Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary's Assumption

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lots of things happen that are not in Scripture. For example, the birth of you and I, the US civil war, the lunar landing, the Battle of Hastings, the death of Ghenghis Kahn, etc.–yet all these things happened.
Click to expand...
Yet we have historical accounts/documents telling us these things happened. For the Assumption, all we have is an apocryphal work condemned as being on the same level as the writings of the heretics by Pope St. Gelasius I. This work is what all the saints (500 AD -beyond) based their writings about the Assumption on.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Lots of things happen that are not in Scripture. For example, the birth of you and I, the US civil war, the lunar landing, the Battle of Hastings, the death of Ghenghis Kahn, etc.–yet all these things happened.
Click to expand...
True on those accounts, but as far as our faith is concerned if it’s not from Scripture - don’t add to Scripture!
 
40.png
Ric:
Sorry, Mary’s assumption is not told to us in Scripture, so one should not believe that it happened.
Simple. :cool:
Click to expand...
Neither is the list of what books are inspired and some of the ones in the NT recount things from non-canonical sources, so I guess you can’t trust the inspiration of that Bible now can ya? I refer to the book of Jude and the book of Acts (show me in the gospels where Jesus says that it is better to give than to receive!). And while we’re at it how do you know that the Messiah was supposed to be born in Bethlehem? nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is alone the authority for all we must believe…in fact it says that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth & that we are to hold fast to the traditions that have been taught to us. :cool: :cool: :cool:
Pax tecum,
 
40.png
Ric:
True on those accounts, but as far as our faith is concerned if it’s not from Scripture - don’t add to Scripture!
Click to expand...
This thread is not about your platform for Sola Scriptura. I have answered your objection. If you wish to pursue that debate open your own thread in the apologetics forum, and do not hijack this one.
 
Church Militant:
This thread is not about your platform for Sola Scriptura. I have answered your objection. If you wish to pursue that debate open your own thread in the apologetics forum, and do not hijack this one.
Click to expand...
You are funny!

My post(s) here are not about Sola Scriptura, it’s about the truth of Mary. :rolleyes:
 
Neither is the list of what books are inspired and some of the ones in the NT recount things from non-canonical sources, so I guess you can’t trust the inspiration of that Bible now can ya?
Click to expand...
Here’s what the Decretum Gelasianum had to say about the “non-canonical” Transitus Sanctae Mariae:

“These and the like, what Simon Magus… and what also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics or schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but excluded from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with its authors and the adherents of its authors to damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema for ever.”
 
40.png
SeanMc:
Yet we have historical accounts/documents telling us these things happened. For the Assumption, all we have is an apocryphal work condemned as being on the same level as the writings of the heretics by Pope St. Gelasius I. This work is what all the saints (500 AD -beyond) based their writings about the Assumption on.
Click to expand...
Sean, just because you lack the faith to trust the church to know what they are doing is not our fault. Doubt if you wish. That’s on you… Was it defined by the church? Yes. Are you in charge? No. Do you have faith? I can’t answer that, that’s you & God. You don’t trust…you choose to doubt and to dissent. Either accept that Christ’s promises to keep the church from error is good or blow off all of Christianity because you think that Christ lied and His promises failed. Those are all the real options that you have bro.
Pax tecum,
 
You’re dodging the issue Church.
Either accept that Christ’s promises to keep the church from error is good
Click to expand...
Christ didn’t promise that, he promised that His Church would not be prevailed over by the gates of hell.

PS. pax tecum quoque
 
40.png
SeanMc:
Here’s what the Decretum Gelasianum had to say about the “non-canonical” Transitus Sanctae Mariae:

“These and the like, what Simon Magus… and what also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics or schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but excluded from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with its authors and the adherents of its authors to damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema for ever.”
Click to expand...
I’d have to see this specific document (Transitus Sanctae Mariae) and exactly what it spoke of. Do you have a link (in English, my Latin isn’t good :o ) It may have contained many other heresies. The Assumption could have been the only thing it got right.
 
40.png
SeanMc:
You’re dodging the issue Church.

Christ didn’t promise that, he promised that His Church would not be prevailed over by the gates of hell.

PS. pax tecum quoque
Click to expand...
Not so…John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.
 
But in John 16:13, he’s telling the Apostles that the Spirit will guide the Apostles into all truth, not the Church in communion with Rome.
 
40.png
SeanMc:
But in John 16:13, he’s telling the Apostles that the Spirit will guide the Apostles into all truth, not the Church in communion with Rome.
Click to expand...
Oh and so you disagree with apostolic succesion too? Sean, you don’t believe anything that the church teaches do you? 😦 oh well…
 
Oh and so you disagree with apostolic succesion too? Sean, you don’t believe anything that the church teaches do you? oh well…
Click to expand...
Is that meant to appeal to my emotions? I don’t need that, only to be convinced.
 
SeanMc said:
bibleprobe.com/transitusmariae.htm

I’m not sure how good that translation is, but if you have the Latin, you can tell if its good or not. 🙂
Click to expand...

Thanks. I also read the council document calling it apocryphal and condemning it’s authors. The Assumption as a specific fact itself does not seem to be what is condemned. There are also books about the nativity of Jesus as well as His infancy which are also condemned with as much force, and we know those specific events happened. They were most likely condemned for not describing the event as it actually happened while claiming it as Gospel truth (pun intended:D ).

As for the condemned Assumption story, claiming it was written by St. John is most likely one serious error. Also, the raising of the dead Apostles is also problematic. Anyway, I hope that helps.
 
40.png
SeanMc:
Is that meant to persuade me? I don’t need to be persuaded, only convinced.
Click to expand...
It’s not meant to persuade or convince. Tell it to the Holy Spirit 'cos He’s the one that teaches. Anyone with doubts like yours is a waste of my time because I have given you my answers and you want some set in concrete thing and that is just flat NOT the nature of the real Christianity. I don’t know what messed your faith up, but I don’t think I can really help you.except to pray for you.
That’s it.
Pax tecum,
 
I have given you my answers and you want some set in concrete thing and that is just flat NOT the nature of the real Christianity.
Click to expand...
What is the nature of real Christianity, then? The good news of the Lord was taught by the Apostles who set about teaching it. The life of our Lord was then transcribed into His Holy Writ by the disciples of the Apostles (except in one case: the Gospel of St. John). What was the purpose of writing the Gospels, St. Luke tells us as he set out “to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed” (Luke 1:3-4). We may, then, consider the Gospels as being the compendium of all the doctrines of our Lord.

However, the Scriputres, in and of themselves, are not sufficient for forming doctrine as they can be interpreted a number of ways. Apostolic Tradition is (in a sense) the Apostles’ teaching/interpretation of the Gospel of our Lord. Men are fallible, however, and some things were ascribed to the Apostles that couldn’t possiblly have been taught by them (like indulgences).

We accept the confesison of the Apostles’ who were witnesses to Christ’s resurrection and glory. Christianity is set in stone, it is built on the foundation of our Lord.

The Assumption is not from the teaching of the Apostles. If it was, one would assume that such a miraculous event would be in the writings of the early Christians, but it isn’t. Where did the Assumption come from? It’s seed was planted with by a spurious gospel, it was watered by the speculation of Epiphanius, and it began to grow once it was set as a feast in the Church.

I’ve found something to be true in Catholicism and put in words by other people: one generation’s speculative theology is the next generation’s dogma. Take, for example, the speculation back aroudn the 18th century that Mother of God was the mediatrix of all graces. Now it is considered a defined article of faith and in the future it will most likely be proclaimed dogma. The Immaculate Conception was also speculation back in Medieval Times, but in the 19th century it was dogma. See the pattern?

I can certainly accept the Assumption as a possibility and pious legend, but not as a part of the Apostolic faith.

We say in the Creed “credo in unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam.” Examine your beliefs, are they what the Apostles or the Fathers taught?
 
Men are fallible, however, and some things were ascribed to the Apostles that couldn’t possiblly have been taught by them (like indulgences).
Click to expand...
OH? You are the final authority on what could and couldn’t have been taught?

Please answer why there is no tomb of Mary? Why is there no claim of where she is burried?
 
OH? You are the final authority on what could and couldn’t have been taught?
Click to expand...
Please answer why there is no tomb of Mary? Why is there no claim of where she is burried?
Click to expand...
Well, if you think I’m the final authority, go ahead, but I wouldn’t suggest it.

All the early legends of the Assumption clearly show the the Blessed Virgin was first interned in a tomb and 3 days after, the Apostles opened it up and found no body. None of the legends state that she didn’t die (of course, this idea only comes up with the whole Immaculate Conception idea: she didn’t sin, therefore she couldn’t die).

Jerusalem claims a tomb of Mary, but this was not before the 6th century and I think Ephesus does too.

The lack of a tomb is no reasonable proof as I think that an argument based upon lack of proof is clearly wanting.

Let me ask you, where is the tomb of our Lord or the nails that crucified him to a cross? Do we doubt the existance of our Lord because we lack relics? No. Do we believe in his resurrection more because of the lack of relics? Obviously not. The collection of relics is a tradition of men, a pious tradition, but a tradition nonetheless.

Why, then, do we believe in the resurrection of our Lord? Because we have first hand accounts! St. John, who bore witness to it, wrote about the resurrection and so did the disciples of the Apostles, who related to them these events. Yet in the case of the Assumption, all we have is an apocryphal account, written far after than it could have occured and this apocryphal work later formed the belief in the Assumption in both East and West.

Again, we have apocrypha, speculation, defined doctrine, then dogma. This is how the Assumption progressed through the ages; it’s sources is not from the Apostles.

Of course, you all will continue to blindly believe without cause as to do the opposite would mean your Church is not as infallible as previously thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top