J
- Status
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Z
zemi
Guest
Do you mean it?!
Do you mean it that this:
is really unreasonable and only a pure speculation?!!!
Wasn’t it you that wanted historical evidence for the Assumption?!
My friend, history is not an exact science…because you cannot repeat the events in the history and so the only way it comes to conclusions is through “the act of forming opinions about what has happened” and choosing the best possible interpretation(s) of certain phenomena.
The phrase in the italic is what you find in the dictionaries under the keyword “speculation”.
**speculation *- the act of forming opinions about what has happened or what might happen without knowing all the facts
(Oxford Advanced learners dictionary - oup.com/oald-bin/web_getald7index1a.pl + keyword = speculation )
- please note it says without knowing “all the facts”, not without knowing “the facts”
L
LilyM
Guest
Ummm, no.
To trot out the often-used example, if someone falls into a pit and I come along afterwards and pull them out, then I’ve saved them from that pit. If I see someone ABOUT to fall into a pit and reach out to stop them BEFORE they fall in, I’ve equally saved them from the pit.
A financial advisor teaches you how to ‘save’ money by telling you how to AVOID spending it in the first place. A doctor can save you from obesity by seeing to it that you exercise and eat right and never BECOME obese in the first place.
So God saved Mary from sin by preventing her from sinning in the first place.
So why is there a need for a specific verse or passage to prove that Mary is mother of God, or Queen of Heaven, or Immaculately Conceived or Assumed? Why require higher proofs for these doctrines than for the idea that the very canon of Scripture itself is set in stone and infallible?
(By the way - you are aware, are you not, that the Orthodox have a different canon to the CC which is different again to the non-CC Protestants? So the canon isn’t exactly self-evident revelation either)
Z
zemi
Guest
Are you asking for historical evidence on matters on faith and morals? Ok then. Give me historical evidence for the existence of Trinity
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Now that is a historical fact!
In order to justify the legitimacy or truth of their existence, Protestants
must prove us wrong. And so they presume Catholicism is false by rejecting
our doctrines according to their erroneous rationalizations and fallible in-
terpretations of scripture. Ironically, they behave in the same way towards
each other when defending their numerous differing doctrines. Luther
opened Pandora’s Box: the Great Abyss below!
“To be deep in history is to be a Catholic.”
Cardinal John H Newman
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
Z
zemi
Guest
I’d still very much like to hear answer to my question in the post #174:
forum.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=2391502&postcount=174
So far only an answer which had nothing to do w/ the question
forum.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=2391502&postcount=174
So far only an answer which had nothing to do w/ the question
C
Calvinator
Guest
Jay,
I realize the part I have quoted above was but a small part of your reply, but I would be very interested in seeing where Calvin accepted the assumption.
If you know if such a quote somewhere in his voluminous writings I would appreciate it if you would provide a citation for me.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
We have our Lord’s guarantee that the Church will be free
from error in her infallible teachings through the course of
her life until the end of time. Catholic dogma concerning
the charism of infallibilty in the Magisterium of the Church
is based on Sacred Scriptures:
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my
Church; and the gates of hell will not overcome it. I will give you
the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth
will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be
loosed in heaven.” [Mt 16:18-20]
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. So
go and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teach-
ing them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely
I am with you always until the end of time.” [Mt 28:16-20]
“If you love me you will obey what I command. And I will ask the
Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you
forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, since it
neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives
with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will
come to you.” [Jn 14:15-18]
“All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Advocate, the
Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you
all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you (the
Spirit of the Word, not the written word).” [Jn 14:25-26]
“I have much more to say to you, ‘more than you can bear now.’
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into
all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what
he hears, and he will tell you WHAT IS YET TO COME.”
[Jn 16:12:13]
The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is
ensured by the charism of ‘infallibilty’ . This infallibilty extends
as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends
to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without
which the saving truths of the faithful cannot be preserved,
explained, or observed. [Cf. Lumen Gentium 25]
[The Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2035]
The Sacred Magisterium has been endowed with the charism of
‘infallibilty’ as promised by our Lord, who assured us that the Holy
Spirit would guide his Church in all truth in her mission to teach.
The doctrines which are formed and proclaimed dogmas are not
the result of pure, fallible speculation. If that were the case, then
our Lord’s own words would be empty and meaningless. Christ
prophesied as well that his Church would be one in her mission
to purvey the Word and the Sacraments. Satan would have no
power to destroy the Church with his lies and prevent her from
fulfilling her mission of faith and unity by the end of time. Christ’s
promise to be with his Church until the end of time and of the
Advocate evidently finds no fulfillment in Protestantism. The
disunity of faith in this religious movement cannot be the offspring
of the Holy Spirit who will guide us in all truth. Christ’s promise
clearly finds fulfillment in the Catholic Church which will exist as
a unity of faith until the end of time. The Protestant movement is
obviously heading towards its eventual demise. For the early re-
formers had left themselves and their followers “spiritual orphans”.
“Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined; and every city
or household divided against itself will fall.” [Mt 12:25]
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
M
Markway
Guest
Boy! I’ve been reading over the thread, and my minds whirling.
Okay, there’s no biblical mention of Mary being “assumed” (sucked up is more graphic, but not an accepted term I fear), into Heaven. Now, we’re talking about her going there without dieing first, right?
Her “assumption” is not mentioned in the Bible, and it does not seem to be mentioned anywhere in the writings of early church fathers either? Is that right? So the doctrine is based on a LACK of evidence? (“We don’t know how she died, so she must have been assumed”) Is that ALL? Just speculation?
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.
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
Okay, there’s no biblical mention of Mary being “assumed” (sucked up is more graphic, but not an accepted term I fear), into Heaven. Now, we’re talking about her going there without dieing first, right?
Her “assumption” is not mentioned in the Bible, and it does not seem to be mentioned anywhere in the writings of early church fathers either? Is that right? So the doctrine is based on a LACK of evidence? (“We don’t know how she died, so she must have been assumed”) Is that ALL? Just speculation?
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.
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
G
Good_Fella
Guest
That Christians wrote numerous volumes about Jesus and Mary in accordance with their beliefs does not prove anything actually historically happened at all. An historian would accuse you of begging the question by drawing your conclusion in your first premise. Let us not confuse religious faith with historical proof of the supernatural events in the lives of Jesus and Mary.
The proper approach to take, as I said before, is the ‘negative-historical’ approach of proof. Since the apostles and the first Christians are not recorded as having preserved the remains of Jesus for veneration, we can safely “believe” that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Athiests charge, as the ancient Jews did, that the disciples of Jesus removed our Lord’s body from the tomb to fabricate his bodily resurrection and ascension. As Christians, we both reject this accusation because it contradicts our faith. Concerning Mary, history does record that Bishop Juvenal, of the See of Jerusalem, told the Emperor Marcian that the Church could not produce the remains of Mary to satisfy his wish to venerate them, because there was no trace of her body. Obviously the body of the mother of Christ could not possibly have disappeared from the Christian community. And if it were still in the possession of the Church out of honour and veneration, then certainly Bishop Juvenal would have been more than delighted to grant the emperor his request. The remains of the apostles were kept and treated as relics, so the remains of our Blessed Mother, who was present with the apostles in the cenacle on Pentecost, would have been kept as well, more so because she was the mother of their beloved Lord. The apostle John, the beloved of Christ, would have seen to it. Moreover, the Christian community would not have entombed Mary somewhere and then forget where they put her body to rest. It makes no logical sense. And, of course, there was no reason for Bishop Juvenal to fabricate an account of an empty tomb, for Mary was not the Saviour. Jesus was the Saviour and so the New Testament writers focussed strictly on him. There may have been stories written about Mary’s dormition and Assumption in the first two centuries, and if so, probably very little, but virtually all of the literature of the early Church in this period was destroyed by the Romans in the great persecutions. The apocrypha concerning Mary’s Dormition and Assumption sprung up (or resumed) once the persecutions had definitely come to an end. They are a compilation of sermons which reflect what the Church had already believed about Mary’s end on earth. The Church must have inferred that Mary had been taken up to heaven like her Son, because her tomb was empty and there was no body for the Church to venerate. What more “historical proof” do we need?
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
G
guanophore
Guest
It is material, Markway. Mary is a creature, like us, she does not have the power to ascend into heaven as Christ did. She would HAVE to be taken up by Jesus.
Your comment about prayer is a common protestant misunderstanding of prayer. Praying along with others does not “take away from” prayer to God. When we pray together with other members of the Body, we all join together in unity to approach with hope and faith the throne of grace. We do consider that those that have died in the Lord are closer to that throne than we are at the present.
If you read the book of revelation you can see the saints at the altar in heaven, offering the prayers.
Z
zemi
Guest
Hi Markway,
please read this article:
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9205fea2.asp
hope that answers a lot of your questions! Please, share your thoughts then.
God bless!
M
Milliardo
Guest
There are no Biblical accounts either of how Peter and Paul were martyred, or how Thomas was martyred, or how the other Apostles (excluding John) became martyrs, yet Protestants accept the accounts on how they died. So how come Protestants can’t accept Mary’s assumption to heaven?
If’ it’s immaterial, then why do you oppose it? As indicated, that not being in the Bible isn’t good enough reason when one sees that most of the accounts about the Apostles were not in the Bible either.
It is a misconception that Catholics don’t pray to God; most Catholics have God first before the saints.
G
guanophore
Guest
It is a misrepresentation that there is any distinction between the two. Asking others to intercede for us does not mean one prays to God "less. If the saints died “in Christ”, then they enjoy the beatific vision, just as Jesus described the angels of the children “always beholding the face of my father in heaven”. They are not “separate” from Him!
J
justasking4
Guest
Again you speculate. Mary is never said in Scripture to be without sin. In fact since she was born of human parents she was born with a sin nature.
You can say this but there is no Scriptural support for it.Mary is
the first human being to have been blessed with resurrection
from the dead as promised to all of us who sleep in Him.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
G
Good_Fella
Guest
There is implicit scriptural evidence that Mary’s Assumption took place. As I mentioned above, Revelation 12 most likely represents Mary in heaven sharing in her Son’s glory. Also, the ‘Protoevangelium’ found in Genesis 3:15, and Luke 1:28 and 1:49 lend credibility to this belief. Pope Pius Xll found convincing theological reasons from these verses for the proclamation of this infallible Marian dogma, ‘Munificentissimus Deus’.
Protestants and athiests, mostly those who abandoned their Protestant Christian beliefs, suggest the title “Queen of Heaven” given to Mary was adopted from the title given to the pagan godesses Isis and Ishtar. What a counterfeit argument! Christianity has “adopted” other pagan titles as well with reference to Jesus: “King of Kings”, “Son of God”, and “Lord”. Jupiter was given the title “King of Heaven”. Many atheistic and non-Christian scholars claim that Jesus assumed the type of power of Helios, the ancient Sun God. Others contend that Dionysius, who was born of a virgin, gave his followers bread and wine, and was raised from the dead was changed into the person of Jesus by the early Christians. Protestants condemn these suggestions made against the person of our Lord. But they engage in the same type of argument against the person of Mary. How sad and hypocritical.
Why do they despise Mary so much, or worse be completely indifferent towards her? The Church Fathers, or early Church Fathers, are the influential theologians and writers of the first five centuries of Christianity. The very earliest Church Fathers, of the first two generations after the Apostles, were St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna. We have only four extant pieces of writing by Clement: First Epistle, Second Epistle, Two Epistles Concerning Virginity, and Recognitions. Only several paragraphs altogether among these works deal directly with the person of Jesus: profession of faith in Jesus, imitation of Jesus, his Resurrection, second coming; and Judgment Day.The bulk of his works concern the state of the Church in Corinth, martyrdom, the virtues, faith and Christian hospitality, peace in the community, and sexual morality, and the priesthood. He did not leave us “volumes” about the person of Jesus. Whatever more he may have written was destroyed by the Romans. Only seven ‘authentic’ letters of Ignatius of Antoich remain with us. The contents of these letters concern the dogmatic charcter of apostolic Christianity, Catholic doctrine, the Church, the order of the episcopacy, the priesthood, the Church hierarchy, vocation, Church unity and holiness, the infallibilty of the Church, the Incarnation, the Blessed Sacrament, virginity, matrimony, the primacy of the See of Rome, and heresy. Again, we do not find “volumes” of Chritological works. Polycarp not excepted, the earliest Church Fathers appear to have barely written anything directly pertaining to the person of Jesus. What we find in these writings does not necessitate that the early Church had no belief in the Assumption of Mary. These Church Fathers were more concerned with ecclesial matters than anything else. By the way, Ignatius of Antioch wrote a personal letter to the Blessed Virgin Mary. He was a friend of John. It is much later in the Patristic period, which spanned six centuries, that Church Fathers speak of Mary’s Assumption. But none of them have spoken of her death against the belief in her Assumption.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
Z
zemi
Guest
How come?! Then again, I say, you cannot know on the basis of that assumption know which books belong to the Bible!
PS: If you find time, will you give me an answer to my post # 174?
J
justasking4
Guest
QUOTE=zemi;2391792]Do you mean it?!
Not sure what you are saying here. Can you clarify?
is really unreasonable and only a pure speculation?!!!
Yes. There is none for Mary’s supposed assumption.
Your church not only does not have Scriptural support her assumption but there is no histrorical evidence either. Where is the eyewitness accounts for this event from the 1st century? That what you need to support the claim that she was assumed into heaven.
What historical facts from the 1st century shows that she was taken up? When was this first reported?
Z
zemi
Guest
Your assuptions are flawed (e.g. you arbitrarily decide we have to have historical facts from the 1st century that show she was taken up). What would you say to me in the 1st/2nd/3rd century? That it has to be found in the NT Scripture?!
please, if you are opened to discussion, read this article I also recommended to Markway (please!):
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9205fea2.asp
- Status