Hi All
This is interesting how Catholics claim that “Our Church” didn’t come around until some 1500 years after Christ, so we don’t belong to the church that Christ founded, but they believe that the dogma of the assumption of Mary which didn’t happen until 1900 years after Christ is absolute truth. I believe that the church that Christ founded is HIS church, and I belong to HIS church so that argument holds no water with me.
Where you go wrong here is that you ignore the case that he made. This is not a new belief and he plainly told you that it was the result of discussion of something that had been believed for 1900 years already (and our Eastern Rite brethren can speak to this even better than we Latin Rites can) and because of that (and probably some similar attacks on the belief similar to yours) the Church finally made a definitive declaration on it. There are verifiable historical writings on this that go way back, and they didn’t just get pulled from thin air, they were the result of believers holding these things as matters of faith even prior to then. IMO this is just another failure of Sola Scriptura in that those who hold that doctrine blind themselves to facts of history such as the Assumption.
I believe that Mary was a very special person, the Scriptures say so. God would not choose your everyday run of the mill person to be the Mother of Jesus.
Agreed!
Christianity is about ONE thing, JESUS. There is a reason that Mary is not mentioned in the Scriptures very much, it’s about CHRIST and HIS sacrifice. If God wanted us to devote so much time to Mary he would have said so in the Scriptures. If he wanted us to know that she was sinless, forever virgin, and assumed to heaven he would have made it clear in his Holy Word. Why did he think that it was important to mention Enoch was assumed but not Mary?
See! This is precisely what I meant.
There’s no debate that Catholics are Christocentric in our beliefs and practice though some of your n-Cs wish to portray us otherwise and (especially concerning Marian devotion) seek to give the impression that every Mass is all about Mary, which is so wrong that it would be laughable if it wasn’t such a tool for anti-Catholic propaganda.
Your thinking about the Blessed Virgin in the New Testament is sadly very shallow as demonstrated by this section here.
You fail to consider that there are other reasons to limit references to her in the New Testament writings. I have long thought that this was intentional on the part of all the authors in order to help limit her exposure to possible capture and execution by the Jews and Romans. No one seems to consider that, but that would be an especially good reason for the New Testament writers to fall silent on her after Pentecost and the ascension. Is this supported by scripture? No. Is is logical and rational and probable? Most definitely.
Frankly this is just more errant thinking. there’s a great deal of stuff in Christianity that isn’t in the New Testament, but is recorded in history.(John 21:24: This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
25: But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.) Like where St. John took the Blessed Virgin to live and where various apostles went after persecution broke out and where and how they lived and died and who all they passed the faith on to and what happened from there. But relying on nothing but scripture for information is a blinkered approach from the outset, and gives a errant view (like yours) of Christian beliefs.
As for Enoch…so what? You left out Moses. Was he assumed into heaven? They don’t know… they never found his body, yet there is traditional Jewish writings that say he was, and those same texts are quoted as inspired by St. Jude the apostle.
IMO Sola Scriptura cripples the thinking of its adherents, and this is a prime example of it.
