Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[zemi]

Justasking4,

we’re talking here about the Assumption, but it goes hand in hand with the tradition and infallibility of popes’ teaching…

I would strongly reccomend to you to read this link.

Big Jimmy Akin alone speaking here:

cin.org/users/james/files/papacy.htm

 

[Good_Fella]

part 2
You
This does not follow. Jesus, because He is God cannot lie. The church which is made up of fallen men, can lie and have lied at times.

Paul in Ephesians lays out the responsiblity of pastors who are to be teachers also.

I agree there was oral teaching going on by the apostles. However, the only teachings we have of the apostles is only found in the written NT. Its that we have to deal with.

What i reject are the false teachings of your church. These false teachings are not grounded in the scriptures but are the speculations of men. The Scriptures warned that there would be false teachings in the church. The marian dogmas are one manifestations of that.

Your making a category mistake when you say to reject the teachings of your church is to reject Christ. They are not the same thing. Jesus cannot lie because He is God and infallible. The church, which is made of fallen-sinful men can make mistakes. I’m here on this thread because the truth matters.

Your church can say this but it cannot support this with scripture. The scriptures clearly show otherwise.

I reject your church’ authority to always teach truthfully since it has been found to circumvent the Scriptures on a number of its teachings.

Haven’t you been reading any of the objections raised against your erroneous comments? You still keep repeating yourself insisting on “facts” leading all of us in a circle. I think you’ve had your say. Also, you are confusing true divine revelation with your fallible and erroneous opinions. It is obvious you have little understanding of the nature of the Bible and Church history. No individual like yourself has the divine authority to inerrantly and infallibly interpret the scriptures. According to the words of Jesus, that authority was conferred on Peter and his apostles and through them on their successors, the episcopacy of the Catholic Church. You and your denomination is in no position to challenge the teachings of the Catholic Church and its use of “her” Bible, not yours. Please read ‘The Early Church Was the Catholic Church’ by Kenneth D Whitehead for the true historical “facts”.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[zemi]

Are you also open to rethinking your position? I am if it can be shown from scripture that such a doctrine was taught there. Then i would be forced to agree with those who believe that she was assumed based on the scriptures.

I am open to that. That sounds fair when both of us agree on that. To make me rethink my position you would have to disprove what the Catholic Church teaches. One thing contrary to the Bible and I am seriously rethinking it. But that is for another thread.

Where does it say this is the Scripture? If you are thinking of 2 Thes 2:15 as a support for catholic traditions that won’t do because when you look at the context of that verse it says nothing about that.

Ok, thanx, that is a fair question. (but don’t post your comments here in order not to derail the thread)

e.g.
catholic.com/library/scripture_and_tradition.asp

That depends. If someone comes to me a says such a thing i will ask where in scripture. Secondly if they tell me to beleive some teaching of theirs i will ask for the scriptural support for the doctrine and practice. This is why it is absolutely important to know the scriptures well and compare all doctrines by it. This is the only way that will you not to be decieved by those who claim to speak by authority.

That was the question - if is was in the Scipture, that you should look also elsewhere (i.e. the what we now call the Tradition) would you follow it?

All Catholic doctrines stem from the Scripture and from the Tradition authority of which stems once again only and only from the Scripture. (remember, that e.g. the Gospels were handed down orally before written down).

PS: Please read the link about the Papacy from Jimmy Akin I provided somewhere above

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**Jay will maybe give you something as well

newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm**

Thanks for posting the article.
Pretty good article, esp pointing out the Feast’s beginnings in Palestine churches in 400s.

I dispute the author of the article’s contention that basis for belief in the fact of the Assumption is based on Transitus literature.
That is pure speculation on the author’s part. If this belief were unknown until the time of the Transitus literature, it would have caused a riot being introduced to the church. Novelties were always met with great and emphatic resistance by the Catholic church. The Ebionites, the Manicheans, the Arians, the Nestorians, they and their novelties were POUNCED on by the entire church as novelties and errors. If the Assumption were a novelty out of harmony with the centuries-old (by then) faith of the Catholic church, the notion of the Assumption would have been violently rejected. Some of today’s “scholars” need to be careful how they phrase things. Of course, the scholar who wrote the article on Saint Philomena for the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia wrote a disparaging and smart-alecky article about her in the Encyclopedia, and this at a time when the authorities of the Church, esp Pope St. Pius X were emphatically declaring the reality of her Sainthood and Martyrdom, so careless statements even in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia are nothing new.

I have in some of my books at home articles about the Feast of the Assumption, all of which agree it began in the eastern sectors of the Church (Palestine, Greece, Syria, etc.) in the 400s and was spread to the Western Church with not a whit of complaint or opposition, thus proving that it was in harmony with the ancient belief of the church as a whole. New beliefs aren’t assigned feasts in their honor, ever.

But the Transitus literature is NOT the “source” of the belief.
It is one of the earliest written statements of the fact of the belief, but that literature itself, though not 100% false, is not reliable literature and the reading of it was discouraged by the early popes, though not because of it’s mention of the Assumption.

The fact remains that not a soul in the Church of the 1st two centuries ever even bothered LOOKING FOR Mary’s remains, when they WERE collecting the remains of the other early Christian saints. That alone speaks volumes.

Jaypeeto4 ( at 12:35 in the morning and bleary eyed )
+JMJ+

 

[Good_Fella]

justasking4:
Since you are making the claim she was assumed into heaven, then you need to show in the scriptures where that is the case.
Do you happen to know when this “tradition” of her assumption was first mentioned and by whom?

Please read my Reply #268, since you’re still making the same demand. The Catholic Church has scriptural support for the dogma of the Assumption: 1 Kings and Revelation 12. If you still refuse to give your assent, although you are not Catholic, then I leave you in your errors. I would even find it hard to believe that you consider Jesus our Messianic King of the royal line of David.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[guanophore]

Since you are making the claim she was assumed into heaven, then you need to show in the scriptures where that is the case.
Do you happen to know when this “tradition” of her assumption was first mentioned and by whom?

Please read my Reply #268, since you’re still making the same demand. The Catholic Church has scriptural support for the dogma of the Assumption: 1 Kings and Revelation 12. If you still refuse to give your assent, although you are not Catholic, then I leave you in your errors. I would even find it hard to believe that you consider Jesus our Messianic King of the royal line of David.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Rejection of the teaching authority appointed by Jesus will always, sooner or later, result in error. If it is denial of the Theotokos, or denial of the divinity of Christ, or denial of the Sacred Tradition.

 

[Markway]

Well, none of the Early Church Fathers or doctors of the Church have said that Mary’s Assumption was heretical. The Church did condemn Gnostic Gospels that contain the death of Mary, and her assumption into heaven. That doctrine itself was not condemned. You cannot find a ECF saying that Mary assumed into heaven is heretical. You will find the Gnostic Gospel itself condemned.

The Catholic Church and the Orthodox honor Mary more than any other saint, because she is the only saint who have the closest relationship with Jesus Christ himself. For the first 30 yrs of Jesus’ life, Mary breast feed God, teach him obedience to the Law, read him Scripture, and much more. She gave Jesus everything that any mother would her own son.

Mary also remain faithful at the cross while all the others Apostles except John fled when Jesus was left hanging at the Cross. Mary is the great Exemplar of all Christians, and we should follow her since she is the first Christian. For without Mary’s consent. Jesus would not become flesh. I tell you my friend, Jesus’ flesh, blood, and bone is not from any man, but from that of a woman. That woman is Mary.

Second, since Catholics consider Mary as the Mother of the Church, we Catholics rightly call her Our Mother. Just as one of the Ten command says, “Honor your Mother and Your Father.”

Where is the Honor in Protestants who do not give honor to Jesus’ mommy? They don’t know what they are missing.

I respectfully submit that you have dodged the point.

We can get involved in the details. Being a jerk, I could point out that the Catholic Church does not properly honor Martin Luther. Without Martin Luther there would have been no Counter Reformation, and most Catholics would agree that the Counter Reformation was a good thing.

Trying to be a nicer guy I would say, “Okay, We non Catholics don’t honor Mary enough, but according to scripture she was a sinner and in need of salvation like the rest of us. It’s right there at the beginning of Romans.” I also don’t honor Stonewall Jackson or Nikola Tesla enough either. What does Mary have in common with the other two? They’re all dead sinners in need of a savior.

What alarms me is the current trend which seems to be heading for a new Trinity; Father, Mother and Baby Jesus.

I question supplication to “Super Saints” (as opposed to the rest of us Christians who are also saints), or to Mary, either of them. You can’t pray with them without first praying TO them. God hears our prayers, but if I pray to my sister she never hears it. I can’t get St Peter on the phone, so I have to pray TO him. This is not in the Bible. Now I know your position on sola scriptura, but if praying to dead people was encouraged by God, wouldn’t it show up in the Old Testament?

So honor the saints. Honor Mary. Revere their relics, name churches after them, mountains even, but pray to them? Can you find any place in scripture where a human prays to another human living or dead? Saul got in trouble trying this as I recall.

 

[LilyM]

I respectfully submit that you have dodged the point.

We can get involved in the details. Being a jerk, I could point out that the Catholic Church does not properly honor Martin Luther. Without Martin Luther there would have been no Counter Reformation, and most Catholics would agree that the Counter Reformation was a good thing.

Trying to be a nicer guy I would say, “Okay, We non Catholics don’t honor Mary enough, but according to scripture she was a sinner and in need of salvation like the rest of us. It’s right there at the beginning of Romans.” I also don’t honor Stonewall Jackson or Nikola Tesla enough either. What does Mary have in common with the other two? They’re all dead sinners in need of a savior.

What alarms me is the current trend which seems to be heading for a new Trinity; Father, Mother and Baby Jesus.

I question supplication to “Super Saints” (as opposed to the rest of us Christians who are also saints), or to Mary, either of them. You can’t pray with them without first praying TO them. God hears our prayers, but if I pray to my sister she never hears it. I can’t get St Peter on the phone, so I have to pray TO him. This is not in the Bible. Now I know your position on sola scriptura, but if praying to dead people was encouraged by God, wouldn’t it show up in the Old Testament?

So honor the saints. Honor Mary. Revere their relics, name churches after them, mountains even, but pray to them? Can you find any place in scripture where a human prays to another human living or dead? Saul got in trouble trying this as I recall.

With all respect, prayer is not at all the same thing as worship. It’s quite possible to pray to (ask) any person anything without worshipping them. The word is used even in conexts totally divorced from religion - in the play Hamlet Gertrude says to Hamelt ‘I pray, Hamlet, do not go to Wittenberg’.

In the US Supreme Court documents will typically ‘pray to’ the court to hear such and such a case or grant such and such a injunction or whatever. The section of the document where plaintiffs set out exactly what it is they’re seeking from the court is in fact entitled ‘Prayer for Relief’.

Do you think that any of this is an inappropriate way of me addressing you, Gertrude addressing her son or a plaintiff addressing the Supreme Court?

It’s not the mere fact that the heavenly saints are deceased that is the trouble - it can’t possibly be. After all, Moses (who definitely died) and Elijah (who likely didn’t) both appeared with and talked to Christ at the Transfiguration. If you think the living can’t communicate with the deceased take it up with Christ, not us, He taught us how!

And that’s the point - Christ tore down barriers. Not just between God and man, signified by the tearing of the veil in the Temple, but between the living and the dead members of His body.

WHY ELSE do you think it was noted in the Gospels that the dead rose from their graves and walked among the living (which sounds a lot like they communicated with the living to me) after the Crucifixion??? As a fun bit of drama? Or to show us that those who die righteous truly, as Christ himself said, DO NOT DIE BUT LIVE - are every bit as alive as you and I if not more.

As for a new Trinity - what the…? Do you think we make the sign of the cross in the name of Mary, instead of what we truly say, which is ‘in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit’? Do we offer the Mass to Mary? No - to the Father in Christ’s name Do our priests forgive sins, confirm people, and baptise, in Mary’s name? No - in the name of the Holy Trinity.

You have no concept of the Catholic scheme of things - where the Eucharist and other Sacraments take pride of place and are infinitely more significant than our mere daily prayers. And THOSE Eucharist and other sacraments, the most significant points of our faith life as Catholics - don’t mention Mary at all! How can you possibly imagine we unduly elevate Mary? Mere opinion.

And I’m sure Christ is pleased at any honour we pay to His mother for His sake - and all the honour we pay to her is for His sake, make no mistake about that.

 

[Good_Fella]

I respectfully submit that you have dodged the point.

So honor the saints. Honor Mary. Revere their relics, name churches after them, mountains even, but pray to them? Can you find any place in scripture where a human prays to another human living or dead? Saul got in trouble trying this as I recall.

The mystical body of Christ is one family in heaven and on earth united together as children of God the Father. And so our brethren who have gone to heaven before us are still part of our spiritual family. There cannot be a communion of saints if there is no union [Eph 3:14-15]. This family is in Christ, the head of the body, the Church[Eph 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col 1:18,24]. Death does not separate the family of God and the love of Christ; we are still united with each other even beyond death [Rom 8:35-39]. Jesus conversed with Moses and Elijah. The dead are more alive than you think and all part of one family [Mt 17:3; Mk 9:4]. God is the God of the living, not of the dead [Mt:22:32; Mk 12:27; Lk 20:38]. (“Those who believe in me will never die.”) We see in a mirror dimly, but in heaven we see face to face. The saints are more alive than we are [1Cor 13:12; 1 Jn 3:2]. We are surrounded by a great, glorious cloud of witnesses, our concerned family in heaven. We are not so separated as you wish to think [Heb 12:1] What bible have you been reading, or neglected to read?

We are a royal family of priests upon our baptism. We as priests intercede on behalf of each other in heaven or on earth [1 Pet 2:9; Rev 20:6]. Christ is the one mediator between God and man [1 Tim 2:5] but Paul urges supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings made for all people in a subordinate role of mediator [1Tim 2:1-2]. God invites us to participate in Christ’s work because we are God’s “fellow workers” and one family in the body of Christ [1Cor 3:9]. Do you have a problem with that? God works for good with those who love him Rom 8:28; Mk 16:20]. Is it that you don’t love God? Do not object to the idea of us being subordinate mediators. We are a holy priesthood, called to offer spiritual sacrifices to God. We are subordinate priests who participate in Christ’s work of redemption [1Pet 2:5] This is what Christianity is all about, or aren’t you a Christian? Indeed, Jesus made us a kingdom of priests for God; priests intercede through Christ on behalf of each other, God’s people [Rev 1:6; 5:10]. Are you telling us that you pray only for yourself? That would not be a charitable thing to do. You seem to have a problem with Catholics petitioning the saints. Well, the prayers of the “righteous” have a powerful effect [James 5:16; Prov 15:8,29]. This is why we ask for their prayers. The saints in heaven have much greater influence with Jesus than any of us Christians here on earth. The Mother of God has the greatest influence. Our Lord performed his first miracle on our behalf through her maternal intercession [Jn 2:5]. Scripture assures us that our Lord listens to his mother, so we turn to her for her intercessions on our own behalf and that of others. Elizabeth asked, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” [Lk 1:49] She comes to us because she immeasurably loves us. Yet you slander and demean the honour of our Lord’s mother -“dead sinner” indeed! What will you tell Jesus on the Day of Judgment, that you called his mother a “dead sinner” because of your love for him? [Mt 7:21-23]

We pray and intercede for each other because Jesus asks us to. He does ask us to pray for those who persecute us and to mediate on their behalf [Mt 5:44-45]. I take it you don’t listen to Jesus. Our Lord even encourages us to communicate with those who have left this world by setting an example [Mt 17:1-3; Mk 9:4; Lk 9:30-31]. Jesus even cried out for Elijah’s intercession as he hung from the cross [Mt 27:47,49; Mk 15:35-36].

There are so many more biblical passages in the Holy Bible that support Catholic belief and practice in intercessory prayer in the mystical body of Christ. Perhaps you should reopen your Bible and read it again, since you’re the one who most likely believes in ‘sola scriptura’. Forgive me if I sounded like a “jerk”. Pray for me.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[zemi]

To Markway,

I read just today this article concerning praying to saints, objections to it etc.

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9209fea1.asp

it is one of the best articles i’ve read on this topic.

God bless, nice reading

 

[Mannyfit75]

I respectfully submit that you have dodged the point.

We can get involved in the details. Being a jerk, I could point out that the Catholic Church does not properly honor Martin Luther. Without Martin Luther there would have been no Counter Reformation, and most Catholics would agree that the Counter Reformation was a good thing.

Martin Luther was a heretic and he had no right to break from the Church of Jesus Christ. We do not give him any honor for he was a selfish man. I won’t discuss him much further because he is not the person we are discussing here.

Trying to be a nicer guy I would say, “Okay, We non Catholics don’t honor Mary enough, but according to scripture she was a sinner and in need of salvation like the rest of us. It’s right there at the beginning of Romans.” I also don’t honor Stonewall Jackson or Nikola Tesla enough either. What does Mary have in common with the other two? They’re all dead sinners in need of a savior.

According to Scripture she wasn’t. Did not Mary said, “I am the Handmaid of the Lord, Be it done unto According to Your Word.”

Gabriel also called her Hail, full of grace. She was already saved from the moment of her conception.

Second, since when is God the God of the dead? He is the God of the Living not the dead. Any Christian who dies in Christ are alive in Him. Did not Jesus preached that, “whoever so believed in Him shall have eternal life?” Mary believed. She could have said, “No” when Gabriel told her that she was to conceived a bear a son.

It seem to me that you think Mary was not a believer. She was the First Christian. Without her, there would be no Jesus Christ in flesh.

What alarms me is the current trend which seems to be heading for a new Trinity; Father, Mother and Baby Jesus.

Well, apparently you are going by your OWN assumption because what you are stating here is Heretical, Mark. The Church does not proclaim that.

She proclaims that Trinity is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Do you dare preach lie that the Catholic does not profess? Apparently, you do.

I question supplication to “Super Saints” (as opposed to the rest of us Christians who are also saints), or to Mary, either of them. You can’t pray with them without first praying TO them. God hears our prayers, but if I pray to my sister she never hears it. I can’t get St Peter on the phone, so I have to pray TO him. This is not in the Bible. Now I know your position on sola scriptura, but if praying to dead people was encouraged by God, wouldn’t it show up in the Old Testament?

There is no super saints. Saints are holy people. They have already won the victory over sin and are thus rewarded in heaven with God. Since they are still a member of Mystical Body of Christ, we can still ask them to pray for us. In the Book of Revelation we have angels offering prayers to God.

So honor the saints. Honor Mary. Revere their relics, name churches after them, mountains even, but pray to them? Can you find any place in scripture where a human prays to another human living or dead? Saul got in trouble trying this as I recall.

As much as I like to discuss this topic, you apparently just want to derail the topic. This thread is about the Scriptural Basis for the Assumption. If you wish to discuss, veneration of the saints, then you better make a new Thread.

If you want Scriptural Reference go to Saints and Intercessory Prayer

 

[guanophore]

Without Martin Luther there would have been no Counter Reformation, and most Catholics would agree that the Counter Reformation was a good thing.

Yes, a good thing. I don’t agree with some Catholics on this board that villify Luther (who prayed his rosary daily, btw, and believed in the Assumption). However, God is able to preserve His Church, as He said, and He is able to correct our direction without the presence of rebellion.

Trying to be a nicer guy I would say, “Okay, We non Catholics don’t honor Mary enough, but according to scripture she was a sinner and in need of salvation like the rest of us. It’s right there at the beginning of Romans.” I also don’t honor Stonewall Jackson or Nikola Tesla enough either. What does Mary have in common with the other two? They’re all dead sinners in need of a savior.

Clearly you know neither the scriputures, nor the power of God. You are also misunderstanding Romans.

What alarms me is the current trend which seems to be heading for a new Trinity; Father, Mother and Baby Jesus.

The Catholic Church does not “head for trends”.

 I question supplication to "Super Saints" (as opposed to the rest of us Christians who are also saints), or to Mary, either of them. You can't pray with them without first praying TO them. God hears our prayers, but if I pray to my sister she never hears it. I can't get St Peter on the phone, so I have to pray TO him. This is not in the Bible. Now I know your position on sola scriptura, but if praying to dead people was encouraged by God, wouldn't it show up in the Old Testament?

It does, that is why Luther took out seven of the books. You clearly do not understand the Communion of Saints, either.

So honor the saints. Honor Mary. Revere their relics, name churches after them, mountains even, but pray to them? Can you find any place in scripture where a human prays to another human living or dead? Saul got in trouble trying this as I recall.

Saul did get into trouble for it, but you notice how Samual really did show up! Moses and Elijah really were there with Christ. When Peter got out of jail, he went to the house and they thought it was “his angel”, a spirit being that was identical to him in appearance, at the door. The Jews and early church knew that there was a communion of saints, and that communication with those who have passed over is possible. However, when you separate yourself from the apostolic authority which Jesus established, you will fall into all kinds of error.

 

[guanophore]

Martin Luther was a heretic and he had no right to break from the Church of Jesus Christ. We do not give him any honor for he was a selfish man. I won’t discuss him much further because he is not the person we are discussing here.

Mannyfit, dear brother! Take some deep breaths! Of course Luther has a “right” to reject Jesus! Even while Jesus was on earth, He preached and 'some mocked, some scoffed, and some believed". When they could not accept HIs teaching He allowed them to walk away.

According to Scripture she wasn’t. Did not Mary said, “I am the Handmaid of the Lord, Be it done unto According to Your Word.”

She also said “My soul rejoices in God my Saviour”. I don’t know if Mary understood the Immaculate Conception until after her death, or if she understood how a male was drawn from her body, since it is the male who contributes the male gene. But she did know she had been saved. The Church teaches us that the merits of Christ’s sacrifice were applied to her in advance, so that she could be made a pure vessel, consecrated to Himself.

Gabriel also called her Hail, full of grace. She was already saved from the moment of her conception.

But DID need a saviour.

It seem to me that you think Mary was not a believer. She was the First Christian. Without her, there would be no Jesus Christ in flesh.

It turns out that justasking and CWT believe a number of things that were not part of the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles.

Well, apparently you are going by your OWN assumption because what you are stating here is Heretical, Mark. The Church does not proclaim that.

Mark does not understand about the Nestorian heresy, I don’t think.

She proclaims that Trinity is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Do you dare preach lie that the Catholic does not profess? Apparently, you do.

You know yourself people get on here all the time, and accuse Catholics of what they think we believe, not knowing any better.

There is no super saints. Saints are holy people. They have already won the victory over sin and are thus rewarded in heaven with God. Since they are still a member of Mystical Body of Christ, we can still ask them to pray for us. In the Book of Revelation we have angels offering prayers to God.

I think there are. Scripture teaches us that there is a great variety of personal sanctification, some are crowned with Glory and Honor because of their great holiness, while others barely escape the flames! In any case, there is no one else with Mary’s special status.

As much as I like to discuss this topic, you apparently just want to derail the topic. This thread is about the Scriptural Basis for the Assumption. If you wish to discuss, veneration of the saints, then you better make a new Thread.

Good point.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Mannyfit, dear brother! Take some deep breaths! Of course Luther has a “right” to reject Jesus! Even while Jesus was on earth, He preached and 'some mocked, some scoffed, and some believed". When they could not accept HIs teaching He allowed them to walk away.

Martin Luther should have seek to reconcil issue with the CC not rebel against it. As history show, he rebel and started the false doctrine of Protestantism. Something too alien or foreign to even Early Christians.

She also said “My soul rejoices in God my Saviour”. I don’t know if Mary understood the Immaculate Conception until after her death, or if she understood how a male was drawn from her body, since it is the male who contributes the male gene. But she did know she had been saved. The Church teaches us that the merits of Christ’s sacrifice were applied to her in advance, so that she could be made a pure vessel, consecrated to Himself.

I do not deny that fact. Mary does need a savior and God preserve her from original sin and preserve her from commiting actual sin. It is God’s grace that have preserved her. Henceforth, Mary said, “My soul rejoices in God, My Savior.”

But DID need a saviour.

She was saved from the moment of her conception by God. She is saved.

It turns out that justasking and CWT believe a number of things that were not part of the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles.

There are many things in Protestantism that aren’t a part of the teaching of Jesus Christ either.

Mark does not understand about the Nestorian heresy, I don’t think.

He should learn and I recommend reading newadvent.org.

You know yourself people get on here all the time, and accuse Catholics of what they think we believe, not knowing any better.

We are here to educate them in Catholic 101 Course.

I think there are. Scripture teaches us that there is a great variety of personal sanctification, some are crowned with Glory and Honor because of their great holiness, while others barely escape the flames! In any case, there is no one else with Mary’s special status.

Mary is above any other Saint. Jesus spend the majority of his time with his Mother before his ministry, that is 30 yrs with his mother.

Good point.

When Protestants come here thinking they know what we believe often derail the topic. We Catholics also make the same mistakes. We should try to keep the topic on the tracks.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Can you find any place in scripture where a human prays to another human living or dead? Saul got in trouble trying this as I recall.

Every time you speak to a person - even a living person - you are praying to them, especially if you are asking them a question.
All the word prayer literally means is to speak to, or enquire of, another person. “What, pray tell, do you mean?” was a common question in earlier times. Prayer does NOT equal WORSHIP, and that is where our separated brethren get confused.
When THEY pray, they intend to WORSHIP, so they ONLY “pray” (they think) to God. But every time they ask another living Christian to pray to God for them, they are in fact asking (praying to) that other living Christian, asking him or her to intercede with God for him. That is all we Catholics do when we “pray” to the Saints in glory. We are NOT worshiping them, we are begging them for their intercession.
For the persevering prayer of a righteous person is powerful with God, and the Christians in Heaven with Jesus are most definitely Righteous. Hence, their prayers for us are extremely beneficial.

King Saul was not “praying” to the Prophet Samuel.
He went to the Witch of En-Dor to get her to summon Samuel up out of Hades and into our realm of existence. That was necromancy, completely forbidden and condemned by the Word of God. We Catholics do NOT do that, EVER. Necromancy is extremely dangerous because most often the “spirit” who shows up will NOT be the soul of the dead human, but a demon spirit.
The Witch of EnDor knew this too, that is why when Samuel was actually allowed by God to show up, she screamed in terror because she knew that this being, Samuel, was NOT her Familiar Spirit.

Praying TO the dead was generally not at all done in Old Testament times. This is because people were unsure of the state of the dead. Some believed their souls to be conscious, many believed their souls to be unconscious. We Christians know, however, that Christ “harrowed Hades” at his Resurrection and took all the souls of the Just Ones into heaven and into the Beatific Vision with him. Since the Resurrection, all the souls of the Just are either in purgatory for a time, or else go directly to Heaven and enjoy the full beatific Vision, through which their powers of soul are VASTLY enhanced. Though they are not “omniscient,” they DO see things through the vision of God and that is how they can know of our requests for them. Their love, their charity, is even greater in Heaven’s perfection than it was here. Their charity impels them to pray for us, especially if we take the time to ask them to. They know we aren’t worshiping them and that we don’t believe that they are Gods. They are our glorified family, and they pray for those of us down here still struggling against the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. They love us and are happy to help obtain our requests IF our requests are in harmony with the Holy Will of God.

Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[guanophore]

Martin Luther should have seek to reconcil issue with the CC not rebel against it. As history show, he rebel and started the false doctrine of Protestantism. Something too alien or foreign to even Early Christians.

I am not defending what he did, only his right to do so. God created us with free will, so we can rebel if we want. You stated he had “no right”, but he does! He has the same right given to Lucifer! But in his rebellion, he never denied the Marian doctrines.

 I do not deny that fact. Mary does need a savior and God preserve her from original sin and preserve her from commiting actual sin.  It is God's grace that have preserved her. Henceforth, Mary said, "My soul rejoices in God, My Savior."

Ok, maybe I misunderstood, I thought you said that scripture indicated she did not.

 She was saved from the moment of her conception by God. She is saved.  There are many things in Protestantism that aren't a part of the teaching of Jesus Christ either.

Verily.

 He should learn and I recommend reading newadvent.org.

Perhaps he is learning through this debate? Several good references have been given to articles here. I think, though, after reading the last post that he thinks Catholicism is “rubbish”.

Mary is above any other Saint.  Jesus spend the majority of his time with his Mother before his ministry, that is 30 yrs with his mother.

Don’ t you wonder what they talked about?

When Protestants come here thinking they know what we believe often derail the topic. We Catholics also make the same mistakes. We should try to keep the topic on the tracks.

Perhaps their misunderstanding of what we believe IS the topic? Markway clearly does not understand the nature of the Trinity or the Incarnation, and is stuck back there in the third century with Nestorius!

I moved one of his posts to a new thread called “hoary old chestnut”.

 

[justasking4]

QUOTE]

If you were one of the Gospel authors, why would you include the Assumption of Mary, when you would first have to convince people that Jesus had actually risen from the dead and ascended into heaven?

It seems you are assuming that:
1- she was assumed
2- the writers were aware of this but did not mention it.
The problem is that if this is what you are saying then why did it take centuries before this is even mentioned? Take for example this quote from a catholic scholar:
“[Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it …’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary.” This quote, from a catholic source is should be enough to show that were not dealing with any scriptural or historical support.[/COLOR]

Mary’s Assumption is not necessary for our salvation, but salvifically sufficient, for her Assumption points towards the promise of our own future Resurrection from the dead.

 

[guanophore]

It seems you are assuming that:
1- she was assumed

No, it is not an assumption. It is an article of our faith, handed down to us by the Apostolic Succession.

2- the writers were aware of this but did not mention it.

I am not at all sure that any of the writers would be. The most likely is John, who wrote last, after she actually departed, and he does include a reference. It is likely most of the other NT documents were completed prior to her dormition.

The problem is that if this is what you are saying then why did it take centuries before this is even mentioned?

There was no reason for anyone to argue about it, since it was accepted by all.

The scriptures never make such a claim about her in this regards. It is Christ alone Who points us towards the resurrection.

There are two errors in this statement. The first is Sola Scriptura, the second is that Christ does not expect all of us to share in his earthly ministry. Virtually ALL the NT documents point toward the resurrection.

We may not question why God does or does not do something but we most certainly must question church leaders especially when they don’t adhere to the scriptures.

You can question all you want, but you will continue to fall short of the truth as long as you reject the Source of the truth.

i don’t see how you can infer something when there are no facts to support it with.There is no verse in scripture that even alludes to her assumption.

This is an act of faith. How did people believe what Jesus said, when he said He would give them the sign of Jonah. There were no “facts” to support it! There were no scriptures! Blessed is the one who has not seen, and yet believes.

This thread looks like a circular argument because those that believe in the assumption of Mary continually appeal to the catholic authority to do proclaim such a thing instead of admitting that the Scriptures do not in fact make no such claims as her being kept from sin, prayed to and assumed into heaven.

I think I said at the beginning of the thread that the assumption did not have a scriptural basis. Since we have the Sacred Tradition, and are not limited to the written word, that is not a problem for us.

i don’t recall who wrote something about me being somehow in league with Satan but to do such a thing is a serious matter and one that cannot be supported by what i have commented throughout these formns. i’m a sinner just like all of us but saved in Christ.

Rebellion against the authority instituted by Christ does not necessarily put one in league with Satan, just at extreme risk. I did not say anything about Satan. I said you were in league with Nestorious.

 

[zemi]

justasking4;2405363:

It seems you are assuming that:
1- she was assumed
2- the writers were aware of this

but did not mention it.

Oh, you seem to be certain she was not assumed. But that is what’s in the question isn’t it? This way you’re only begging the question.

The problem is that if this is what you are saying then why did it take centuries before this is even mentioned? Take for example this quote from a catholic scholar:
“[Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it …’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary.” This quote, from a catholic source is should be enough to show that were not dealing with any scriptural or historical support.[

Your quote won’t do.Here’s why:

1. As your excerpt I assume was taken from an anti-catholic website (most probably christiantruth.com/assumption.html

) I find it very suspicious to quote that one phrase without the context. Do YOU know the context of that passage? I would appreciate to see it. Have you?

1. You argue about “long” the time span when accounts about Mary’s assumption started to crop up. Now, tell me. Who is closer on the timeline - Church Fathers any other scholar we mention here? Why aren’t the Church Fathers an authority to you?
2. If you are presenting us with other scholar’s quotes (without any context) and wanting us to accept it as a “proof”, would you be also fair to accept what “your” side has to say to it?:

*The Lutheran Pastor and scholar, Charles Dickson, notes that"the feast [of the Assumption] celebrated by the Church on August 15, dates from the 4th century, when numerous festivals honoring our Lady were common practise." The history of Church feast demonstrates these celebrations grew from beliefs that existed long before the festivals themselves were formally inaugurated. “Interestingly enough, the 16th century Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, included this feast on a list of liturgical celebrations that should, in his words, ‘be observed among Evangelical Catholics as a sign of continuity and order.’” *

(Charles Dickson, A Protestant looks at Mary, pp. 83-84)
(scborromeo.org/papers/assume.PDF)

PS: it seems to me you are ignoring the facts that were presented here to you.
[/quote]

 

[Jaypeeto4]

i don’t see how you can infer something when there are no facts to support it with.There is no verse in scripture that even alludes to her assumption.

That is purely your opinion that no verse in scripture even alludes to her assumption.

There are several verses which, taken together, point in that direction. Now, if you are demanding a verse that says directly,
“Mary’s body was assumed into heaven.”, all of us will concede that such a verse is not found in the NT scriptures.
You approach the scriptures in a hyper-literal, fundamentalistic manner. We Catholics do not. We look at types and antitypes, polyvalent symbols, spiritual themes running throughout scripture, etc., before coming to our conclusions. You treat the Bible as if it was written in the form of a Catechism. We do not. Because the Bible was not written in the form of a Catechism. Some truths not directly STATED in scripture, can be deduced from a prayerful study of scripture. The assumption of Mary is one of those truths. The assumption was not invented by the popes of Rome. It is, apart from a traditional belief, a theological conclusion based on prayerful study of the scriptures by many, many fine and competent scripture scholars, much more competent than me – or even you…

I am firmly convinced that scripture supports the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. You are not. You are entitled to your opinion. But don’t arrogantly come in here and accuse us of not adhering to the scriptures because we come to a different conclusion than you do on this matter. Who anointed YOU the final interpreter of the meaning of scripture???

Our pastors and bishops do adhere to the scriptures.
And, as far as the New Testament is concerned, it was Catholic Bishops who ***decided WHICH ***books and letters would be considered as “inspired Scripture” to begin with, long before the first fundamentalist protestant was a wicked gleam in his daddy’s eye.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+