C
Calvinator
Guest
This is just about as helpful as if I responded to one of your posts with something akin to “You will never be able to see this as long as you are blinded by Romish tradition.”
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
Ok, I see your point. But the topic of the thread is “Scriptural Basis for Mary’s Assumption”. My point is that the Assumption occurred after most of the NT was already written, so it is not likely much will be found there. The teachings of the NT on Mary are only “seeds” that later are understood by the fathers to support her immaculate conception and assumption. The teaching on the Assumption is not “based” on scripture, not in the way the concept of the Trinity can be. Does that make sense?
Since you reject the Sacred Tradition as being present, or of being equal in value to the Sacred Writings, I don’t think you will be able to “see” how the fathers, looking back, interpret the scant scriptural references in support of the Teaching. It is just not something that can be done from a Sola Scriptura perspective.
Hope that helps.
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
Someone was asking me about early (400s) belief in the Assumption of Mary. Here are two quotes. Forgive me, I copied and pasted them from the Catholic Answers apologetics article on Mary Full of Grace in the apologetics files section:
Timothy of Jerusalem
“Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption” (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).
John the Theologian
“[T]he Lord said to his Mother, ‘Let your heart rejoice and be glad, for every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens’” (The Falling Asleep of Mary [A.D. 400]).
“And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise” (ibid.).
Both of these date to around the year 400 A.D. and mention the assumption of Mary in print. I maintain that it was generally believed, but not written about (in any surviving early works that we know of), LONG before 400 A.D., in fact from the beginning, cuz introduction of such an **unheard-of **belief would have caused upheaval in the very Conservative early Catholic church.
Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
Timothy of Jerusalem
“Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption” (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).
John the Theologian
“[T]he Lord said to his Mother, ‘Let your heart rejoice and be glad, for every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens’” (The Falling Asleep of Mary [A.D. 400]).
“And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise” (ibid.).
Both of these date to around the year 400 A.D. and mention the assumption of Mary in print. I maintain that it was generally believed, but not written about (in any surviving early works that we know of), LONG before 400 A.D., in fact from the beginning, cuz introduction of such an **unheard-of **belief would have caused upheaval in the very Conservative early Catholic church.
Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
C
Calvinator
Guest
Yup, I thought the above was a pretty decent answer.
C
Calvinator
Guest
Jay,
I was at least one poster who asked about earlier references to the assumption…thanks.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Exactly, Catholics and Protestants are wearing different spectacles. The difference is that the spectacles Catholics wear are tinted or shaded. We discern truths that are not as apparent and explicit besides those which are presented more clearly. For the Protestant who wears clear lenses it is a different ball game. Everything taught in the Bible must be grounded on explicit and more apparent accounts. We Catholics hold a deeper and more mysterious faith, whereas Protestants hold a more shallow and rationalistic faith which requires the factual.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
M
Markway
Guest
I am rather disturbed that you choose to enter personal correspondance into the body of the threadI didn’t take it that way. I just understood you to say that you had been blessed with light, and that you felt it was your God given mission to share His light with others, and I was just not “getting it” (still in the dark). Since you have already advised me that I am a “jerk” it seemed that, from your perspective, I must be very much in need of something!
Sorry, I must have gotten thrown off by all those actions that were speaking louder than your words.
Because this time, He established His own Church, and he endowed it with His spirit, and He promised to guide her into all truth. This time, we can put our trust in an infallible Source.
I didn’t say there was no relationship. I was speaking about this “personal relationship with Jesus” that is a modern evangelical invention. Of course we are related to Jesus, and there are dozens of scriptural passages about the type of relation ship He wants us to have with Him.
I think the sown grain parable belongs on a different thread. As a former wacko Fundie, I can attest to being in the Word.
I see too many general and pejorative comments being made about Protestants here, as if they could be somehow lumped into all one box. It is not right. I wish they would all go to that “Rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff” thread and give an account of themselves.
I am not sure if prayer will deliver me from my apparent darkeness, or the condition of being a jerk either, but I am sure it can’t hurt!
M
Markway
Guest
Guano,Markway, Jesus only created ONE CHURCH! He founded this ONE CHURCH on Peter and the other apostles, to whom he gave the keys and the power to bind and loose (govern). Jesus is the one who exalted Mary, not Catholics. “He has exalted the lowly - all generations shall call me blessed”. We give thanks to God for what He did in the live of Mary, because it pre-figures what He wants to do in all our lives. He wants us to be free from sin, and live with HIm forever in heaven.
Mary is part of the Holy Family. She is the faithful handmaid of the Father, Spouse of the HS, and Mother of the Son.
If one rejects the Apostolic Authority appointed by Christ, one will eventually fall into error and stray from the Truth (Jesus). Jesus appointed Peter to feed and care for His sheep. Why do so many reject this great gift of Jesus?
Can you explain what this means? I know it was not directed to me, but I am confused about it.
We do not base all of our faith on the Bible, since we know it is our faith that produced the Bible, and not the other way around. It is Sacred Tradition to ask those who have gone before us in the faith to intercede for us. We do not “pray to dead people”, but only ask those who are alive in Christ to bring our petitions to His Holy throne.
A statement like this makes it clear that you do not understand the Marian doctrines. Mary is not part of the Trinity. She is a creature, not God!
How do you justify a “Holy Family?” Was the Father married to Mary? Mary was blessed. That’s not HOLY. Mary was given a gift, but that does not make her more than Jesus’s earthly mother. Find one document in either the Bible or a reputable Church Father, that says that Mary shares in God’s authority, that she was assumed, that she can intercede for you with God. Or for that matter that God shares any of His things at all.
I will quit responding to your eMails if you do not stop moving them into the general thread. JM
M
Markway
Guest
I wrote a very cogent response, but the system refused to process it and I don’t have time to reproduce it. JUst a few…Stop my posts if I offend you. I have only quoted what Catholics have told me, and have asked why Mary has been elevated by the Church in ways that are not written down by ANY early Church writers. More about the inheritors of the Church laterHeretical ? Are you suggesting that the Mother of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, is “unholy”? The angel Gabriel thought otherwise, when he addressed the Blessed Virgin, “Hail full of grace!” The Holy Spirit then came upon her and overshadowed her. Obviously, you choose to ignore scripture when the Word of God fails to register with your blind prejudices. In the Magnificat she proclaims by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, “From now on all ages will call me blessed. The Almighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.” This prophecy has been fulfilled only in the true Church of Christ. God has no problem with his Son’s mother, so why do Protestants? “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” Her cousin Elizabeth acknowledged Mary’s holy state, and she knew it was because Mary had conceived a holy child to be his mother. God has done great things for Mary. The Catholic Church makes no extravagant claims about her. Since you are outside the Church, there is only one Catholic Church, you fail to see the truth about the person of Mary in God’s plan for our salvation. And I sense you have no desire to see it at all.
The early Church was Christ’s Church? That’s right. But it came to us through the apostles and has carried on through their successors, the popes and bishops of each generation. And the early Church was the Roman Catholic Church. The Greek Catholics separated themselves, as did the Protestant “reformers”. But I can assure you that they did not take Christ with them. Our Lord promised to be with his one, apostolic Church until the end of time. The primacy of Rome in Christendom has existed ever since Peter arrived there, for he was the head of the apostles. The early Church resembled the Roman Catholic Church today in all its essential aspects. Like the early Church, from the time of the apostles, the Catholic Church consists of a single body of believers who profess one creed and are subject to the apostolic order of her hierarchy, just as the first Christians accepted the preaching of the apostles chosen by our Lord and were subject to their authority. The Catholic Church purveys both word and sacrament for the sake of the sanctification of her members through the ministry of ordained priests and bishops, all of whom are under the ultimate authority of the Bishop of Rome, the pope, as how it was in the first century. Finally, the Catholic Church has kept all the seven sacraments which were instituted by Christ and are shown to be celebrated by the ecclesial community in the New Testament. The Catholic Church is the early Church.
The term ‘catholic’ is Greek meaning universal. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch and Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, used this term at the turn of the second century when referring to the Church as being “everywhere” and distinguishing it from schismatics and splinter groups and sects who had broken away from the apostolic tradition and opposed the true Church of Christ.
In seeking to determine the apostolic succession of the churches (united in one faith, unlike the Protestant churches) St. Irenaeus of Lyon refers to the Church of Rome as the example and criterion par excellence of this succession: “…we will consider the great and very ancient church known to all, the church founded and established in Rome by the two glorious apostles Peter and Paul. By showing the tradition received from the apostles and the faith proclaimed by men, which comes to us through the succession of bishops, we refute all who in any way…gather together beyond what is right. In fact, it is with this church, by reason of her most excellent origin, that every church …must necessarily be in agreement with this Church in which the tradition that comes from the apostles has always been preserved by everyone.” [Adv. Haer. 3,2.] (180 AD) The primacy of Rome had been recognized by the other three Apostolic Sees, because the Bishop of Rome was considered St.Peter’s successor.
There is no such thing as a Protestant Church - you mean churches which cannot even agree with each other on essential doctrines. How can this state of affairs be legitimate? It is clear that every Protestant denomination is wrong to the extent it is in accord with the Roman Catholic Church in its essential doctrines. The scriptures serve no purpose if they only divide the numerous Protestant denominations and sects.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Mark, let me make this clear to you. The majority of Catholics are poorly catechesis. Many of them do not know know how to defend Marian doctrines. The Catholics who have studied their faith and Marian doctrine understand it in finite terms.
What the Church professes about the Assumption is based on Scripture and Tradition. Many Catholics here have cited Rev 12:1 as the Assumption, and her queenship. From our Christian traditions, the doctrine developed over time much like an infant does throughout his lifetime. In Church history, we see a development of Christology by defining God as a Trinitarian God, or Triune God. This concept was not used until 300 after Jesus’ death.
The Early Church Fathers, the earliest writings we have about the Assumption of Mary is dated 377 AD. The more indepth of the Assumption is around 600 AD stated by Gregory of Tours.
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-IV
Catholic dogma on the Assumption is not new. It is ancient.
G
guanophore
Guest
To my shame, I can be a jerk in public as well as privately.
Let me clarify that I do not feel I am really in any position to “justify” what the Sacred Tradition has handed down. In the same way, I do not think I could justify the contents of the canon, which came from the same source. Given that, I will do my best to give you my personal understanding of Holy Family, though it probably belongs on a different thread.
G
guanophore
Guest
Your tone sounds demanding and indignant. How is it that you find these doctrines so offensive? When people ask about this, it seems to me that they just do not understand God’s intention for us. God became Man so that we could share in His divine nature.
2 Peter 1:3-5
3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through **these you may escape from the corruption **that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature."
Mary is only the first to escape corruption, and to become a partaker of the divine nature. She represents what God wants all of us to attain. She demonstrated the power of her intercessary role with Jesus by inaugurating Him into public ministry at the wedding in Cana. And we know that:
James 5:16
The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.
Mary, having been made righteous by Christ, is a great prayer warrior. She shares in Christ’s ministry of reconciling the world to Himself:
2 Cor 5:18-6:1
18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
He has not done anything for her that he does not want to do for all of us. She wants to show all of us the fruit of her womb, Jesus.
I did not move any emails. I simply responded to your sentiment to pray for me with gratitude because you had indicated to me that I had been a jerk. I am not sure if I had done this publicly, or privately. Having recently had to have a post of mine removed by the mods for such an offense, it did not seem to me such a private matter.
I have done my best to represent here the teachings of the Church on the Doctrines of Mary. I don’t claim any expertise in this matter, so perhaps someone else can answer your questions better. If you “search” for threads on Mary, you will find much better equipped members than myself that have already answered these questions many times
G
guanophore
Guest
Sometimes I find it easier to write in notepad, then save. Often I get too wordy. The last post I sent you had too many characters, so I had to split it in half! I liked what I found during that bible study, though, so I saved a copy for myself in notepad.
You said that you came here to learn, but your posts convey an attitude of resistance, even indignance about our belief. This attitude may make it difficult for you to learn. What I mean to say is, if you already have an attitude that the Sacred Traditions are “off the wall”, it will be difficult to e open minded about the possibility that they may have come from God.
That being said, I would like to point out that the Church did not “elevate” Mary.The Church only recognized that Jesus had already elevated her. He filled her with grace, found favor with her, overshadowed her, became incarnated through her, and honored her as the Commandment teaches one to honor one’s parent(s). He was obedient to her:
Luke 2:51-52
51 And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.
And this obedience resulted in …
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.
How can I go wrong being obedient to her also?
She fed held the King of the Universe at her breast, changed His diaper, made Him breakfast lunch and dinner, snuggled Hm on her lap, cleaned his skinned knees,and so on. You have said “she was just His earthly mother”, but what a privilege!
If Jesus is not ashamed to call her “mommy” why should I be? Do you imagine that she was not gracious and welcoming when Jesus brought friends to the house? Do you think she did not feed them too?
The doctrines of Mary developed out of a growing understanding of who Christ is (and is not). Like the concept of the Trinity, it was very difficult to grasp certain things. The Jews were scandalized when Jesus taught “I and the father are one”. Even centuries later, there was much argument about His nature. The Sacred Tradition defined His nature to remove all doubt. In doing this, the role and identity of Mary also became more clear. You can read more of the fathers on this if you click on Library at the top. On the left youwill see a number of frequent topics, and Mary is one. I also encourage you to search “Mary” on these threads, as this is a topic that has been much discussed, long before I ever came here!
G
Good_Fella
Guest
You say “Mary was blessed - but that’s not holy.” I recall Mary’s cousin Elizabeth declaring, “MOST BLESSED ARE YOU AMONG WOMEN, AND BLESSED IS THE FRUIT OF YOUR WOMB.” (Luke 1:42) Do you also mean that Jesus was only blessed but not holy?
You say that Mary was given a gift, but that this gift does not make her more than Jesus’ earthly mother. Are you suggesting that Jesus was not divine (Arian heresy) or that Mary was just the mother of the human person in Jesus and not the mother of the divine person in Jesus (Nestorian heresy)? Jesus was one person with two natures, one divine and the other human. Mary gave birth to one person with two natures. She is mother of the divine and human Jesus. His divinity makes Mary the Mother of God.
Several eminent Church Fathers of the Patristic period taught that the Assumption of Mary was real. Writings began to emerge as early as 370 AD with Epiphanius reflecting a long-standing belief in the Assumption among Catholics. These Church Fathers confirmed this belief among the faithful: ‘sensus fidelium’.
Catholics do not believe that Mary has a share in God’s authority, but we do believe that she sits at the right hand of her Son as mediatrix and advocate to the Church. She presents our supplications and petitions to her divine Son in heaven with him. Please see my Reply#268. Mary’s role as Queen Mother is prefigured in this biblical passage in 1Kings. At the wedding feast in Cana Jesus could not refuse his mother’s intercession on behalf of the guests, and so he performed his first miracle prematurely because of her solicitation.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Please be aware that the Forum Rules and Banned Topics Policy do not prohibit quoting messages from the PM system into posts.
However, just as a common courtesy to the other party, I would think that one should ask the author before doing so.
Michael Francis
G
Good_Fella
Guest
The apparition of Our Lady in Assuit, Egypt was witnessed by a large multitude of people and captured on video. This is strong evidence for the Assumption of Mary. Here is the link. See and judge for yourselves. You will notice that the apparition of Mary momentarily transforms into an illuminated cross. Throbbing lights that illuminated entire churches accompanied the apparition and drew the crowd before Mary appeared above a church.
http.//www.medjugorjevideo/assuit.html
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
http.//www.medjugorjevideo/assuit.html
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
G
Good_Fella
Guest
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
Hiya, Good Fella !!
The new link doesn’t work (at least for me) either.
By the way, it’s Assiut, not Assuit, and that MAY…be part of the address problem.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
The new link doesn’t work (at least for me) either.
By the way, it’s Assiut, not Assuit, and that MAY…be part of the address problem.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
G
guanophore
Guest
It may be confirmation for those of us who believe, but to unbelievers, it is a satanic apparition, a vision of demons designed to lead the faithful astray. The fact that she says “Jesus is Lord” seems to have no impact…The apparition of Our Lady in Assuit, Egypt was witnessed by a large multitude of people and captured on video. This is strong evidence for the Assumption of Mary. Here is the link. See and judge for yourselves. You will notice that the apparition of Mary momentarily transforms into an illuminated cross. Throbbing lights that illuminated entire churches accompanied the apparition and drew the crowd before Mary appeared above a church.
http.//www.medjugorjevideo/assuit.html
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
Thanks for the link.
zeitun-eg.org/stmaridx.htm
This link worked better for me.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
I’m on my way. I just noticed the spelling mistake. It’s the humidity, sorry.
It should come out in blue. Here goes!
http.//www.medjugorjevideo.com/assiut.html
If this doesn’t work go to youtube.com and search “apparition at assiut” or visit medjugorje-online.com and visit the Medjugorje Discussion column.
GF
It should come out in blue. Here goes!
http.//www.medjugorjevideo.com/assiut.html
If this doesn’t work go to youtube.com and search “apparition at assiut” or visit medjugorje-online.com and visit the Medjugorje Discussion column.
GF
- Status