One of my last issues

  • Thread starter Thread starter bengal_fan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks Tom. Both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are ways in which Jesus honored His mother. Jesus fulfilled the law perfectly, including the Ten Commandments. Therefore, He honored His Father and His mother perfectly.
 
40.png
Stephen-Maguire:
He’s not a real ghost is he !!! :bigyikes: ??? are you spaceghost 😛
Click to expand...
He must be out to dinner.
 
Hi bengal fan 👋 👋
Haven’t been around much since this past summer but pleased to see you are still around.

You, too Stephen M. 👋

Peace
LM
 
Hi all,
**Perhaps in the matter of Mary’s Assumption, God is testing us?? To see who of us are ‘doubting Thomas’ ’ and need evidence to believe; and who of us are prepared to take a leap of faith and believe. **
Just a thought.
**Bengal-Fan, **
I hope you find the inner strength you need to stay with the faith.
 
your question is not about Mary, it is about the teaching authority of the Catholic church, derived from its founder, Jesus Christ. You either accept the principle or you don’t. It is not necessary for the convert, or the cradle Catholic, to have an intellectual understanding and assent to all the ramifications of each and every point of Catholic doctrine. It would be impossible for one person in a lifetime to study it for one thing. For another thing, things are not true because I study them and grasp their full meaning, they are true because they are true. We believe what the Catholic church holds and teaches because it teaches the truth.
 
40.png
Stephen-Maguire:
True, and since Mary was full of grace then why is it so hard to say that she is in Heaven body and soul ?

Also Mary was the first Tabernacle, because that is where Christ first dwelt on earth.
Click to expand...
Hi Stephen,I believe she is heaven with a glorified body,like we will some day. 👍 God Bless
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
your question is not about Mary, it is about the teaching authority of the Catholic church, derived from its founder, Jesus Christ. You either accept the principle or you don’t. It is not necessary for the convert, or the cradle Catholic, to have an intellectual understanding and assent to all the ramifications of each and every point of Catholic doctrine. It would be impossible for one person in a lifetime to study it for one thing. For another thing, things are not true because I study them and grasp their full meaning, they are true because they are true. We believe what the Catholic church holds and teaches because it teaches the truth.
Click to expand...
Like i said in post#3…“if you have come this far, and you accept the authority of the Catholic Church to teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals, this should not be a problem then”

which agrees with the post I quoted above as well. I don’t fully understand every point of Catholic Doctrine (although the more I read it, the more I fall in love with it). God bless you Bengal (Ruuuuuuddddddiiiiiiiiii) in your search. You’ve been here for a while and have tough skin given many of the posters here and their uncharitable responses (though they are definitely in the minority). Hopefully you find God mor completly than ever before.
 
thank you tom and everyone else who has responded so charitably. this isn’t an issue that will keep from the church, just one that i have trouble defending or even reconciling sometimes.
 
Hi Mtr. Jesus body is a glorified body in the kingdom of heaven.I am not denying the resurection. Do we take our flesh and blood with us when we die? Dont our bodies become like Jesus glorified body,[spiritual bodies].:confused: God Bless
Click to expand...
I just think you are confusing the resurrection of the dead. When you say “glorified body” it is not the spiritual body. How can a spirit be a body? It’s spirit with no flesh and bones. Jesus’ glorified body is His flesh and blood which was resurrected by rejoining it to his soul. It is now incorruptible body.

After the general resurrection, our bodies (not spirit) will be joined to our soul in a perfect and incorruptible union. Just like our Lord’s.

Mary’s body and soul was taken up into heaven simply because she is undefiled by sin. It is now incorruptible just like her Son, because her Son choses it to be. That’s why since the Kingdom of God is real, the Queen (Mary) is united to the King (Jesus) in the Kingdom of God.

Pio
 
40.png
bengal_fan:
but she[Mary] would not need a physical body to appear in an apparition.
Click to expand...
You may be shrugging this off too quickly. Our eyes can only see physical things, not spiritual things. When God or the Angels appear to people in the Bible, I think they manifest themselves as something physical. Take for example, Her appearance at Lourdes, many disbelievers saw Her speaking with the little girl. The people did not claim to see a vision, or be in “ecstacy”, they actually saw, and heard, and smelled, the Woman.
 
40.png
bengal_fan:
thank you tom and everyone else who has responded so charitably. this isn’t an issue that will keep from the church, just one that i have trouble defending or even reconciling sometimes.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this thread - it has been enlightening for me as well. I also have difficulty with Marian doctrine. It’s kind of sad for me because I remember having such a vivid and personal relationship with her as a child (when I would say my prayers at night). So, again, thanks for the thread it has been helpful.
My real point in responding is to say this:

a) You should be focused more on whether or not Jesus left us a Church to guide us or not. If you can answer that in the affirmative, then you should start shopping for the institution that fits the bill.

b) Your means of validating the authenticity of the Catholic Church may seem logical, but I believe there is an inherent flaw in the logic. Here’s why: If Christ left us the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth, does it make sense that you, as an individual, would be able to come to realize the truth without the Church? I don’t think so - why would we need the Church then? Your approach of “measuring” the Church’s teaching according to your own knowledge fails to grasp that the whole point of the Church’s role in teaching is that you, with your limited skills and time, may not ever have known the fullness of the truth that the Church can lead you to. When you come to appreciate this more fully, your “burden of proof” paradigm will shift away from needing to prove the Church correct before you will submit. It will, instead, shift toward faith in what the Church teaches unless you can absolutely prove her wrong. My guess is you will never prove her wrong - millions have tried continuously since her birth without success.

Phil
 
I once read that the Church of Jerusalem was aware of the Assumption from the beginning.
They did not share this knowledge with the rest of the world until a request was made from another church. That church had just completed building a cathedral in Mary’s honor and wrote the Church at Jerusalem requesting Mary’s remains be transferred to the new cathedral.
I have read that the first written record we have of the Assumption is the response the Church of Jerusalem sent back.
They responded that they could give them some of Our Lady’s clothing, but that her body had been assumed into heaven by her Son.

Does this sound familiar to any of you?
Can anyone supply a source for this? I’ve lost track of where I read it.
 
40.png
bengal_fan:
this question still has not been answered to my satisfaction. i know that sounds very prideful but we are talking about a life-altering decision and i need to be sure. much prayer, reading, and question asking has proceeded this so please take it with the charity and deep seeking that is behing it.

i am having trouble with the assumption of Mary (bodily). what is the earliest writing we have about this doctrine? shouldn’t it be fairly soon after it happened? yet i don’t find it until much later. i believe in her perpetual virginity. i believe in seeking the intercession of the saints and especially the Queen Mother of our King. i am just having trouble with this being a defined doctrine of the church. if the church is wrong on this, then perhaps she is wrong on other things. i’m not saying it makes or breaks my conversion as i find stuff wrong in every other Christian denomination. but where did we get this doctrine. revelations 12 is not a good enough answer as the “woman” could be interpreted as the church or even as israel. please help me with this issue. thank you to all who respond charitably.
Click to expand...
Hi, bengal fan.

I did an article on this subject for The Catholic Answer magazine published by The Our Sunday Visitor organization.

In fact, when Revelation 12:14 says, “But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert,” that is a direct reference to Mary’s Assumption, at the plaintext level, using Bible typology.

Focus on “eagle.”

In the Bible, Interpretation #1 for the Bird Type is “sin,” “the Devil.” See Matthew 13:19, where Jesus defines the “birds” in the Parable of the Sower as “the evil one” coming to steal away what has been sown in the heart.

But Paul, at 2 Corinthians 5:21, describes Jesus as “He-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin,” meaning, "Jesus, though the sinless ‘blemishless lamb,’ ended-up being treated as though He were sin, itself, when He functionally took the punishment for our sins upon Himself, and was tortured, and then murdered on the cross.

This theme – Jesus in the form of “He-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin,” is played-out in the Bible, by symbolizing Jesus with SIN symbols.

So, in Numbers 21, a bronze SERPENT on a pole, so that it could be gazed upon to cure serpent bites, is a picture of Jesus in the form of “He-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin,” on the cross, that that faith in Him could cure sin.

TO BE CONTINUED…
 
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST…

Similarly, Leviticus 14:1-9 portrays Jesus using the Bird Type for sin. In the rite described in that Chapter, to cure “leprosy” two birds are brought to the priest. The first bird is slaughtered – Christ in the form of “He-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin” being killed – and its blood is splattered on the second bird, which is allowed to fly away – sin being driven away by the sacrifice of “He-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin”!

The Holy Spirit is symbolized by a dove in the gospels, because He is “He-Who-carries-on-the-mission-of-He-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin.” Get it?

The Holy Spirit is also symbolized by an eagle – see Ezekiel 17, where the first eagle planting the uppermost branch of the cedar tree is the Holy Spirit planting Jesus’ fetus in Mary’s immaculate womb. (The second eagle is the Holy Spirit in the form of the Paraclete.)

Eucharist-imbibing Catholics are portrayed as “children of the eagle,” drinking the blood of chalal, the “pierced one,” at Job 39:30.

At Luke 17:37, Luke clearly parallels the language referring to the baby eagles in Job 39:30 to refer to Catholics, still alive at Christ’s Second Coming, being assumed up to Heaven. (The verse is badly translated in the NAB. It literally reads, “Wherever the corpse is, there the eagles will be assembled” (by the “takings” described in Verses 34 and 35). Clearly, what is being portrayed is “flying” baby eagles of the Holy Spirit eagle being assumed up into the sky.

So, flying eagles refers to assumption into Heaven.

And the woman being given the :“two wings of the giant eagle” in Revelation 12 is a reference to Mary being assumed into Heaven.

But wait – the woman “flies to her place in the desert,” right?

Right! We, the “world in need of salvation,” are the “desert.” And, indeed, though assumed, Mary never quite left the “desert,” did she? She appears at Fatima, LaSallette, Guadalupe, and elsewhere, right?
 
40.png
Philthy:
…b) Your means of validating the authenticity of the Catholic Church may seem logical, but I believe there is an inherent flaw in the logic. Here’s why: If Christ left us the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth, does it make sense that you, as an individual, would be able to come to realize the truth without the Church? I don’t think so - why would we need the Church then?..
Click to expand...
i disagree with you here. i think one can find the truth without the church. as paul says in romans that it is within us that God has put His truth so that man is without excuse. i think the church helps to lead us to understand the truth (and properly interpret the truth) which God has revealed to all men, that is why we need the church.
 
40.png
bengal_fan:
i think one can find the truth without the church.
Click to expand...
perhaps. but we can’t know we’ve found the truth without the church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top