Sacred Oral and Written Tradition

[sandusky]

I have an old story in my family that you just reminded me of.

My grandmother has told me this story, and her mother told her this story, and her mother told her.

I have a great great great grandfather who played the violin. I have one of his violins, and I recently restored it so that one of my students could use it for her lessons. This violin is the only “evidence” I have left that any of my relatives ever played the violin.

The story goes, that he was a great violinist, but that this wasn’t the original violin he played. He had a temper, and was often given to too much drinking… One night he was so drunk that he went out back and smashed his violin on the side of a barn!

I don’t have proof of this story. The original violin is pretty much gone. There’s nothing written down to prove it… just my grandmother’s word. I have a violin that belonged to him, so how do I know that he ever owned a different one? How do I know anything about his character? The only records I have of him are in our family tree and albums… In family heirlooms passed down to us. But I have no “record” of this story being true.

So should I approach my grandmother and tell her I don't believe you! PROVE to me in the family records that my great great great grandfather ever did this!  Heck..she cant' even prove to me in the records that he PLAYED the violin. All I have is an old violin.

Ok so this story is nothing like the story we have of Mary’s assumption, obviously LOL… But it proves my point. We have stories and traditions handed to us by our families that we believe…not because we have proof or because they’re written down…but because they came to us FROM our family! This is my view of the church… God gave us the Church to pass on our FAMILY story! We are all the family of God, the communion of saints! All faithful Christians from the time of Christ, through today and ever after… In heaven, in purgatory and on earth.
I will accept the traditions and stories that make up the rich heritage of my church! Just as I will accept the stories which make my FAMILY heritage more than just an old paper with a family tree… The papers, pictures and heirlooms that tell the story of my family have more meaning and depth when they are brought to LIFE by my family and our traditions

That’s a lovely family story, Ashley, and an honest answer as to why you accept the teaching of the bodily assumption of Mary. :tiphat:

 

[twb1621]

Perhaps it would help to understand and to keep in mind not only that the “woman” spoken of in the OT was Mary in the prophecies but also that she was predestined to suffer the pain of the sword as prophesied by Simeon at the temple. This was the reason Jesus referred to her as “woman” at times referring her to those prophacies. In fact, if you make the Compression, Mary’s life was (although a difference in degrees) to parallel the life of Jesus right down to His passion and suffering yet she remained as silent in her suffering as Jesus in His. It is a fact recognized by all Christians that the Blood of Christ is the Blood of our salvation. Mary was born full of grace and created by God with purity to be the ark of the new covenant just as God directed the construction of the ark of the old covenant. Mary was even more precious because it would be the Son of God who she would carry.
But most importantly, it should not be difficult to understand that if the blood of Jesus is the source of our salvation, this very blood pulsating through the veins of Jesus flowed through the veins of Mary and from her through Him. Her devotion and her immaculate nature could not have been flawed to start with and certainly could not have been soiled after sharing the living blood of Christ. If it were, there would be no salvation at all from the spilling of this very same blood and their shared torment and suffering. In sharing such a parallel it would also be a logical expectation that Jesus would have wanted her assumption as well.

As far as scripture, It would also stand to reason that considering the persecution of Christians at that time, the Apostles would have been very protective of Mary in her remaining years avoiding writing or any public proclamations having to do with her that might be used against her in some way. The logical thought would be that information regarding her life and death and assumption was passed on through Sacred Tradition but kept protected until such a time it could more safely be revealed along with the location she was originally laid to rest before the assumption. (Theoretically)

Some excerpts to ponder;
64. “Through the prophets, God forms his people in the hope of salvation, in the expectation of a new and everlasting Covenant intended for all, to be written on their hearts. [Cf. Is 2:2-4 ; Jer 31:31-34 ; Heb 10:16 .] The prophets proclaim a radical redemption of the People of God, purification from all their infidelities, a salvation, which will include all the nations. [Cf. Ezek 3:6; Is 49:5-6; Is 53:11 .] Above all, the poor and humble of the Lord will bear this hope. Such holy women as Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Judith and Esther kept alive the hope of Israel’s salvation. The purest figure among them is Mary. [Cf. Ezek 2:3 ; Lk 1:38 .]”
148. “The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that ‘with God nothing will be impossible’ and so giving her assent: ‘Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be (done) to me according to your word.’ [Lk 1:37-38; cf. Gen 18:14.] Elizabeth greeted her: ‘Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.’ [Lk 1:45 .] It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed. [Cf. Lk 1:48.]”
273. “Only faith can embrace the mysterious ways of God’s almighty power. This faith glories in its weaknesses in order to draw to itself Christ’s power. [Cf. 2 Cor 12:9 ; Phil 4:13.] The Virgin Mary is the supreme model of this faith, for she believed that ‘nothing will be impossible with God’, and was able to magnify the Lord: ‘For he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.’ [Lk 1:37, 49.]”
487. “What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.”
490. “To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary ‘was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.’ [LG 56.] The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as ‘full of grace’. [Lk 1:28 .] In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.”
491. “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, ‘full of grace’ through God, [Lk 1:28 .] was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. [Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803.]”
catscans.com/catholicsite/mary.htm

 

[sandusky]

MerickOWA:

If you want to claim the the scriptures came from God, then you must admit that the human influence in their assembly & writing was also influenced by God.

I’ve never denied it.

MerickOWA:

Is it your opinion that the Jews were teaching heresy because God had not protected their doctrines from corruption? If this is the case why would Jesus instruct the crowd and disciples “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you”? Wouldn’t this indicate that Jewish doctrine and traditions had NOT been corrupted. Otherwise, wouldn’t Jesus have been asking them to follow heresy? The key to understanding this passage is the previous verse where it says “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.” This means they were about to speak from their position with authority!

Moses’ seat represents the teaching authority of those responsible for interpreting the laws of Moses v3. After 15:1–20 it would be surprising if Jesus really meant that everything in the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees must be obeyed. The balance of the sentence falls rather on the second half: ‘Do what they say, if it’s consistent with the law , but don’t do what they do, because much of what they did, added to the law, and was inconsistent with the law, thus heaping burdens on the people that God did not endorse v4.

Jesus then continues with the pronouncement of 8 woes against the hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees who seated themselves in Moses seat (vv13-36).

MerickOWA:

This is exactly the same in the Catholic Church.

Correct.

MerickOWA:

When the Church speaks with Authority, it is infallible and without error and is to be “done and observed” just as the Bible commands. When a member the Church attempts to put forth their own ideas WITHOUT the Church Authority backing them up, It is NOT to be considered a teaching of the church and COULD be a teaching/tradition of man which contradicts the Church.

As long as what is taught carries the authority and support of Scripture, as Christ Himself stated.

MerickOWA:

Theologians do not speak with authority, nor can any Protestant verify that their teachings come from the Bible. Indeed many Protestants reject some of things Luther believed such as Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist.

Claiming that everyone must read Bible and find the truth for themselves begs the question, where is this idea taught in the Bible? This is NOT the understanding of the ECF nor is it the Biblical understanding. The ECF and Church always understood that their authority to teach always came from God through his chosen apostles. It was He who choses the Jewish people and setup their priesthood/authority, and it was God who chose the disciples and setup their priesthood/authority.

How can there be any understanding of the Bible without true teachers?

Don’t forget to read the “woes.”

 

[MerickOWA]

Jesus then continues with the pronouncement of 8 woes against the hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees who seated themselves in Moses seat (vv13-36).

What proof is there that these practices Jesus condemned were taught from the chair of Moses? They were certainly taught by the Pharisees & Scribes, but the question is where they taught from the authority of the Chair of Moses.

Catholics understand that those with authority don’t necessarily always live up to that authority (unfortunately). However, (fortunately) they wont exercise that authority to declare their personal teachings as official teaching.

Theres lots of Scripture to show that the Jewish leaders had problems with SOME of their practices. Obviously the Tradition of the “chair of Moses” was NOT condemned by Jesus. No where in “reading the Scriptures” would you have found a reference to such a chair. So how can we use THAT as the method for testing “traditions” to see if they’re from man or God? If the law was nothing more than the Scriptures, shouldn’t Jesus have rejected the “chair of Moses”?

 

[justasking4]

twb1621;4382988]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The point in asking is to know if the source you are recommending is something you know well yourself. Its one thing to recommend something and another to use the source effectively.
twb1621
How does the degree of my familiarity with the Catechism have any influence on how you may benefit from it?

In number of ways. I have found many times that when a person claims to belong to a church or institution what they believe can be different from what the organization offically teaches.
Secondly, if i were to respond to posters on these forums to go read the Bible and come back i would not get very far since they may reject such advise and no discussion would happen. Rather i prefer to quote passages to help the dicussion along.
Thirdly, if a person is going to recommend a source i’m interested in knowing if they use it that much themselves and are they familar with it. Do they use it to buttress their beliefs? For example i rarely use the fathers since i’m not that familar with them. i do use the Scriptures because i have studied them and continue to do so and i want to encourage Catholics to do the same.

justasking4
These discussions are not empty arguments but matters of great importance.
twb1621
And what is the significance to you, what determines there importance?

Its important for me to know not only what the Catholic teaches but what do individual catholics believe. I personally determine what is important to me as you do for yourself.

Do you believe without doubt that it is the blood of Christ that is our salvation? That His coming into the world was to save all man?

Yes. Without Him we are doomed.

 

[justasking4]

The assumption doesn’t need to be “based on the Scriptures” because our faith is based on the teachings of Christ and His Apostles and not limited to what they wrote. God took Moses, Enoch and Elijah bodily into heaven. This gives us a precedent and tells us that God can take people physically out of this world and into Heaven. At any rate, we know from Revelation that Mary is in Heaven. If you want to reject her assumption because you don’t see it in Scripture that’s your prerogative. I just don’t see why it’s so important to you that Catholics reject it as well, when it is something that the Church has taught since it happened.

You didn’t answer my question about the NT Deuterocanon. Do you reject those books and passages in the NT since they are deuterocanonical?

What would help is to compare exactly those deuterocanonical quotes with the corresponding verses in the NT. Do you have those from the DC’s?

 

[sandusky]

What proof is there that these practices Jesus condemned were taught from the chair of Moses? They were certainly taught by the Pharisees & Scribes, but the question is where they taught from the authority of the Chair of Moses.

Catholics understand that those with authority don’t necessarily always live up to that authority (unfortunately). However, (fortunately) they wont exercise that authority to declare their personal teachings as official teaching.

Theres lots of Scripture to show that the Jewish leaders had problems with SOME of their practices. Obviously the Tradition of the “chair of Moses” was NOT condemned by Jesus. No where in “reading the Scriptures” would you have found a reference to such a chair. So how can we use THAT as the method for testing “traditions” to see if they’re from man or God? If the law was nothing more than the Scriptures, shouldn’t Jesus have rejected the “chair of Moses”?

Sorry, I posted my response in the wrong thread. Go back to the other thread, please.

 

[MerickOWA]

Can you show me where in the Bible it’s said that Mary was assumed into heaven?

This question is based on the FALSE premise that EVERYTHING must be in the Bible in order for it to be believed. Do we only know history of the American Civil War because of the Bible? Are ALL Truths contained in the Bible? Obviously NOT!

Therefore it isn’t sufficient to prove that it isn’t in the Bible. YOU must prove that it CONTRADICTS the Bible.

Does the Bible tell us that holy people can not be assumed into heaven?

It is apparent from Genesis 5:24 and Hebrew 11:5 that Enoch was also assumed into Heaven. Elijah was as well. So again, why MUST the Bible say that Mary was in order for it to be TRUTH?

 

[AshleyBelle]

Ja4…you have just proven something by your posts…

You seem to imply that living the Christian faith means you must be “learned” and “trained” in the Scriptures.

That all catholics must know how to “back up” what they believe against your attacks…that all catholics must know exactly what their church teaches about everything you deem “wrong.”

But while learning the scriptures and knowing what your church teaches are all important and good… Christ demands a much more simple faith. He calls us to come as little children before Him.

The faithful catholic need not “know” anything more than love and devotion for Christ, obediently following His command to “eat of my flesh and drink of my blood.” And by this simple faith, they will indeed “have the word of eternal life” dwelling within them.

Why are you set on demanding more of us that Christ Himself?

 

[twb1621]

In number of ways. I have found many times that when a person claims to belong to a church or institution what they believe can be different from what the organization offically teaches.
Secondly, if i were to respond to posters on these forums to go read the Bible and come back i would not get very far since they may reject such advise and no discussion would happen. Rather i prefer to quote passages to help the dicussion along.
But in this case it is recommended of you to read the catechism, not you recommending .
Thirdly, if a person is going to recommend a source i’m interested in knowing if they use it that much themselves and are they familar with it. Do they use it to buttress their beliefs? For example i rarely use the fathers since i’m not that familar with them. i do use the Scriptures because i have studied them and continue to do so and i want to encourage Catholics to do the same.
The catechism is the Beliefs along with references. It is one of many sources I use routinely in the practice and research of faith. I highly recommend you read it. You would have less questions to have to go through.

Its important for me to know not only what the Catholic teaches but what do individual catholics believe. If this is the case, you should be reading and studying the bible of the Catholic Faith, not one with “different” interpretations and less books, don’t you think?I personally determine what is important to me as you do for yourself.

Yes. Without Him we are doomed.

then in referring to my post #536 it should not be difficult then to understand its contents especially that if the blood of Jesus is the source of our salvation, this very blood pulsating through the veins of Jesus flowed through the veins of Mary and from her through Him. Her devotion and her immaculate nature could not have been flawed to start with and certainly could not have been soiled after sharing the living blood of Christ. If it were, there would be no salvation at all from the spilling of this very same blood and their shared torment and suffering. I recommend you read that post also.

 

[justasking4]

AshleyBelle;4383633]Ja4…you have just proven something by your posts…

You seem to imply that living the Christian faith means you must be “learned” and “trained” in the Scriptures.

To mature in Christ knowledge of the Scriptures is essential.

That all catholics must know how to “back up” what they believe against your attacks…that all catholics must know exactly what their church teaches about everything you deem “wrong.”

I’m not the final judge here. However, if anyone claims to be in Christ and follow Him we are commanded to examine all things carefully as I Thes 5:21 exhorts us to. That examination must start with the Scriptures since they alone are inspired-inerrant Word of God.

But while learning the scriptures and knowing what your church teaches are all important and good… Christ demands a much more simple faith. He calls us to come as little children before Him.

True. This is the attitude of a child but not the naive mind of a child. We are to gounded in the faith that we might not be decieved, tricked by false teachings or taken captive by false philosophies.

The faithful catholic need not “know” anything more than love and devotion for Christ, obediently following His command to “eat of my flesh and drink of my blood.” And by this simple faith, they will indeed “have the word of eternal life” dwelling within them.

It may be enough to save you if you believe in Christ but unless you grow in the knowledge of Christ via the Scriptures and your walk with Him you will not be effective for His kingdom. Nor will you grow to maturity without knowledge of Him that is found in the Scriptures.

Why are you set on demanding more of us that Christ Himself?

i’m not even close to demanding what He did.Just read the Gospels and look at those passages where He demands you count the cost and give up everything to follow Him?

 

[sandusky]

MerickOWA:

This question is based on the FALSE premise that EVERYTHING must be in the Bible in order for it to be believed.

That’s a straw man.

MerickOWA:

Do we only know history of the American Civil War because of the Bible?

No.

MerickOWA:

Are ALL Truths contained in the Bible? Obviously NOT!

No.

MerickOWA:

Therefore it isn’t sufficient to prove that it isn’t in the Bible. YOU must prove that it CONTRADICTS the Bible.

You can’t prove the assumption of Mary from Scripture, can you?

MerickOWA:

Does the Bible tell us that holy people can not be assumed into heaven?

The question is, does the Bible tell us that Mary was assumed into heaven?

MerickOWA:

It is apparent from Genesis 5:24 and Hebrew 11:5 that Enoch was also assumed into Heaven. Elijah was as well.

Right.

MerickOWA:

So again, why MUST the Bible say that Mary was in order for it to be TRUTH?

Because it’s an addition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; therefore, it will be rejected by God’s true Church, IMO.

Furthermore, rejection of the dogma results in the unbiblical pronouncement that the rejector of the dogma forfeits salvation.

 

[AshleyBelle]

To mature in Christ knowledge of the Scriptures is essential.

I’m not the final judge here. However, if anyone claims to be in Christ and follow Him we are commanded to examine all things carefully as I Thes 5:21 exhorts us to.** That examination must start with the Scriptures since they alone are inspired-inerrant Word of God.
**

True. This is the attitude of a child but not the naive mind of a child. We are to gounded in the faith that we might not be decieved, tricked by false teachings or taken captive by false philosophies.

**It may be enough to save you if you believe in Christ but unless you grow in the knowledge of Christ via the Scriptures and your walk with Him you will not be effective for His kingdom. Nor will you grow to maturity without knowledge of Him that is found in the Scriptures. **

i’m not even close to demanding what He did.Just read the Gospels and look at those passages where He demands you count the cost and give up everything to follow Him?

So, “believing in Christ” and “growing in knowledge” are what He asks for us to be saved?

Even the demons believed. Are they saved?

What did paul say about the “wisdom” and “knowledge” of this world?

And what did the early Christians have to “grow in knowledge” of before they had the scriptures?

My point is that while YES it is good for us to study the scriptures and grow in knowledge and faith… ultimately none of that pales in comparison to simple, obedient, childlike faith.

You would have all Christians grow in knowledge of the Scriptures and MISS Christ Himself, present among us!

 

[cfrancis]

JA4,
In case you missed my last reply to you in #525

The question is, does the Bible tell us that Mary was assumed into heaven?

Because it’s an addition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; therefore, it will be rejected by God’s true Church, IMO.

Sandusky, this brings us back to my initial reply to you in #528.
The Scriptures make no claim to or definition of what constitutes Scripture. Is our belief in and acceptance of the canon of Scripture an “addition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ” and therefore must “be rejected by God’s true Church”?

 

[twb1621]

…

Again I offer you this post to consider;
Perhaps it would help to understand and to keep in mind not only that the “woman” spoken of in the OT was Mary in the prophecies but also that she was predestined to suffer the pain of the sword as prophesied by Simeon at the temple. This was the reason Jesus referred to her as “woman” at times referring her to those prophacies. In fact, if you make the Compression, Mary’s life was (although a difference in degrees) to parallel the life of Jesus right down to His passion and suffering yet she remained as silent in her suffering as Jesus in His. It is a fact recognized by all Christians that the Blood of Christ is the Blood of our salvation. Mary was born full of grace and created by God with purity to be the ark of the new covenant just as God directed the construction of the ark of the old covenant. Mary was even more precious because it would be the Son of God who she would carry.
But most importantly, it should not be difficult to understand that if the blood of Jesus is the source of our salvation, this very blood pulsating through the veins of Jesus flowed through the veins of Mary and from her through Him. Her devotion and her immaculate nature could not have been flawed to start with and certainly could not have been soiled after sharing the living blood of Christ. If it were, there would be no salvation at all from the spilling of this very same blood and their shared torment and suffering. In sharing such a parallel it would also be a logical expectation that Jesus would have wanted her assumption as well.

As far as scripture, It would also stand to reason that considering the persecution of Christians at that time, the Apostles would have been very protective of Mary in her remaining years avoiding writing or any public proclamations having to do with her that might be used against her in some way. The logical thought would be that information regarding her life and death and assumption was passed on through Sacred Tradition but kept protected until such a time it could more safely be revealed along with the location she was originally laid to rest before the assumption. (Theoretically)

Some excerpts to ponder;
64. “Through the prophets, God forms his people in the hope of salvation, in the expectation of a new and everlasting Covenant intended for all, to be written on their hearts. [Cf. Is 2:2-4 ; Jer 31:31-34 ; Heb 10:16 .] The prophets proclaim a radical redemption of the People of God, purification from all their infidelities, a salvation, which will include all the nations. [Cf. Ezek 3:6; Is 49:5-6; Is 53:11 .] Above all, the poor and humble of the Lord will bear this hope. Such holy women as Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Judith and Esther kept alive the hope of Israel’s salvation. The purest figure among them is Mary. [Cf. Ezek 2:3 ; Lk 1:38 .]”
148. “The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that ‘with God nothing will be impossible’ and so giving her assent: ‘Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be (done) to me according to your word.’ [Lk 1:37-38; cf. Gen 18:14.] Elizabeth greeted her: ‘Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.’ [Lk 1:45 .] It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed. [Cf. Lk 1:48.]”
273. “Only faith can embrace the mysterious ways of God’s almighty power. This faith glories in its weaknesses in order to draw to itself Christ’s power. [Cf. 2 Cor 12:9 ; Phil 4:13.] The Virgin Mary is the supreme model of this faith, for she believed that ‘nothing will be impossible with God’, and was able to magnify the Lord: ‘For he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.’ [Lk 1:37, 49.]”
487. “What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.”
490. “To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary ‘was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.’ [LG 56.] The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as ‘full of grace’. [Lk 1:28 .] In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.”
491. “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, ‘full of grace’ through God, [Lk 1:28 .] was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. [Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803.]”
catscans.com/catholicsite/mary.htm

 

[sandusky]

cfrancis:

Sandusky, this brings us back to my initial reply to you in #528.

The Scriptures make no claim to or definition of what constitutes Scripture.

And that would bring me back to my response to you in #529

cfrancis:

Is our belief in and acceptance of the canon of Scripture an “addition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ” and therefore must “be rejected by God’s true Church”?

On what basis do you consider the canon as an “addition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ?”

 

[MerickOWA]

Because it’s an addition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; therefore, it will be rejected by God’s true Church, IMO.

Furthermore, rejection of the dogma results in the unbiblical pronouncement that the rejector of the dogma forfeits salvation.

Is the idea of “Trinity” in the Bible? Seems this is an addition to what the Bible tells us. Perhaps this idea should also be rejected. Again, If the Bible does NOT contain all Truth. Why must we reject something just because it’s not clearly taught in the Bible.

There is indeed support for Mary’s assumption in the Bible. But not the kind of direct and “clearly understood” passage that you’re going to demand. Likewise, there is no direct or “clearly understood” passage regarding the Trinity. Oh sure there are passages which talk about the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is nowhere, however, where Jesus uses the words “Trinity” or even “Triune”. This is because it was a development and further explanation on Jesus’s teachings to help clarify the early heresies regarding the idea of the Trinity.

Support for Mary’s assumption is found first that it IS possible for saints who are very holy to be assumed into heaven. It is also shown that Mary was very holy and “full of grace” as the angel proclaimed her to have been (Note the bible used a past tense, not a present or future. It was something Mary already WAS.)

Mostly, however, we rely on the historical teaching of the Church for this fact. Knowing that is NOT contradictory and from whom it is taught, I still haven’t seen a valid reason why belief in Mary’s assumption is a false teaching.

 

[cfrancis]

And that would bring me back to my response to you in #529

On what basis do you consider the canon as an “addition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ?”

Your position is that we must find our beliefs in the Bible, eg, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (“Because it’s an addition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; therefore, it will be rejected by God’s true Church”).
And yet, you stated the canon you believe to be Scripture is not found in Scripture; in fact, the majority of NT writings claim neither inspiration nor inerrancy.
If I follow your logic, I must look for the canon (as well as any test to applied to writings to determine their canonicity) in Scripture.

 

[sandusky]

MerickOWA:

Is the idea of “Trinity” in the Bible?

Of course it is. From what do you think the doctrine was formulated? Thin air?

MerickOWA:

There is indeed support for Mary’s assumption in the Bible. But not the kind of direct and “clearly understood” passage that you’re going to demand. Likewise, there is no direct or “clearly understood” passage regarding the Trinity. Oh sure there are passages which talk about the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is nowhere, however, where Jesus uses the words “Trinity” or even “Triune”. This is because it was a development and further explanation on Jesus’s teachings to help clarify the early heresies regarding the idea of the Trinity.

There’s nothing in Scripture stating Mary’s bodily assumption, and much stating the doctrine of the Trinity.

MerickOWA:

Support for Mary’s assumption is found first that it IS possible for saints who are very holy to be assumed into heaven. It is also shown that Mary was very holy and “full of grace” as the angel proclaimed her to have been (Note the bible used a past tense, not a present or future. It was something Mary already WAS.)

Sigh…

MerickOWA:

Mostly, however, we rely on the historical teaching of the Church for this fact. Knowing that is NOT contradictory and from whom it is taught, I still haven’t seen a valid reason why belief in Mary’s assumption is a false teaching.

It’s not scriptural; therefore, it need not be believed, and certainly, it should carry no penalty for rejection of the dogma, but alas, the church, by her self-proclaimed authority, condemns anyone who rejects it.

 

[MerickOWA]

On what basis do you consider the canon as an “addition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ?”

If we were to use the Protestant argument that it MUST be in the Bible. The Early Church Fathers would have had to reject all the writings since they were written after the Septuagint, and no where did the Septuagint refer to the books of the new testament for proof that they should be included.

The Bible does NOT have a table of contents which tells you what should and shouldn’t be there. It was a bunch of “fallible men” who had to authenticate them. Jesus didn’t have a second coming in the mid 300s to let the Church know which books he had intended to be there. It was the Church and its Authority that decided which books should be there after many heresies suggested that particular or many writings weren’t inspired.

Your idea of sola scriptura would have lead the Church to reject any writings after Christ’s accent into heaven as “additions” to the “currently” held Scripture.