taught that the Blessed Mother was free from sin.

The doctrine of Mary has always been contained in the teachings of the Fathers of the Church.

It was always taught that when the angels called Mary Highly favored and FULL of Grace that she was never subject to the curse and together with her Son the only Partaker of Perpetual Benediction.

SHe has always been compared to Eve as being the perfect Eve who was not deceived by the snares of the devil.

We can sit here and put one opinion over another. Luther was even quite clear stating she was indeed free of all sin. As I stated that has always been taught.

So now lets review the facts we do have in the bible. But with one thought in mind, I am a Catholic we know that the bible is not the Pilar of ALL truth, the bible itself tells you that. You must have the Church, the CHURCH is the fullness of all truth.

BUt lets review the facts. Mary was hightly FAVORED by God, She was FULL of his Grace, and handpicked by GOD to be the Mother of his SON. Now you are saying the God would pick a sinner to be the Mother of GOD? This makes no sense.

You are saying that Jesus would have the stain of Original Sin upon him, because if Mary had it, Jesus had to have had it also. Or would you have to agree that the teaching from the beginning of her life is true that GOD saved her from all sin it was fitting for him to do so, So that she could be the spotless virgin (the new ark) that contained the word. The word that would indeed be our Savior Jesus Christ.

Or we would have to have it your way and say Christ was born in the corrupted ark, and was not free from the stain of sin, because he came into this world in a corrupt and sinfull women! You see it makes no sense now does it.

The O.T predicts that a women would step out satan, does sin overpower sin? Does evil overpower evil? Or does Good overpower Bad? If the Blessed Mother was born into sin and sinned like everyone else, how could she overpower evil? Would she not need the Power and Complete Grace of God to do so? Or are you saying she did this on her own without GOD GRACE, GODS FAVOR? How did she give birth to a CHILD without this Grace from God, this amazing Grace. Or do you also deny she was a Virgin also:shrug:

It amazes me most how a Protestant can deny that Mary was free from sin, that God would not save her from all Sin, but yet they can accept that the Holy Spirit came upon her and she conceived a Child. And why? SImple because it is not CLEARLY defined in the bible. WHEN the BIBLE itself tells you it is not the complete word of God, to Go to the Church:shrug:

 

[rinnie]

Excellent point.

And the Church teaches about the Trinity! Where is that in the bible? So are we to reject the Trinity because it is not stated in the bible??

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger…

Scenario:

One Christian defers to scripture and claims that scripture proves that Mary was a sinner. Another Christian defers to scripture and claims that scripture proves that Mary was not a sinner.

Did God leave the world with a means to resolve this doctrinal dilemma so that these 2 Christians can know, with certainty, who is wrong and who is right? Clearly scripture cannot, and both certainly cannot be right.

The Holy Scriptures provide a clear answer to that question, too!

2Cr 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.1 Cor 1:18 For the message about the cross is nonsense to those who are perishing, but it is God’s power to us who are being saved.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

If the Scriptures aren’t easy to understand, why were the Bereans able to see Paul was telling the truth by checking his teaching against what the Scriptures?

And Paul, who was not taught by any man - including Peter, received the gospel directly from Christ after Jesus ascended to heaven. In an instant this happened.

Some people will come to a different interpretation because God has not yet revealed the answer to him/her. In this situation they may have correct understanding in some verses and incorrect in other. It is up to God when and how much He reveals to each.

Some because they are spiritually blind, or because they deliberately reject God.

Some because God has revealed the truth to them and not to others.

 

[Marybeloved]

This quotation is from the teaching of HH Blessed John Paul II on the Blessed Virgin during one of his general audiences- May 8th, 1996:

 ***"Full of grace" is the name Mary possesses in the eyes of God. Indeed, the      angel, according to the Evangelist Luke's account, uses this expression even      before he speaks the name "Mary", and thus emphasizes the predominant aspect      which the Lord perceived in the Virgin of Nazareth's personality.

---

*** The expression “Full of grace” is the translation of the Greek word kecharitomene, which is a passive participle. Therefore to render more exactly the nuance of the Greek word one should not say merely “full of grace”, but “made full of grace”, or even “filled with grace”, which would clearly indicate that this was a gift given by God to the Blessed Virgin. This term, in the form of a perfect participle, enhances the image of a perfect and lasting grace which implies fullness. The same verb, in the sense of “to bestow grace”, is used in the Letter to the Ephesians to indicate the abundance of grace granted to us by the Father in his beloved Son (Eph 1:6*), and which Mary receives as the first fruits of Redemption (cf. Redemptoris Mater, n. 10).
**

 

[rinnie]

Ginger…

Scenario:

One Christian defers to scripture and claims that scripture proves that Mary was a sinner. Another Christian defers to scripture and claims that scripture proves that Mary was not a sinner.

Did God leave the world with a means to resolve this doctrinal dilemma so that these 2 Christians can know, with certainty, who is wrong and who is right? Clearly scripture cannot, and both certainly cannot be right.

Which is exactly what the bible tells us. Scripture cannot teach Scripture. And you cannot define scripture without the Power of the Holy Spirit to teach. And that Power to teach was given to the CHURCH on the Day of Pentecost.

Christ said go and teach, I will give you the words, I will be with you until the end of Age. You either believe those words, by the way are stated in the bible or you deny them.

Christ did not send down bibles and scripture down from the heavens, although he could have, he left us a Church to teach us the truth.

You must HAVE the power of the Holy Spirit to define scripture. We can read scripture, learn from Scripture, but you must understand what it is saying before you can ever learn from it.

You have made a very good point Joe. We must ask where is their authority to define scripture. We ourself admit WE do not have the power of the Holy Spirit to do so. We learn from the Church.

 

[Ginger2]

…if the Church taught as you claim that Mary was NOT sinless …

Where did I say that? I said the first mention on the subject suggested she was a sinner like everyone else and no one in the church rose up to correct that statement.

I have no problem with Catholics believing Mary had no other children. It doesn’t change a thing about the nature of Christ nor his mission on Earth.

I have no problem with Catholics believing Mary never committed a sin during her lifetime.
The Bible clearly states “even those who have not committed a personal sin are still in need of a savior”

These speculations are irrelevent. They have no bearing on who Jesus is nor his mission, nor do they effect God or change His sovereign nature.

…why did they say her body was not buried because it would not decay because she had no sin and was raised directly to heaven. …

To prevent the emperor from defiling the Mary’s grave!

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

The above statement says that the Emperor, who wanted to possess Mary’s body, was told the tomb was empty and the Apostles concluded the body was taken up to heaven. Where are the eye witnesses? The Scriptures have eye witnesses to their testimonies.

The Apostles all witnessed Jesus ascending. This is an absolute “Jesus did”.

No one claims to have seen this event of Mary’s assumption. Instead, they told the Emperor the body was missing so it must have happened. Perhaps they were trying to prevent grave robbing?

 

[rinnie]

The Holy Scriptures provide a clear answer to that question, too!

2Cr 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.1 Cor 1:18 For the message about the cross is nonsense to those who are perishing, but it is God’s power to us who are being saved.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

If the Scriptures aren’t easy to understand, why were the Bereans able to see Paul was telling the truth by checking his teaching against what the Scriptures?

And Paul, who was not taught by any man - including Peter, received the gospel directly from Christ after Jesus ascended to heaven. In an instant this happened.

Some people will come to a different interpretation because God has not yet revealed the answer to him/her. In this situation they may have correct understanding in some verses and incorrect in other. It is up to God when and how much He reveals to each.

Some because they are spiritually blind, or because they deliberately reject God.

Some because God has revealed the truth to them and not to others.

Huh? What are you talking about. God does not reveal things to us by personal interpretation.

2 Peter 1:21 For NO Prophecy EVER came through HUMAN WILL, but rather Human Beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the infulence of God.

People will NOT come to different interpretations NOT if it comes from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit teaches ONE TRUTH, not MANY truths.

There is Only ONE TRUTH. How can God tell me on a personal level this, and you that? Please read 2 Peter 2: 1-22

For these people like irrational animals born by nature of capture and destruction revile things they DO NOT understand.

 

[rinnie]

Where did I say that? I said the first mention on the subject suggested she was a sinner like everyone else and no one in the church rose up to correct that statement.

I have no problem with Catholics believing Mary had no other children. It doesn’t change a thing about the nature of Christ nor his mission on Earth.

I have no problem with Catholics believing Mary never committed a sin during her lifetime.
The Bible clearly states “even those who have not committed a personal sin are still in need of a savior”

These speculations are irrelevent. They have no bearing on who Jesus is nor his mission, nor do they effect God or change His sovereign nature.

To prevent the emperor from defiling the Mary’s grave!

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

The above statement says that the Emperor, who wanted to possess Mary’s body, was told the tomb was empty and the Apostles concluded the body was taken up to heaven. Where are the eye witnesses? The Scriptures have eye witnesses to their testimonies.

The Apostles all witnessed Jesus ascending. This is an absolute “Jesus did”.

No one claims to have seen this event of Mary’s assumption. Instead, they told the Emperor the body was missing so it must have happened. Perhaps they were trying to prevent grave robbing?

What are you talking about Ginger. ST Thomas saw the Assumption of Mary with his own eyes.

 

[Frankk]

The Holy Scriptures provide a clear answer to that question, too!

If the Scriptures aren’t easy to understand, why were the Bereans able to see Paul was telling the truth by checking his teaching against what the Scriptures?.

Some people will come to a different interpretation because God has not yet revealed the answer to him/her. In this situation they may have correct understanding in some verses and incorrect in other. It is up to God when and how much He reveals to each.

Some because they are spiritually blind, or because they deliberately reject God.

Some because God has revealed the truth to them and not to others.

But 2 Pet 3:15-16 tells us Scripture can be very difficult to interpret. So do we accept this statement in the Bible or choose not to believe it? We must do one or the other.

A MAJOR difficulty with your last three points is how is anyone to know which of these categories any particular interpretation falls into or if it is correct? Does your own interpretation fall into one of these? You (and most people) would claim to have the correct interpretation but how can you know for definite?

Three points on Sola Scriptura: It goes against the Bible (Mt 16:13-20, 18:18; Lk 10:16, etc…
It goes against History. the history of the Bible attests it was the Church exercising its Apostolic authority that determined what is and is not Scripture. We need the authority of the Church to tell us what belongs in the Bible (1Tim 3:15)

It goes against Common Sense. Any written document meant to play a crucial role in determining how people live MUST have a living, continuing authority to guard, guarantee and officially interpret it. Otherwise Chaos reigns as everyone interprets it according to their own whim.
If we think of the Founding Fathers of the US, they produced the Consitution. But they also established a living continuing authority to guard, guarantee and interpret it: the Supreme Court. If they had not done so it is absolutely certain there would be internet Forums like this arguing about what parts of it mean!

And, of course, if we look at the “Founder” of the concept of Sola Scriptura we find many major problems.

Not least the idea that God gave us a Bible then left the World to its own devices for well over 1,000 years as it relied on Church authority using a Bible with too many books in it??? Until Luther happened along to fix it all And even he wished there were less than 66 books in his version - not least the 5 Books of Moses!!!

 

[Ginger2]

well let’s put it this way for those who need scripture.

Luke 1:38 And Mary said, “Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Doesn’t sound like evidence right?

God knows what is in our hearts. He already knows whether we will say yes or no before He asks anything of us.

But saying “no” will not change God’s plan. Do you think God was surprised that Jonah said “no” and tried to hide from Him?

God knew Mary would agree. But if she had not, He would have known that before asking, also.

By your reasoning one could conclude I am sinless, and nothing could be farther from the truth.

But God has laid many opportiunities to witness where I was at risk of losing something dear to me, and I still said "yes’ - even witnessing to Muslim men. I was concerned for my safety and possibly even my life, but I did it anyway.

Ginger

 

[rinnie]

Where did I say that? I said the first mention on the subject suggested she was a sinner like everyone else and no one in the church rose up to correct that statement.

I have no problem with Catholics believing Mary had no other children. It doesn’t change a thing about the nature of Christ nor his mission on Earth.

I have no problem with Catholics believing Mary never committed a sin during her lifetime.
The Bible clearly states “even those who have not committed a personal sin are still in need of a savior”

These speculations are irrelevent. They have no bearing on who Jesus is nor his mission, nor do they effect God or change His sovereign nature.

To prevent the emperor from defiling the Mary’s grave!

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

The above statement says that the Emperor, who wanted to possess Mary’s body, was told the tomb was empty and the Apostles concluded the body was taken up to heaven. Where are the eye witnesses? The Scriptures have eye witnesses to their testimonies.

The Apostles all witnessed Jesus ascending. This is an absolute “Jesus did”.

No one claims to have seen this event of Mary’s assumption. Instead, they told the Emperor the body was missing so it must have happened. Perhaps they were trying to prevent grave robbing?

Ginger where are you getting this. The Early Father of the CHurch have ALWAYS believed that the Blessed Mother was free from sin. It did not become an OFFICIAL teaching of the Church until much later, simply because it never had to be. IT was ALWAYS a belief.

It only became OFFICIAL because it later became questioned. I do not know where you are getting this information. Please check your resources.

 

[rinnie]

Where did I say that? I said the first mention on the subject suggested she was a sinner like everyone else and no one in the church rose up to correct that statement.

I have no problem with Catholics believing Mary had no other children. It doesn’t change a thing about the nature of Christ nor his mission on Earth.

I have no problem with Catholics believing Mary never committed a sin during her lifetime.
The Bible clearly states “even those who have not committed a personal sin are still in need of a savior”

These speculations are irrelevent. They have no bearing on who Jesus is nor his mission, nor do they effect God or change His sovereign nature.

To prevent the emperor from defiling the Mary’s grave!

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

The above statement says that the Emperor, who wanted to possess Mary’s body, was told the tomb was empty and the Apostles concluded the body was taken up to heaven. Where are the eye witnesses? The Scriptures have eye witnesses to their testimonies.

The Apostles all witnessed Jesus ascending. This is an absolute “Jesus did”.

No one claims to have seen this event of Mary’s assumption. Instead, they told the Emperor the body was missing so it must have happened. Perhaps they were trying to prevent grave robbing?

By the way Ginger people saying that the Blessed Mother had other kids does change alot of things.

It breaks one of the Commandment speaking falsely of someone.

The Blessed Mother took a VOW to God to never have sexual relations with any Man on earth. She kept that vow to God and it is a sin to say that she broke that Vow to her beloved God.

And WHO ever said the Blessed Mother never needed a Savior. The Catholic CHurch never taught this. Where are you getting these things. I agree with you on this Ginger. The Blessed Mother DID indeed need a Savior.

She was SAVED by a SINGULAR GRACE given to her at the MOMENT of her CONCEPTON by GOD. That is what the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION IS.

Ginger before you go against the teaching of the RCC should you not at LEAST know what they teach.

 

[Ginger2]

What are you talking about Ginger. ST Thomas saw the Assumption of Mary with his own eyes.

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

You are mistaken. This says she died in their presence. As for the assumption, it only states that Thomas requested it be opened and they discovered it was empty.

And since the Emperor wanted to possess the body, it would not surprise me if he told this story to protect Mary’s remains.

 

[Marybeloved]

Originally Posted by Ginger2 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*The Holy Scriptures provide a clear answer to that question, too!

If the Scriptures aren’t easy to understand, why were the Bereans able to see Paul was telling the truth by checking his teaching against what the Scriptures?.*

*Actually, st. Peter, rather the Holy Spirit through him, disagreed with you when he warned us the exact opposite of what you’re saying. That St. Paul’s writings were actually not easy for the faithful and elsewhere that scripture is in fact not given for private interpretation.

Some people will come to a different interpretation because God has not yet revealed the answer to him/her. In this situation they may have correct understanding in some verses and incorrect in other. It is up to God when and how much He reveals to each.

So how do you know when your interpretation is of the Holy Spirit or wrong?

Some because God has revealed the truth to them and not to others.

So, God has people to whom he has revealed the truth but not to others…yet both have read the same scriptures…So much for everyone reading and understanding the scriptures! Wasn’t the whole point of sola scriptura to remove this type of ‘elitism’ and avail the truth equally to everyone?
*

 

[rinnie]

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

You are mistaken. This says she died in their presence. As for the assumption, it only states that Thomas requested it be opened and they discovered it was empty.

And since the Emperor wanted to possess the body, it would not surprise me if he told this story to protect Mary’s remains.

Where am I mistaken Ginger. I never denied that all of the Apostles were there when she died. I said ST THOMAS saw her ASSUMPTION INTO HEAVEN.

He was not at the tomb guarding it when he looked up into the sky and saw her raise into HEAVEN Right before his eyes.

WHY do you think Ginger St THOMAS REQUESTED for the Tomb to be opened. Do you not agree there HAD to be a reason for such a request. And why did it come from ONLY HIM. He wanted to CONFIRM what he just saw with his own eyes.

 

[rinnie]

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

You are mistaken. This says she died in their presence. As for the assumption, it only states that Thomas requested it be opened and they discovered it was empty.

And since the Emperor wanted to possess the body, it would not surprise me if he told this story to protect Mary’s remains.

Hey Ginger when I got married I had 450 people at my wedding. The Paper did not state that I had 450 people. So now what because it was not written in the Paper I did not have 450 people, RIGHT?

But guess what when People say there was 450 at my wedding it is never denied. Today I can show you many witnesses, but not 450 people because probally half of them are dead. Do you get my point here Ginger. Not all is written now is it?

 

[rinnie]

Ginger do you find in ironic that it was St Thomas. Remember his name doubting Thomas.

Remember what he said about Jesus, he said I won’t believe it UNTIL I can poke my fingers through his hands that were crucifed.

Then what happens, it is doubting Thomas who is chosen of all the Apostles to see the Blessed Mother to be taken up to heaven before his eyes.

And what does he do, some things never change, He demands the tomb be opened to make sure the Blessed Mother rose to heaven.

Father asked us one day how many of us are still doubting Thomas? Seems to appear many I am afraid.

I always wondered what would I have done. Knowing myself I KNOW what I would have done.

I would have ran back and said The BLESSED MOTHER was just taken to heaven by God. She is with her SON:extrahappy: And when I was laughed at, or argued with I would have said LOOK open it up. I am telling you SHE IS GONE TO GOD!!

But like God he always has a lesson for us all, and a reason he picked Thomas to see this great Joy. I bet ya He was NO LONGER doubting Thomas

 

[Ginger2]

Where am I mistaken Ginger. …

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century.

Notice this document "bearing the name of St. John, was written in the forth or fifth centuries - hundreds of years after John was dead. Yet the Catholic belief is “founded” in this document???

It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, **falsely ascribed **to St. Melito of Sardis, and in **a spurious **letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite.
“spurious” & “falsely ascribed” mean these documents are fake.

The assumption is not found in Scriptures and the RC admits it was founded on false and spurious documents!!!

Ginger

 

[joe370]

The Holy Scriptures provide a clear answer to that question, too!

2Cr 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.1 Cor 1:18 For the message about the cross is nonsense to those who are perishing, but it is God’s power to us who are being saved.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

If the Scriptures aren’t easy to understand, why were the Bereans able to see Paul was telling the truth by checking his teaching against what the Scriptures?

And Paul, who was not taught by any man - including Peter, received the gospel directly from Christ after Jesus ascended to heaven. In an instant this happened.

Some people will come to a different interpretation because God has not yet revealed the answer to him/her. In this situation they may have correct understanding in some verses and incorrect in other. It is up to God when and how much He reveals to each.

Some because they are spiritually blind, or because they deliberately reject God.

Some because God has revealed the truth to them and not to others.

You and I, after reading those passages, still disagree.They did not resolve anything. Did God leave you and I with a way to resolve our differences when scripture clearly fails to do so?

 

[E.E.N.S]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century.

Notice this document "bearing the name of St. John, was written in the forth or fifth centuries - hundreds of years after John was dead. Yet the Catholic belief is “founded” in this document???

It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, **falsely ascribed **to St. Melito of Sardis, and in **a spurious **letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite.
“spurious” & “falsely ascribed” mean these documents are fake.

The assumption is not found in Scriptures and the RC admits it was founded on false and spurious documents!!!

Ginger

It’s hard to have an honest discussion with you if you are going to be disingenuous, Ginger.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

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.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:
St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.