Mary's Assumption

[Randy_Carson]

Peter leaves the bible at Acts 15. none of the disciples thought peter was their “boss”. Look at the story of James and John, when their mother asked the lord to make then greatest in the Kingdom by sitting on His left and right, this is right after Matthew 16, which my understanding is where Catholics derive Peters suthority, but it seems that no one else understood that Peter was the boss except for you Catholics. Jesus nor any of the other apostles got it according the biblical account.

Matthew 20 - And hearing {this,} the ten became indignant with the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and {their} great men exercise authority over them. 26 “It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Ahem. Notice that Jesus does not say that there will not be a leader…instead, He gives specific guidance concerning the character of the one who “wishes” to be the leader. If no one would be leader, why bother to clarify? This is implicit evidence that someone WOULD be leader.

Now, back to the Assumption…

 

[Randy_Carson]

They did not leave for that reason. Your chronology is completely wrong. You would be right if it was not for the clarification where Christ explains what he meant. If they left because of his statements concerning flesh…why did they not leave after THOSE statements? (John 6:53) They did not. You can say they did; but they did not. They were still there. When DID they leave? Why did they leave?

My chronology is spot on. Note the growing discontent in the crowd.

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Our forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever. He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.” (Jn 6:53-58)

Rather than quieting the crowd which had broken out into arguments about what he had just told them, Jesus pressed his point home even more emphatically: “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” In fact, whereas he had initially said positively, ”If a man eats of this bread, he will live forever,” now he has just stated the negative result of failing to do so: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Thus, Jesus has clarified his meaning by stating what happens if we do – and do not – eat his flesh and drink his blood.

The next verse is particularly revealing: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (Jn 6:60) Notice that it was not Jesus’ typical enemies, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who rejected his teaching on this occasion but his disciples – those believers who followed him from place to place and hailed him as the Messiah. They had seen Jesus perform many miracles and heard him teach wondrous things. But this was too much even for them.

“Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said this to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” Jn 6:61-64

It is your contention that they left over Jesus’ claim here. Rubbish. Jesus has just issued a challenge to those who knew were grumbling about his “hard teaching.” He is telling them to choose whether they will believe or not.

Not only does Jesus continue to uphold the literal meaning of his teaching, but he presses even further by asking that if this bothers them, what will they do when they see him ascend to heaven? Protestants do not deny the ascension of the resurrected Jesus, yet here Jesus places two key truths side by side. He is saying, in effect, “If eating my flesh causes you theological problems, just wait until you see what else I have planned…you ain’t seen nothing yet!”

The gospel continues: “From this time, many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” Jn 6:66-69

There is a lot going on in these three verses; let’s look at them closely. After hearing Jesus declare that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink, his disciples, his followers, could not accept his words and no longer followed him. Of course, if they had understood that his body and blood were being used as symbols, they would have had no complaint. It was precisely because they understood exactly what Jesus meant that they refused to follow him any longer. Therefore, there can be no doubt as to what the eyewitnesses understood Jesus to be saying.

Now, imagine the scene: Jesus has been teaching a crowd, and many of them have gotten up to leave because they could not or would not accept his words. In rejecting his teaching, they rejected the one who gave it and turned their backs on the savior of the world. Thus, their souls were at risk of eternal separation from God. Jesus came to seek and save what was lost; therefore, if these disciples had a simple misunderstanding of the metaphorical language he had used that might cause them to spend eternity in Hell, Jesus would have corrected their error. But we do not see him chasing them down the road saying, “Wait, everyone. I think there’s been a misunderstanding … let me explain what I meant.” **Jesus could not correct a misunderstanding because there had been none. **

Instead, he watched sadly as they departed and then turned to the Twelve, the closest of his disciples, and put the question directly to them: “What about you? Are you leaving too?” In doing so, Jesus was risking everything he had been working for since he had first called Simon and Andrew to follow him by the shore of the Sea of Galilee. If the Twelve had abandoned him at this crucial moment, Jesus would have had to begin again with a new group of Apostles to whom he would entrust his teachings and upon whom he would build his church. By God’s grace, Simon Peter, the first among the Apostles, responded in faith acknowledging that Jesus is the Holy One of God and accepting this difficult teaching.

 

[Rightlydivide]

In no way as Jesus been as clear about his pre-existence as he is in these passages. Lets deal with what it actually says. There is absolutely no doubt that the people understood him literally when he spoke about that. No one denies that do they? The problem with Catholics is they quit reading. They know that people were upset but no one left. No one left until Jesus clarifies exactly what he meant. That is just a fact. Try to explain it away to meet preconceptions but that is all it will be. Once again, an explaining away of what he meant.
I know I cannot convince you. You are too engrained to find the Eucharist in a book that never even discusses the Eucharist. The fact of the matter is that the disciples understood what Jesus said at the end. They had no framework for a ritual or Last Supper at this time. But they understood. What did they understand? What does Peter say they understood?

Jhn 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
Jhn 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Here it is again the minute before they walk away.

Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Catholic mindsets are trained to see the Eucharist where it clearly does not exist. Misinterpretation of his words is at the core of your most cherished teaching. This difficult saying is what got misinterpreted and led to the core ritual where a priest (an Old Testament mindset, presbyter is not the same thing as priest) and changes the unseen substance of the bread and wine into another unseen substance. They never would have pictured this because that is not what he taught.
You are partially right because he did intend for them to understand him literally until he clarifies even more.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In no way as Jesus been as clear about his pre-existence as he is in these passages. Lets deal with what it actually says. There is absolutely no doubt that the people understood him literally when he spoke about that. No one denies that do they? The problem with Catholics is they quit reading. They know that people were upset but no one left. No one left until Jesus clarifies exactly what he meant. That is just a fact. Try to explain it away to meet preconceptions but that is all it will be. Once again, an explaining away of what he meant.
I know I cannot convince you. You are too engrained to find the Eucharist in a book that never even discusses the Eucharist. The fact of the matter is that the disciples understood what Jesus said at the end. They had no framework for a ritual or Last Supper at this time. But they understood. What did they understand? What does Peter say they understood?

Here it is again the minute before they walk away.

Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Catholic mindsets are trained to see the Eucharist where it clearly does not exist. Misinterpretation of his words is at the core of your most cherished teaching. This difficult saying is what got misinterpreted and led to the core ritual where a priest (an Old Testament mindset, presbyter is not the same thing as priest) and changes the unseen substance of the bread and wine into another unseen substance. They never would have pictured this because that is not what he taught.
You are partially right because he did intend for them to understand him literally until he clarifies even more.

Would it be fair to say that non-Catholics mindsets are “trained” to deny the Eucharist no matter how clearly the scriptures speak of it?

Now, to your point. For the moment, I’ll concede that the disciples who left (some stayed) did so after his mention of his pre-existence. So what?

It is evident that prior to this, the crowd was not at all comfortable with his saying that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. If they understood him to be speaking metaphorically, then there would have been no grumbling.

Jesus does not back down from saying that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. He speaks of it more strongly using Greek words for “chew” or "gnaw’ on his flesh.

And though the Twelve may have been uncertain as to what He was driving at in John 6, His meaning became clear in the Upper Room at the Last Supper, didn’t it?

Finally, we know that Jesus gave the exact same teaching to Paul years later, for Paul records the same message in Corinthians: “this is my body, this is my blood”.

If the Church had been misunderstanding the teaching on the Eucharist for several decades, Paul could have corrected the error. Instead, it is obviousl that Jesus told Paul (who received his gospel from no man) the exact same thing that He had told the Apostles on the night He was betrayed. “This is…”.

It would be 1500 years before anyone would dare to say, “This is not…”.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Would it be fair to say that non-Catholics mindsets are “trained” to deny the Eucharist no matter how clearly the scriptures speak of it?

Yes.
When I read it, I was an atheist and not prone to either view or any view but what it said. When I first heard about how it changes and no one can actually see it or taste the difference; I thought that seemed rather fortunate for your view.
See your view is that it actually really really does occur. It becomes the literal blood and the literal flesh of Jesus. Jesus was speaking literally. One thing to add; it is literal in the sense you cannot see it. Or taste it. It is its underlying reality. Nice…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes.
When I read it, I was an atheist and not prone to either view or any view but what it said. When I first heard about how it changes and no one can actually see it or taste the difference; I thought that seemed rather fortunate for your view.
See your view is that it actually really really does occur. It becomes the literal blood and the literal flesh of Jesus. Jesus was speaking literally. One thing to add; it is literal in the sense you cannot see it. Or taste it. It is its underlying reality. Nice…

If you had seen Jesus walking by the Sea of Galilee, would you have seen the God of the Universe in all His glory?

Or a smelly carpenter from Nazareth?

Nice…

 

[Rightlydivide]

You do know that the 1500 year figure is not correct. Heretical, possibly heretical, and other groups like the Paulicians,someone will now cite the outdated and biased 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia information on them,…they always do, Waldensians and other groups and individuals denied it. But so what. We can go into that later on another thread.

God did not reveal his covenant to Abraham until how many years after humans came into existence??? In fact, God revealing his truth and then people rejecting it is the story of the Old Testament…isnt it?

 

[Rightlydivide]

If you had seen Jesus walking by the Sea of Galilee, would you have seen the God of the Universe in all His glory?

Or a smelly carpenter from Nazareth?

Nice…

The point remains. Its literal. Absolutely literal. But no one and I mean no one can literally see any differnce. That is what you are contending. Its literal. He means you tear his skin, chew his skin, rip into it…but it all LOOKS the same?

 

[Randy_Carson]

You do know that the 1500 year figure is not correct. Heretical, possibly heretical, and other groups like the Paulicians,someone will now cite the outdated and biased 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia information on them,…they always do, Waldensians and other groups and individuals denied it. But so what. We can go into that later on another thread.

You’re going to quibble over 300 years? I was giving the date of the most prevalent of the groups…

God did not reveal his covenant to Abraham until how many years after humans came into existence??? In fact, God revealing his truth and then people rejecting it is the story of the Old Testament…isnt it?

Uh…yeah. Relevance?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The point remains. Its literal. Absolutely literal. But no one and I mean no one can literally see any differnce. That is what you are contending. Its literal. He means you tear his skin, chew his skin, rip into it…but it all LOOKS the same?

The accidents (taste, appearance, smell, etc.) remain, but the substance has changed from bread to body.

That’s why it is called “transubstantiation” (trans, substance).

And yes, this is the teaching of the Catholic Church (and not just the Catholic Church, mind you) since the beginning.

 

[adrift]

The accidents (taste, appearance, smell, etc.) remain, but the substance has changed from bread to body.

That’s why it is called “transubstantiation” (trans, substance).

And yes, this is the teaching of the Catholic Church (and not just the Catholic Church, mind you) since the beginning.

What has this to do with the Assumption. I started another thread for you to discuss this matter please have the curtsy to use it and address the matter of this thread,

 

[Randy_Carson]

What has this to do with the Assumption. I started another thread for you to discuss this matter please have the curtsy to use it and address the matter of this thread,

I am aware of the thread, thank you.

As for how this relates, it works like this:

1. Jesus established an authoritative Church.
2. That Church has defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary infallibly.

Sometimes you have to argue about the cart before you can argue about the horse. Or vice-versa.

 

[Historian]

I am aware of the thread, thank you.

As for how this relates, it works like this:

1. Jesus established an authoritative Church.
2. That Church has defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary infallibly.

Sometimes you have to argue about the cart before you can argue about the horse. Or vice-versa.

RESPONSE:

Aren’t both of these assertions open to examination?

 

[Randy_Carson]

RESPONSE:

Aren’t both of these assertions open to examination?

Sure. After examining them carefully, you should come to the same conclusion that I have.

1. Yes, Jesus established an authoritative Church (cf. Mt 28).
2. Yes, that Church has infallibly defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary (cf. Munificentissimus Deus).

 

[Historian]

Sure. After examining them carefully, you should come to the same conclusion that I have.

1. Yes, Jesus established an authoritative Church (cf. Mt 28).
2. Yes, that Church has infallibly defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary (cf. Munificentissimus Deus).

Please humor me. I’m a history buff who likes to examine documents closely.

Lets examine the basis for your conclusion regarding Munificentissimus Deus.

“For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.” (Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 4, Number 1)

Deposit of Faith:
The heritage of faith contained in Sacred Scripture and tradition, handed on in the Church from the time of the Apostles, from which the Magisterium draws all that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed. (thesacredheart.com/dictnary.htm#D)

What Sacred Scripture and Apostolic teaching dealing with the Assumption are specifically cited in Munificentissimus Deus? Please provide the citation of the same from Munificentissimus Deus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Please humor me. I’m a history buff who likes to examine documents closely.

Lets examine the basis for your conclusion regarding Munificentissimus Deus.

“For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.” (Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 4, Number 1)

Deposit of Faith:
The heritage of faith contained in Sacred Scripture and tradition, handed on in the Church from the time of the Apostles, from which the Magisterium draws all that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed. (thesacredheart.com/dictnary.htm#D)

What Sacred Scripture and Apostolic teaching dealing with the Assumption are specifically cited in Munificentissimus Deus? Please provide the citation of the same from Munificentissimus Deus.

Have you already read the document?

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

Waldensians and other groups and individuals denied it.

No the Waldensians actually believed in it.

“This is absolutely impious and cannot be sustained by any valid authority and is unreasonable…They have acknowledged that the sacrament cannot be performed by women or laymen, but only by the PRIEST. They also said that no one, good or bad, but only He who is God and man, that is, CHRIST, can transubstantiate the bread and wine into the body and blood.”–“Letter from the Poor Lombards to the Poor of Lyons who are in Germany,” in Tourn, 21-23.

In the first millennium the people that did deny the real presence were gnostic groups, after that around 1100 there were debates about Christ’s presence in the Eucharist by some Catholics, prompting the Church to define transubstantiation in a general council. The Waldenians were ot among them, at least at first, even Peter Waldo affirmed the belief.

Also John 6 does use trogo signifying chewing of something, for Christ. Also to Hebrews the word “Body/Flesh” signifies “substance” or “Essence” of that thing

 

[Historian]

Have you already read the document?

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

Yes. In fact several times. But I find no specific scriptural support is referenced for the Assumption and the legitimate writngs of the Church Fathers mentioning the Assumption begin about the seventh century. Those hardly support an apostolic tradition.

Perhaps you will cite a specific paragraph that evidences otherwise.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes. In fact several times. But I find no specific scriptural support is referenced for the Assumption and the legitimate writngs of the Church Fathers mentioning the Assumption begin about the seventh century. Those hardly support an apostolic tradition.

Perhaps you will cite a specific paragraph that evidences otherwise.

Tell you what, I re-read the document again tonight highlighting the parts of it that I feel are relevant.

In fact, I had so much highlighted, that I decided to stop.

However, I’m watching Monk tonight, so I’ll take this up later. I’m happy to do this, so you can count on it.

Briefly, paragraphs 3-6 outline the theological basis for the dogma very clearly. 7-12 lay out the faith of the Church and the operation of the Ordinary Magisterium. 13-20 lay out the growth of the belief in the life of the faithful. Paragraphs 20 and beyond lay out the explicit teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

Now, until I address this in more detail, let me ask you this: Can you answer the following from scripture alone:

1. Does Jesus have two natures or one? Two wills or one? Cite the scripture passages in support of your answer.
2. Is God a trinity of persons? Again, I ask you to provide scripture only.
3. Is the Holy Spirit actually the third person of the Trinity consubstantial with the Father and the Son? Limit your response to Bible verses only.

If you find that there are no verses that explicitly address these theological truths, then will you concede that we are able to combine explicit doctrines to arrive at hidden truths?

Would it be reasonable to say that we can view explicit revelation (in its written and non-written forms) as building blocks like the basic elements of the periodic table can be combined to form different compounds of increasing complexity?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I exceeded my 20 minutes of editing time, but for question #2 above, I require something more than the theophany at Jesus’ baptism. Thanks in advance.