Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[IronHammer]

we can speculate all we want. The fact of the matter is that Jesus never established such a thing. If He did, there would be no need for a warning about false teachers.

Does not your church [believe] that the scriptures are indeed inspired-inerrant?

Of course, they do. But your church is the one that has arrived at the notion that only the scriptures are inspired/inerrant.

The scriptures tell us that truth, indeed all truth, even over and above scripture, is grounded in the Church, not scripture. (1 Tim 3:15).
You missunderstand this verse. Its not about the Scriptures being grounded in the church.

I understand the verse perfectly. The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth. What is Scripture if not Truth? The Church upholds and protects the Truth, both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, from false teachers. It cannot possibly do that if it were capable if falling into error.

The real question then becomes, what Church is this that is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth?*
That’s a good question. Now, since the roman catholic church did not exist then, what church is it?

You actually think the Catholic Church didn’t begin with Peter and the Apostles? Very curious indeed. I’d love to go into this one but this is for another thread and another time.

These are all bad arguments based on the flawed notion that all Truth is only in scripture.*
You misunderstand what i’m saying. I’m asking catholics for scriptural support for the marian claims. I never said all “Truth” is found in scripture.

That is exactly what you have been saying all along! That Scripture alone is sufficient to guide us in matters of faith and morals. You, on the basis of Sola Scriptora, believe we need no Authority to settle disputes about doctrine. Who, then, do you propose should settle them? Obviously, we humans can’t do it or there wouldn’t be thousands of different non-catholic denominations! Do you actually believe Jesus would leave us without a way to resolve doctrinal truths from untruths?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yet the fact that Catholics have a scriptural basis for our belief can be no less valid than your own so-called case in opposition. Because most protestants/n-Cs hold to some form of Sola Scriptura, which is itself an unscriptural doctrine, that means that Catholics will continue to reject most n-C teachings which are based upon that fundamental error in doctrine.I rest my case.

As for Marian doctrines, there is ample scripture to support them as has been shown many times in teachings from the Church.

If you are frustrated with Catholics for holding to their faith, then perhaps you should understand that your arguments are badly flawed from the outset.

Well said, Michael.

 

[guanophore]

Its found in the nature of what the Scriptures are. Only they are inspired-inerrant and have their source in God.

The question was not whether nor not they were inspired, or their source was in God. The Catholic church already established that two millenia ago. What I asked you to do was to show me the scripture that states it is the sole authority. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. And those inspired inerrant words were never meant to be separated from the inspired-inerrant Sacred Tradition from which they were produced.
justasking4;2407261:

Do you all that your Magesterium has taught, done and approved was guided by the Holy Spirit?

If it was not, then Jesus lied to us.

Quote:
How is it you can accept that decision of the Magesterium, since you reject their authority?
I reject any authority or individual that does base its claims on the Scriptures. Each doctrine and practice is to be tested by the Scriptures.

You did not answer the question. It was the authority of the magesterium that validated the scriptures that you are placing as the highest authority. If you accept the testimony of the magesterium to infallibly collect, define, and preserve the canon, how come you can 't accept their decisions on the Assumption of Mary?

The fact of the matter is that Jesus never established such a thing. If He did, there would be no need for a warning about false teachers.

This is an erroneous conclusion. Jesus did establish an infallible authority. People that refuse to accept it fall into error.

And it is your assumption since it is not scriptural.

It is recorded in scripture that Jesus appointed infallible authority. You have also not yet demonstrated from scripture that it claims to be the only source of authority.

You missunderstand this verse. Its not about the Scriptures being grounded in the church.

Really? What do YOU think it is about? Don’t you realize that the church existed for decades before anything was written at all?

That’s a good question. Now, since the roman catholic church did not exist then, what church is it?

There is only one church. Jesus did not found “a bunch of denominations”. On Peter He founded His Church. Only one. One Body. One faith. One Lord. One Head of the Body.

Good question. There are other questions and issues to consider with this.

You should probably start a new thread for that.

You misunderstand what i’m saying. I’m asking catholics for scriptural support for the marian claims. I never said all “Truth” is found in scripture.

Yes you have, repeatedly throughout this thread. You have stated consistently that you will accept no evidence that is not found in scripture. You have rejected the author of that scripture, and the only appointed source of interpretation of that scripture.

 

[guanophore]

What evidence is the Magesterium giving you? Can you give me a couple of examples?

Are you REALLY interested in this? Or are you just throwing out another fly trap?

Lets see what the Magesterium gives in evidence before you jump to conclusion.

You have already said in advance it is rejected!

Jesus did love her. However to save her from corruption is another matter. For that there is no evidence.

Why should it be?

True He loved her and died for her. However, this is not evidence that she was assumed.

The Catholic Church teaches that all who have died in Christ will be raised with Him. If He did not wish to wait until the Last Day to take His mother, why does that offend you?

What makes you say this?

You have denied the Theotokos, which means you deny that Mary is the Mother of god. You seemed to indicate that Jesus spoke only of His own resurrection, and not that of anyone else! Do you not believe that Jesus intends to raise us all?

Good. Now where did He say He would preserve her from death?

I think it might have been a secret!

God can raise the dead. However, what needs to be shown is “did He preserve Mary from corruption and death”? That has not been done.
justasking4;2407383:

It seems a bit arrogant to require this from God, but I guess that is between you and Him. I hope you get your need met.
justasking4;2407383:

Am i correct in understanding that its not the evidence for these things that convinces you but that your authority says its true and that is enough even without the scriptural support?

Yes, faith, the evidence of things not seen. I personally do not find a convincing arguement for the Marian doctrines in the scriptures. Jesus appointed His Apostles, and taught them everything. They passed on their authority to teach to their successors. Jesus promised that He would preserve the Teaching in all truth. I believe that Jesus did not lie, and that the gates of hell have not prevailed, and I believe the HS is preserving the Teachings.

How do you are not being decieved by these doctrines if they are not taught in Scripture and that all men can err?

They are not the teachings of men.

 

[Good_Fella]

justasking4:
Please do not object to what I said by misquoting me or stating something that I did not say. I never said that the Assumption “points towards the resurrection” but rather that it “points towards the promise of our future resurrection.” Mary’s Assumption confirms that all of us who sleep in Christ will rise with him on the Last Day. This is what St.Paul assures us in his text.

This is what Epiphanius actually said in 370AD: “Let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she was buried or not buried…Scripture is absolutely silent on Mary’s earthly end because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy, in order not to shock the minds of men…Neither do I maintain that she died.” Epiphanius clearly believes in the Assumption, as did most Christians by this time. He is not rejecting this event because there is no record of it in the scriptures. He believes if Mary had actually died, her death would have been recorded in the scriptures. And He speaks of an “extraordinary nature of the prodigy” which can only allude to her Assumption. Epiphanius is also suggesting that the New Testament authors intentionally omitted Mary’s Assumption because the news would create a great shock in Palestine, where at the time the apostles were facing much oppostion against their claims of Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension. News of the Assumption would have seriously impeded their commission from Christ by damaging the credibility of their claims of an empty tomb. Jesus did command them to preach about him and his teachings. We can imagine what the sceptical Jews would have said: “What, now his mother, too?” What the Blessed Virgin Mary told St.Bridget of Sweden about her Assumption confirms what Epiphanius feared.

It is obvious that the Christians in Palestine believed in Mary’s Assumption, since they must have been aware of her empty tomb. As I already said, and in case you are unaware of this historical fact, “St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451AD), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wanted to possess the body of ‘The Mother of God’, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb when opened, upon the request of St.Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia) They had witnessed the Ascension, and they did honour the Mother of their Lord and Master, so their conclusion is understandable. Epiphanius must have been aware of this belief, which would have definitely spread through Christendom from the time of the Apostles. He did have them in mind when he conjectured about the omittance of the Assumption in their writings. The 5th century Apocrypha about Mary’s Dormition is based on this long-standing prevalent belief originating in Apostolic time. (Reply #119) By the way, why would St. Thomas want to open the tomb of Mary, if not to venerate her remains? (Reply #209)

Pope Pius Xll naturally ignored the Apocrypha when he promulgated the Fourth Marian Dogma in 1950. The infallible teachings of the Church are grounded on the Deposit of Faith: Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. Belief in the Assumption had grown more visible and strengthened through the course of the Patristic period soon after the Roman persecutions had come to an end and the Christological doctrines had been solemnly defined, as opposed to the challenging heretical beliefs which almost destroyed the Church completely. As with the Church’s solemn definitions concerning the person of Christ and the nature of the Holy Trinity, all the Marian dogmas are based on Sacred Scriptures. Pope Pius Xll did not merely speculate; nor did he misinterpret the Bible when he promulgated the Apostolic Constitution ‘Munificentissimus Deus’. (Please see my Reply #207 and #268; also Reply#31, from ‘Did Our Blessed Mother Die?’) I will continue below. I cannot quote you because of your red ink. Are you supposed to be Jesus speaking?

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Markway]

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

You seem to have removed the exclusivity of your priesthood, but have not directed any comments or scripture towards praying to dead people., or to creating a new member of the Trinity.

 

[Good_Fella]

You seem to have removed the exclusivity of your priesthood, but have not directed any comments or scripture towards praying to dead people., or to creating a new member of the Trinity.

I am speaking of the ‘common priesthood’ of the baptised laity. The ‘ministerial’ priesthood embodied in the sacrament of Holy Orders was instituted by Christ himself at the Last Supper, according to Catholic belief since the early Church, and is distinct from the common priesthood in its sacred ministerial capacity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church will teach you everything you want to know about this vocational sacrament with scriptural support.

I think I made it clear that Catholics do not pray to the dead, but only to the living, whether they are in heaven or on earth. Didn’t you read the scriptural verses I cited above?

We haven’t added any new member to the Trinity. You’re imagining things.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Markway]

And where is THAT in Scripture? That the scriptures are the only inspired-inerrant word of God?

What about the ‘many things’ Jesus (THE Word which contains and surpasses all mere written words) said that John admits weren’t and couldn’t be recorded? Was ANYTHING he said not inerrant? Not inspired by the Holy Spirit?

What about the words the Apostles spoke at Pentecost? Were all of THOSE words recorded? Highly unlikely - they didn’t know they were gonna speak and didn’t make sure to have a bunch of scribes handy to get every word down. Weren’t they nonetheless inspired-inerrant?

What about the words your own pastor says, do you honestly think he never speaks under inspiration and is thus inerrant when he does? And if not what the heck are you wasting your time listening to him for, you’d do just as well on your own!

You’re right to point out that all of Christianity or inspiration is not contained in scripture. But then where does it stop? In the works of Joseph Smith? How about Martin Luther, I like that. Other suggestions?

 

[guanophore]

, or to creating a new member of the Trinity.

This is absurd. When Enoch walked with God, and was not found anymore on the Earth, did he become God?! When Elijah was taken up, did he become God? Is Moses, since he appeared to Christ now God? We are all creatures, as is Mary. Resurrection does not “cause” people to become God! Such nonsense.

You’re right to point out that all of Christianity or inspiration is not contained in scripture. But then where does it stop? In the works of Joseph Smith? How about Martin Luther, I like that. Other suggestions?

The need for Sacred Tradition will stop when Jesus comes again on the clouds to judge the living and the dead. The better question to ask is, where did it start? Jesus commissioned His apostles, and they commissioned others to take their place. They passed on to them the authority to bind and loose, given to them by Jesus. THe key of David is passed to each new Pope.

 

[guanophore]

Boy! I’ve been reading over the thread, and my minds whirling.

I looked on the net and THEY linked the start of the tradition to a pagan festival of some goddess being lifted into heaven. The article said that the festival became confused with Mary as they were converted, and the festival continued much as festivals have in England and elsewhere that go back thousands of years. The idea picked up steam, etc. etc and pretty soon it’s dogma.

Who are “they”? Why would you look to Pagans to define what the CC teaches and believes?

Whatever method Mary used to get to Heaven, I’m sure that she’s there, the method seems immaterial, except that it seems to be one of the foundation stones for the “Cult of Mary”, with people praying to her instead of God etc

You implied that you came here to learn, but you are just putting forth your prejudices. It really does matter how she got there, because rejecting the teaching of the Church is rejecting the teaching of Christ, who annointed the Apostles.

You are also suffering from a common thinking error regarding the intercession of Mary. People who ask for Mary’s intercession don’t “pray to her instead of God”. She has died, and her life is hidden with Christ, in God. She is not separate from Him. That is like me taking your hand and saying will you pray for me, and you thinking I am praying to you instead of God.

 

[Good_Fella]

justasking4:
Justasking4: A Roman Catholic writer concedes that “there is clearly no historical evidence for the Assumption of Mary.”

Good Fella : The true Christian Faith is not based on historical evidence but on Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium. This Roman Catholic writer must have given his ‘sacred assent’ to the teachings of Pope Pius Xll, or else he would no longer be a Roman Catholic writer to exploit in favour of your bias. If fundamentalist Protestantism relies on historical evidence, then forget about believing in the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus - and of being a true Christian faith.

Justasking4: “For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end.” (Roman Catholic writer who has assented to belief in Mary’s Assumption, or else he would no longer be a Roman Catholic writer)

Good Fella : I take it you mean that the Catholic Church’s belief in the Assumption is false because there is no historical mention of it until 370AD with Epiphanius’ declaration of belief in it. If that is so, then, according to your reasoning, the Protestant movement must be false, for there is no historical record of it until 1500 years after the time of the Apostles. For centuries in the Church there is “complete silence” about the Protestant Reformation!

Justasking4: There is no scriptural evidence for the Assumption of Mary.

Good Fella : There is no scriptural evidence for Protestantism. But there is ‘implicit’ scriptural evidence for the Assumption of Mary. Many divine truths are implicit in both Sacred Scriptures and sacred Tradition, which only Christ fully knows for a time being. A major Protestant error in thinking is that the only truths in the scriptures are those which are immediately apparent. But it is far from apparent in the Gospels that Jesus would either establish his (One?) Church fifteen hundred years later or abandon it at that time so that Luther can be the father of a divided religious movement.

I shall continue below. I’m justifiably angry now!

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

OF COURSE we do!!! Just as you might pass on to your children things that your grandparents or parents taught you, the Apostles passed these unwritten words of Christ on to their followers.

Do you happen to know exactly what these unwritten words were passed on?

We have examples of this chain of authority with the Apostle John, who taught Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna, who either orally or in written form passed on this knowledge. In the Didache, which is pretty much contemporaneous with the book of Revelation and written by those taught by the same Apostles. And in many other places.

If you look at this kind of thing in Scripture you will see that the apostles are not passing on to others their apostleship.

 

[IronHammer]

Do you happen to know exactly what these unwritten words were passed on?

It is called Sacred Tradition. Something you don’t believe in. Things like, how we must conduct ourselves during Mass, how to protect the truth of His Gospel. How the Family of God is so much more than just a ‘Me and my friend Jesus’ theology. Sacred Tradition is a continuation of the Judaic Tradition (seat of Moses) but with the new light shed on them by Jesus Himself.

WHY ON EARTH do you listen to him then? Why be led by someone as fallible and errant as yourself?
Huh? When you hear a homily from a priest do you consider what he is saying to be infallible and inspired?

Of course the priest isn’t infallible. What a priest says during his homily must be in harmony with what the Church teaches, which IS infallible and inerrant.

Do you think Jesus intended for us all to be forever groping around in the darkness? Or do you think along with His truth He gave us also a sure way of knowing and discerning that truth?
He gave us a number of things to guide us. The Scriptures in which we are to know very well, pastor- teachers who are to teach us the scriptures and the Holy Spirit. All 3 must be in harmony if we are being truly guided. The problem with the marian doctrines is that they lack the scriptural support and are out of harmony with the Spirit.

The problem with what you say here is that these pastors/teachers that are outside the Catholic Church are definitely NOT in harmony with each other on important points of salvation/doctrine. The marian doctrines do NOT contradict scripture and thus are not out of harmony with the Spirit.

(And don’t say the Scriptures is that method - they didn’t exist in their fulness for the first century of Christianity, nor did He directly command them to be written nor is it ever indicated that they be relied upon to the exclusion of all else).
Not so. We know for example that the OT scriptures were already in existence and we also know that the letters of Paul were being passed around the churches.There was quite a lot copying of the works of the apostles i.e. NT in these early centuries.

He is right. The Scriptures didn’t exist in their fullness and weren’t complete. In fact, several documents were used by the early church (as attested by the Early Fathers) as inspired which never made it into the Canon. The writings of the early church were not dependable until the Catholic church was forced to canonize them, discarding some as uninspired or in error.

continued below…

 

[IronHammer]

Continued from above…

What do you think Jesus meant when He promised to lead His church into all truth?
When you look at the context for this in John 16:12-13 He is specifically speaking to His disciples who would later write much of the NT. That’s why Paul can say in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declare that the scriptures are adequate.

Firstly, I agree that Jesus was referring to His disciples, few of which would go on to author the NT, but were nevertheless the seeds of His church. They NEEDED the fullness of truth to fulfill His decree to go forth and baptize all nations. Secondly, and more importantly, the text of 2 Tim 3:16 never says that scripture is adequate. They are many things but not adequate. Besides, this refers to the Old Testament not the fullness of the Gospel we have now so it can’t be adequate.

That necessitates that either some individual or organisation apart from Christ himself (since the Church ISN’T the same thing as Christ himself) possesses all truth - or at least all truth that we humans are capable of comprehending.
I would agree to a point. I suspect we would both agree that this would include the scriptures. However we must also keep in mind that false teachers would also come into the church itself and decieve many with their false doctrines. So how do we determine what a true teaching is apostlolic with a false one?

Good question. My bet is the Magesterium of the Church.

Who is that individual or that organisation in your estimation? Or did you just never think about what these words of Christ actually mean???
No doubt the church has the responsiblity to teach the truths of Christ. The church has the responsiblity to proclaim the Word. However there is no guarantee that this would always be done. We know for example as i’ve said previously that false teachers would come into the church itself and lead people astray.

We do have a guarantee. Christ promised that He would send a helper that would lead His apostles into all truth. What more proof does there need to be than His Word?

The test of course is Apostolic succession - the Apostles could and did pass on the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. When they did so, along with the Spirit they also passed on the same gift of being able to transmit it to others in the same fashion.
I don’t understand this. Who in the 2nd century or 3rd was considered an apostle?

Let’s see, Polycarp, a disciple of John. Polycarp’s disciple, Ireneus, etc… The apostolic succession is plain as day. Within the NT, Paul passes on his authority to Timothy and so on.

Simon Magus knew this, which is why he asked Peter to lay hands on him.
Was Simon asking Peter to be an apostle?

Point taken. Simon Magus wanted wealth and fame, not to be an apostle of Christ.

Of course he made the error of thinking the Spirit could be bought. Paul knew this, which is why he sought both the approval of the Apostles and the laying on of hands by those authorised by them to do so.
If you look at this kind of thing in Scripture you will see that the apostles are not passing on to others their apostleship.

They were, in fact, passing on their authority to teach and guide the new church. Paul, himself, tells of people appearing and teaching in the name of Christ that were not given the authority of the apostles. Authority being the keyword. Everything comes back to authority. Who must settle disputes in matters of faith and morals and God’s Will?? Authority. Do you know God’s Will? Were you given His authority? I know I sure wasn’t. Somebody was and it was the Catholic Church founded by Christ, starting with Peter and the apostles.

 

[Good_Fella]

If you look at this kind of thing in Scripture you will see that the apostles are not passing on to others their apostleship.

Justasking4: “Huh? When you hear a homily from a priest do you consider what he says to be infallible and inspired?”

Good Fella : When we hear a homily from a priest we consider what he says infallible, if what he says is in accord with the infallible teachings of the Sacred Magisterium. Theological speculation by individuals such as priests and theologians are fallible, but there are no errors as severe as to lead Catholics off the path of salvation. An ordained priest is truly inspired if what he preaches accords with the essential doctrines of the Catholic Church and enhances their meanings. Hearing a homily from you would be a different matter.

Justasking4: “What I want to know is what were the unwritten words of Christ not recorded in the Gospels?”

Good Fella : You are being unkind. If there were words of Christ unwritten in the Gospels (John 16:12), we could not possibly know what these words were, could we? Seriously, if you want to know what these words were, we have to proceed to the Council of Nicea: I am God the Son, the second Person of the Holy Trinity; God the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Holy Trinity. The Gospels nor the Epistles and Letters of the New Testament make the Holy Trinity explicitly clear. The Deposit of Faith consists of Sacred Scriptures and sacred Tradition. Jesus himself simply alluded to his divinity or implied he was divine. The Catholic Church, by the promised guidance of the Advocate transformed the “son” of God, a Hebrew appellation applied to all righteous and holy Jewish men, as the title “daughter of Israel” was bestowed upon holy Jewish women, into “God the Son”. Jesus never called himself by that title, although Peter was exclusively graced with that knowledge while he was with Christ. Likewise, the New Testament does not present us with the title “God the Holy Spirit.” In fact, the Holy Spirit is never called “God” in the NT, not even by Jesus. The Catholic Church assented to such a belief and definitively proclaimed it almost 400 years later.

Justasking4: “Marian doctrines lack scriptural support and are out of harmony with the Spirit.” ( But I can’t tell you how.)

Good Fella That is quite an abstract assertion. That is just it: there is scriptural support. The Gospel writers are not silent about Mary. Neither is the Old Testament, beginning with Genesis 3:15. Please read those Replies of mine I suggested you do, for your knowledge of the Bible is not as clear as you presume it is. You are certainly not “inspired”. And you certainly have not been graced with the ‘charism’ of infallibility as has the Sacred Magisterium of the Church. Do not confuse the inerrancy and infallibilty of Sacred Scripture with your own fallible and unauthoritative interpretations.

Lily, it’s your call.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

Justasking4: “Huh? When you hear a homily from a priest do you consider what he says to be infallible and inspired?”

Good Fella : When we hear a homily from a priest we consider what he says infallible, if what he says is in accord with the infallible teachings of the Sacred Magisterium. Theological speculation by individuals such as priests and theologians are fallible, but there are no errors as severe as to lead Catholics off the path of salvation. An ordained priest is truly inspired if what he preaches accords with the essential doctrines of the Catholic Church and enhances their meanings.

Hearing a homily from you would be a different matter.

 

[justasking4]

Continued from above…

Firstly, I agree that Jesus was referring to His disciples, few of which would go on to author the NT, but were nevertheless the seeds of His church. They NEEDED the fullness of truth to fulfill His decree to go forth and baptize all nations.

Have you ever studied what the structure of the NT church was like and compared it with your church? One of the things you will find is that it is not even close to being identical. Look up in I Timothy 3:1-5 where being married was actually used as being a criteria for leadership. In your church, you are disqualified from leadership (priests-bishops etc) if you are married. Big difference.

 

[justasking4]

It is called Sacred Tradition. Something you don’t believe in. Things like, how we must conduct ourselves during Mass, how to protect the truth of His Gospel.

Do you happen to know where i can the source for these claims?

How the Family of God is so much more than just a ‘Me and my friend Jesus’ theology. Sacred Tradition is a continuation of the Judaic Tradition (seat of Moses) but with the new light shed on them by Jesus Himself.

Of course the priest isn’t infallible. What a priest says during his homily must be in harmony with what the Church teaches, which IS infallible and inerrant.

The problem with what you say here is that these pastors/teachers that are outside the Catholic Church are definitely NOT in harmony with each other on important points of salvation/doctrine. The marian doctrines do NOT contradict scripture and thus are not out of harmony with the Spirit.

 

[justasking4]

Show me where this modern notion is found in scripture?

This follows from the nature of what the Scriptures are. Are you saying that the Scriptures are not binding on us?

You can find a lot of this type of exegesis in other threads on Mary. Just “search” Mary, or any of the words, immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption. We have this argurment constantly.

Your church got some things right. I have no problem with that. What i have a problem are the various doctrines that it promotes that are not grounded in the Scriptures. The marian doctrines are one of these things.

 

[LilyM]

Have you ever studied what the structure of the NT church was like and compared it with your church? One of the things you will find is that it is not even close to being identical. Look up in I Timothy 3:1-5 where being married was actually used as being a criteria for leadership. In your church, you are disqualified from leadership (priests-bishops etc) if you are married. Big difference.

Paul doesn’t say Bishops must be married. He says IF married, they should only be (have been) married ONCE - so if they’re widowers, or divorced, they can’t remarry. Paul says quite the opposite elsewhere, in fact. He says that everyone who has the ability to remain chaste and celibate should do so as he himself did - and he himself was a Bishop after all.