I see.
Of course, Mary never called herself good. She called herself blessed because of the good things God had done for her. But, that’s something entirely different and something anyone who has seen God do good things for them could say. We can certainly call her good, as well as anyone else who we know is good. It’s not a bad four letter word, after all. 
I suggest that we should be quite careful about what most people believe. We do not agree but what people think might be the result of whom they interact with. For example, there are more Anglicans than Southern Baptists in the world but that depends on where you live again.Dear Brian I sent you a pm, but just for the record I was trying to show you the difference between a sinner such as myself and the unordinary position that Our Mother holds. Most protestants, perhaps not yourself, view her merely as a concubine or surrogate who is a reverent or good person.
I must sign out unfortunately, I would like to continue at a later should you be willing. Ciao Della. God Bless you all
(Not to just butt into the conversation, lol) I think we can call Mary “good,” from our point of view. She clearly was as obedient to the word of God as we can expect from a fallen human being. I don’t think it’s really even possible to do comparisons, however, from God’s perspective. Mary was holy in God’s eyes because she was united, by faith, to her Son. People who are in Christ are not more or less united to Him than anyone else, since we are all equally members of His body. Conversely, anyone outside of Christ is as much a sinner, and unholy, as anyone else.I see.
Relics actually were not big first century. It springs up later. What did you read to indicate otherwise?No one mentioning it within a certain amount of time doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Indeed, since no one knows precisely what happened, it can be shown that it is possible. You may not believe it’s possible, but why limit God?
What is known is that there were no relics of Mary, no body, no bones, nothing of that sort. The only relics were clothing and the house where is said to have lived with John in Ephesus. Early Christians were mad about relics. If they had had her body they would have venerated it, as they did others. And Jews didn’t burn their dead but buried them. So, once again, it’s not impossible.
What you are really rejecting is the Church’s authority to decide matters of faith and morals–not in all things, but in those things you do not wish to accept. That’s up to you, of course, but please give us the benefit of the doubt by acknowledging that what the Church teaches is possible and reasonable and logical.
I’m not a student of that era. Someone else would have to provide more info on that than me.
But the point isn’t that he didn’t know or that the Church doesn’t know if she died or not. It’s that the Church teaches her body was assumed into heaven. No one has ever found her body, so of course the bishop wouldn’t know and the Church hadn’t fully contemplated the issue at that point. It doesn’t mean the Church is wrong. I can see how you could doubt the Church, but I can’t see how it makes it impossible.Here is my point. This man is a Bishop. The highest ranking clergy in his city. He is a passionate defender and student of Mary. He writes a book about her! But you see, he clearly states no one knows what happened to Mary. He gives three good options, dead and buried, martyred, and assumed. They are three good options but no one knows. How is it possible that a Bishop did not know? The Assumption of Mary would not have been a throw away belief. It is the second best historical proof for the Truth of Christianity in my view. Its HUGE. But no one talks about it. When they do, they clearly state…no one knows what happened to her.
Well, we don’t see Mary as more united to Christ because of her holiness but because of the unique union she had with Christ in that he was conceived in her womb. Our mother is going to be closer to us than anyone else. We don’t see her as deserving more praise for that, but we do praise her for her faith, her faithfulness, and her virtues, and so does God, as he does for anyone who has faith, is faithful and virtuous. She definitely has a special place in salvation history and with God since she is the Theotokos, the Mother of God. That title meaning that Jesus was truly God from all eternity and truly man from the instant he was conceived in her womb. It’s more about Christ’s two natures in one person than about Mary herself, you see.
Of course, as a matter of de fide obligation, we don’t accept the statements of the Roman Catholic Church on Marian dogmas (though that doesn’t mean we forbid believing in some of them, though it would be a minority report among confessional Lutherans).
When evaluating the beliefs of the different churches, infallible statements carry a lot of weight. You put everything on the line. When the historic churches differ on things, those are the things that draw my interest as I evaluate their claims.I’m not a student of that era. Someone else would have to provide more info on that than me.
But the point isn’t that he didn’t know or that the Church doesn’t know if she died or not. It’s that the Church teaches her body was assumed into heaven. No one has ever found her body, so of course the bishop wouldn’t know and the Church hadn’t fully contemplated the issue at that point. It doesn’t mean the Church is wrong. I can see how you could doubt the Church, but I can’t see how it makes it impossible.
As for it being a proof of Christianity, it may be that it would have been, but Jesus rose from the dead and was seen by many people at his ascension but there were still people who didn’t believe it or the witnesses and still don’t. Proofs are no certainty of belief, as we have seen down through history. I only wish they were–it’d make apologetics a lot easier!
The Church doesn’t declare dogmas so they can be proof of anything. It proclaims them as truths, which is not always the same thing as proof.
BriaH Can I ask one question, If Enoch and Ellijah got assumed into heaven by Christ ,then why cant Jesus do the same ,why do we try to Limet what Jesus Christ can do.for His Mother
Bill
Gibson is a staunch Roman Catholic. It’s not a surprised Mary has such a wonderful aura about her.
And do you have a problem with that?
But, he’s not the only source for this belief. It is derived from Apostolic Tradition as a part of the formulation of the truths concerning Mary. We develop doctrines by looking deeply into the mysteries of the life of Christ and his teachings. It’s not a matter of proofs, but of what is true. What truths can be derived from Mary’s virginity, her faithfulness, her being chosen by God, etc. What do those truths tell us about her and what God intended for her? That sort of thing. The Church is more eager to believe than to disprove such things because they are the deep things of God.
DellaBut, he’s not the only source for this belief. It is derived from Apostolic Tradition as a part of the formulation of the truths concerning Mary. We develop doctrines by looking deeply into the mysteries of the life of Christ and his teachings. It’s not a matter of proofs, but of what is true. What truths can be derived from Mary’s virginity, her faithfulness, her being chosen by God, etc. What do those truths tell us about her and what God intended for her? That sort of thing. The Church is more eager to believe than to disprove such things because they are the deep things of God.
Truly, as you said, it is a great thing for Christianity. And why is that? Because it gives us further hope that the words of Christ are true–that even as he rose from the dead and is now in heaven, so shall we be. It’s beautiful and filled with hope and faith and joy. Those things are not of the enemy but of God. And that is proof enough. It’s not just wishful thinking, it’s pulling to the surface things holy and wise and profoundly true. I’m not trying to convince you with all of this but to widen your horizons of faith to see the overall beauty of belief in God’s wonderful truths. As a fellow believer I want all that heaven can give to you and to all of us who believe in Christ.
I did, and I saw nothing there that disproves the Assumption nor causes me to doubt it because my faith is based on the promise of Christ to his Church and not on my own perceptions/understanding nor lack of physical evidence.
Why then are Catholics so desperate for us to believe that Mary remained a perpetual Virgin, was Immaculately concieved and assumed?I gather you are not Catholic and you have misinterpreted my meaning. I thank you nonetheless for respecting the Holy Mother of Jesus.
The CC stance on Mary is so misconstrued by many non-catholics especially by some protestant churches. We too, Schaick, do not believe that our salvation depends on believing Mother Mary as anything but a perfect creature of God who has a special purpose. She guides us to Her Son but she is not ‘Our Salvation’; she is part of the plan. She is the ‘New Eve’ and the Mother of all the human race. This can easily be supported by scripture but this is not the topic of the OP. I believe the issue is being brought up by the OP is that she has a great relevance in bringing believers to Her Son; that she is not merely a surrogate for God’s Incarnate Word.
St John the Apostle and Evangelist carries much more weight. He wrote about the Blessed Virgin’s Assumption into Heaven about 50 or 60 years after the Resurrection. Yes it’s in your protestant Bible which you proclaim as inerrant if you look, although in rather figurative language.
Hey mister Methodist, bite your tongue. I use to be a heretic just like you are now.No we are going to lie to you. What an awful way to begin a post
I have seen it four times. Do you think we do not understand when the director focuses on key scenes with Mary unless someone TELLS us to???
It is a wonderful movie and the scenes involving Mary are very touching indeed.
