Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[Good_Fella]

In the RSV version of the bible the scriptural proof for Mary’s Assumption is:

Psalms 132 verse 8 “Arise and go to thy resting place Lord, thou and the Ark of thy might”.

The Ark of the Lord’s might is not the Ark that contained the ten commandments–God wrote those commandments and that Ark didn’t have anything to do with his might.

The Ark that would have something to do with the Lord’s might would be an Ark that contained Him and His might.

Te only Ark that could be would be the Ark of the new covenant–Mary–that contained Our Lord Jesus!

Jesus did arise and go to His resting place in heaven–along with the New Ark of the Convenant Mary that had contained His might when she was pregnant before He was born!

Both are in heaven!

Ark is used only 1 time in the Psalms!

How fitting since the New Ark–Mary–was redeemed by Jesus before He was born in the Immaculate conception–a Singular grace that was granted only to her!

I can see how this verse connects with the Assumption. Let’s compare the Psalm with Luke:

“Arise and go to thy resting place Lord, thou and the ark of thy might.”

“The Almighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.”

Thanks for sharing this passage with us. It does reflect Mary’s Assumption.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Calvinator]

I can see how this verse connects with the Assumption. Let’s compare the Psalm with Luke:

“Arise and go to thy resting place Lord, thou and the ark of thy might.”

“The Almighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.”

Thanks for sharing this passage with us. It does reflect Mary’s Assumption.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

I’m not sure if I follow this.

Can one of you explain the connection?

 

[Good_Fella]

I’m not sure if I follow this.

Can one of you explain the connection?

The Assumption of Mary, and her Immaculate Conception, are “great” events
in the existence of the Mother of God, who bore Christ in her womb and
gave birth to him, realized by the power of Almighty God.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

Justasking4 : “When you look at the context for this in John 16:12 (Jesus promised to lead his Church in all truth.), he is specifically speaking to his disciples who would later write much of the New Testament.”

Good Fella : Indeed, the apostles were destined to write much of the New Testament - but not all of it. They in turn appointed disciples who would carry on the Tradition and commit it to writing. Jesus is not telling his close disciples that he would send them the Holy Spirit so that they could write the New Testament texts. For the apostle’s successors are not present to receive this address by our Lord. And, of course, Jesus is not suggesting that only the texts they write would be composed by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Jesus obviously has his Church in mind. The Deposit of Faith is comprised of Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. The Magisterium of the Church consists of the pope (Peter) and the world’s bishops (apostles), disciples who have succeeded the original Twelve, just as Paul and Timothy had, to preach the Gospels and hold fast to the Tradition handed down to the Church by them. And Jesus promised that he would be with his Church until the end of time to lead them in all truth. If the charism of infallibilty expired with the apostles and authors of the New Testament, then clearly Jesus’ words are meaningless and untrue, which is impossible.

Justasking4 :“Any kind of claim to have an oral tradition of the apostles is absurd.”

Good Fella : Like I already said. The Church held a set of beliefs and had the gift of faith for almost a century before they were committed to writing. Without an antecedent oral tradition animating the life of the Church, there could be no written sacred texts. If the written New Testament alone is sufficient for the existence of our faith, then where was the source of this faith for the first century, if not in a spoken set of traditionl beliefs? The written word tells us that the spoken word had already existed before it appeared. Jesus himself spoke to the apostles and to the Jews wherever he went. The Lord did not write down anything for their spiritual benefit and enlightenment. When he commissioned his apostles, he commanded them to “preach the Gospels (not write them) to all nations baptizing them…” (Mk 3:14;16:15) The New Testament was not to be fully compiled and made canon until the late fourth century, shortly before the time when the Feast of the Assumption was established.

Jesus said to his apostles, “He who ‘hears’ you ‘hears’ me.” (Lk 10:16) The oral teachings of Jesus pass from him to his disciples and from them to those who hear his disciples’ words. The Holy Spirit came upon the apostles in the form of “tongues” of fire so that they would know how to speak about Christ ( Acts 2:3-4). Judas and Silas, successors of the apostles, were sent to bring God’s infallible Word by “word of mouth” (Acts 15:27). The Word is near you, on your ‘lips’ and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written) (Rom 10:8). The Word of God is what you have “heard”, not read. The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit (1Thess 2:13) There are more biblical verses that speak of an oral tradition in the life and mission of the Church.

According to your claim, the Bible is “absurd”. Yet clearly there is no scriptural evidence to support your assertion. On the contrary, the scriptures contradict what you say.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

Justasking4 : “Of course, the Gospel writers mention Mary. What they don’t mention are many of the claims your church makes about her. Take her supposed Immaculate Conception. Such a thing is never mentioned in scripture about her.”

Good Fella : The Gospels implicitly reveal the divine truths behind our Marian dogmas. You reject our beliefs concerning Mary because the Gospels fail to provide explicit support for these beliefs. The author of Luke was primarily concerned with the Incarnation and Nativity of Jesus, but nonetheless he recognized the sanctified spiritual state of the Blessed Virgin Mary when he recorded the words of the angel Gabriel: “Hail full of Grace.” These words fulfill the first biblical prophecy concerning Mary found in Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman (Mary, the New Eve), and your seed (original sin) and her seed (Jesus, the New Adam).” Both Jesus and Mary were conceived without original sin: the New Adam and Eve are opposed to the old Adam and Eve who had disobeyed God and had fallen from his grace. Eve had already sinned before she seduced Adam to join her in her disobedience so, in opposition to Eve’s seducer, the serpent who is Satan, Mary precedes the conception of her divine Son by her own Immaculate Conception. Both Jesus and Mary are inseparably at enmity with the offspring of Satan: original sin. In Luke 1:28, the angel reveals that Mary has always been in a state of sanctifying grace (since her conception) and remains so. Do not expect the Gospel to contain the term “Immaculate Conception” for the author was not even aware of the term “original sin”. The latter concept had to be defined first by the Sacred Magisterium before this Marian dogma could be infallibly proclaimed.

The dogma of Mary invoked as the “Mother of God” has much more explicit biblical support. Again, we find clear evidence for Mary’s unique privilege in the gospel of Luke: “Who am I that the ‘mother of my Lord’ should come to me?” [Lk 1:49] Elizabeth addresses her cousin Mary as the Mother of God. The title “Lord” is ‘kyrios’ in the Greek, which in Hebrew is equivalent to Yahweh. Again, we find biblical support for the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity as far back as Zechariah 12:10 (Reply#303). In the Gospel account of Jesus being lost for three days and found preaching in the temple (Lk 2:42) there is no word of siblings. Before Jesus died, he gave custody of his widowed mother to his beloved disciple. (Jn 19:26-27). According to Jewish custom, if Mary had had other children, they would have taken her to one of their homes. And again, the scriptures support the dogma of Mary’s Assumption: Genesis 3:15; Psalm 132:8; Luke 1:46-49,and Queenship in Heaven: 1Kings 2:17-21; Rev 12:1-5.

As a typical fundamentalist Protestant, you refuse to accept any Church doctrine which lacks explicit biblical support. Christianity is a faith, not a theory, so we have to change the tone of the meaning of the word “explicit”. Concerning Revelation and the Deposit of Faith, the word ‘implicit’ is sufficient to qualify scriptural evidence, for we are not dealing with empirical data. Yet, although the New Testament makes it explicitly clear that the infant Church flourished on an oral Sacred Tradition before the written sacred texts appeared, you consider this historical fact “absurd”. Your behaviour confirms what I said before, that Protestantism is a “pick-and-choose-whatever-you-want-to-believe-in faith”

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Calvinator]

The Assumption of Mary, and her Immaculate Conception, are “great” events
in the existence of the Mother of God, who bore Christ in her womb and
gave birth to him, realized by the power of Almighty God.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

While I can see parallels between Mary and the ark I don’t see how this can support the assumption.

I kind of see how you guys use this to support the IC, but not the assumption.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

All the texts have to be taken together, beginning with Genesis 3:15 as well the Ark of the Covenant parallels, etc etc etc.
Mary is prophesied in scripture right from the beginning of human history.

We all notice that the Woman’s Seed will be at enmity (having absolutely nothing in common with) the Serpent (the devil).
What we often fail to notice is that FIRST, in that prophecy,
God PUTS ENMITY between the WOMAN and the devil. The woman, too, has nothing in common (sin) with the devil.
Mary has no sin and was kept righteous by her cooperation with the Grace of God.

God took his flesh from her flesh.
Thus, it would be grossly unfitting, according to the Divine Pattern of respect for sacred things, for this Woman, this Great Sign, this God-bearer (theotokos) to lie rotting and stinking in the earth after her passing.

The Eastern Orthodox still refer to the feast of the dormition, by the way, as the Feast of the Dormition. But they firmly believe and have always believed that her Assumption took place at her dormition (falling asleep). That is why the Eastern Orthodox celebration of the Dormition/Assumption is much more solemn and elaborate than the Roman Catholic Celebration. They celebrate the dormition not just on August 15th (the principal date) but for many days BEFORE August 15th and many days AFTER August 15th, with great fasting and solemnity.
Don’t let the word “Dormition” throw you. It encompasses the Assumption itself. The Eastern Orthodox haven’t taken any cues from the Roman Pope or the Christian West since 1054 A.D., and they FIRMLY believe in the Assumption of Mary. Not only that, ALL of the churches which broke away from Catholic unity beginning in the 4th and 5th centuries, ALL believe in the Assumption of Mary, even the Coptics, and these good folks haven’t taken any theological cues from Rome or the West for 1600 years. Plus, the Christians of Southern India are FULLY CATHOLIC even though they were never part of the Roman Empire and thus not constrained in any way to accept the religion of the empire. Saint Thomas the Apostle brought the gospel to Southern India, and these people are, and have always been, fully Catholic in doctrine and practice for 2000 years. And they too believe in the Assumption of Mary.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Jaypeeto4]

By the way, take a look at this link.
It has nothing directly to do with the Assumption doctrine,
but it is a recent photo of Saint Bernadette, who saw the glorified Mary at Lourdes, France, in the 1850s. It is merely interesting that God can preserve the bodies of some of the Saints when he so chooses. Keep in mind that this girl is NOT EMBALMED and that she died of CONSUMPTION, and has been dead
since the 1870s.
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

ichrusa.com/saintsalive/bernad.htm

 

[guanophore]

While I can see parallels between Mary and the ark I don’t see how this can support the assumption.

I kind of see how you guys use this to support the IC, but not the assumption.

I think you will not be able to see this with your “sola scriptura” spectacles on .

Heretical teachings and beliefs come about by a number of ways. One is trying to make scriptures says things in which they do not exist…The Catholic Church may claim that these (Marian doctrines) are infallible teachings, but they are not taught in scripture and are but the teachings of fallible men."

Yes, we claim they are infallible teachings. And the source of that teaching is the same source that gave you that bible you are using to whack us on the head. It is a Catholic book, written by Catholics, for Catholics! Of course the teachings are not limited to the book! The book is a small reflection of the teachings!

This is nonsense. The standard for truth is not catholic teaching but the inspired-inerrant scriptures. Catholic teaching is not inspired-inerrant. If it is, then it should be added to the Scriptures as scripture. Are you willing to do so?

It is statements like this that make it seem like you don’t know where your bible came from? The scriptures themselves never claim to be the pillar and bulwark of all truth!

Luke 1:1-4
1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, 2 just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph’ilus, 4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed."

The scriptures were a way of confirming what was taught orally. Or do you think there were no real Christians until the fourth century?

I have looked at those passages catholic claim for this and its not there when you look at the context.

The scriptures were never meant to be removed from the Sacred Tradition in which they were birthed. By removing them this way, you lose the context.

Where is this taught in scripture that therre is a “Sacred Magisterium” that would be inerrant -infallible?

I see there is another thread on this running. If you have trouble finding it, let me know and I will send you a link.

Protestants go to the inspired-inerrant scriptures to test all things.

Apparently unaware that it wast the Sacred Magesterium that produced them!

This is why Christ sent the Holy Spirit to the Apostles on Pentecost: to be sure that his Church got all things right in her essential doctrines and sacred teachings.

Indeed! that Spirit was given to Peter and the Apostles, the keeper of the keys to the kingdom. Why do you now reject his authority to declare the truth of Christ?

 

[Jaypeeto4]

The scriptures were never meant to be removed from the Sacred Tradition in which they were birthed. By removing them this way, you lose the context.

The historic ancient apostolic Catholic Church is the
Automobile.

The Scriptures can be likened to the Engine of the car.

Protestants have removed the Engine from the car
and are trying to drive the Engine.

It doesn’t work.

(( My thanks to THIS ROCK Magazine about 15 years ago
for an editorial cartoon showing a protestant minister
trying to do this very thing: driving the engine ))

 

[Good_Fella]

While I can see parallels between Mary and the ark I don’t see how this can support the assumption.

I kind of see how you guys use this to support the IC, but not the assumption.

In his Apostolic Constitution ‘Munificentissimus Deus’ Pope Pius Xll solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption as follows:

The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

In defining the Assumption, Pope Pius Xll refers to the other three Marian dogmas: Immaculate Conception, Mother of God, and Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. The Assumption is intimately connected with the preceding three Marian dogmas, especially with Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her singular privilege of being the Mother of God, her divine Son. The strongest connection the Assumption has with the other three Marian dogmas is with Immaculate Conception.

Pope Pius Xll left open the question of whether Mary died. Some Catholics maintain that she did not die because her Immaculate Conception freed her from the consequences of original sin. Other Catholics believe, I among them, that it would have been fitting for her to die in full conformity with her Son’s death. But her death was a voluntary death, not imposed upon her by God. The death of her divine Son was also a voluntary death. Mary loved her son beyond words, and so she refused to be spared the experience of death.

‘Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” But Eve was disobedient: for she did not obey when she was still a virgin. And even as she…having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and the human race, so also did Mary…being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, became the cause of salvation, both to herself and the human race…And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary.’
[Adv. haer. 3.22.4]

The above extract is from an apologetic work, Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon. He was acquainted with Bishop Polycarp, who in turn was acquainted with St.John the Evangelist. This piece by Irenaeus is dated 189AD and it is the earliest Christian writing presenting Mary as the New Eve. It implies what St. Paul understood in Galatians 4:4 in connection with Genesis 3:15. This apologetic writing also offers ground for belief in the Assumption of Mary. It acknowledges the teaching in Genesis, that Eve had disobeyed God while in the original state of sanctifying grace - before sin entered the world - and so brought death upon herself and humanity. In order for the consequences of Eve’s disobedience to be undone, a woman in an original state of grace had to obey God in order to save the world and herself from death by cooperating with God in bringing the Saviour into the world. Since Mary was in a state of sanctifying grace from the beginning of her existence, and she obeyed God, unlike Eve, she spared herself the consequences of original sin, including death, pending Christ’s death on the cross. Like her Son, she must have been spared the corruption of death.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

I think you will not be able to see this with your “sola scriptura” spectacles on .

Yes, we claim they are infallible teachings. And the source of that teaching is the same source that gave you that bible you are using to whack us on the head. It is a Catholic book, written by Catholics, for Catholics! Of course the teachings are not limited to the book! The book is a small reflection of the teachings!

It is statements like this that make it seem like you don’t know where your bible came from? The scriptures themselves never claim to be the pillar and bulwark of all truth!

Luke 1:1-4
1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, 2 just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph’ilus, 4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed."

The scriptures were a way of confirming what was taught orally. Or do you think there were no real Christians until the fourth century?

The scriptures were never meant to be removed from the Sacred Tradition in which they were birthed. By removing them this way, you lose the context.

I see there is another thread on this running. If you have trouble finding it, let me know and I will send you a link.

Apparently unaware that it wast the Sacred Magesterium that produced them!

Indeed! that Spirit was given to Peter and the Apostles, the keeper of the keys to the kingdom. Why do you now reject his authority to declare the truth of Christ?

Please! You are confusing my words with those of Justasking4.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What’s so hard to understand about mary’s assumption if the bible already tells us that Elijah and Enoch both went straight to Heaven?

They’re not more perfect than mary so what’s so hard to understand about it/

when jesus raised Lazarus he proved that a dead body could be raised.

When mary was assumed into heaven that was proof that not only jesus–but anyone jesus wished could Bodily go straight to heaven.

 

[Calvinator]

What’s so hard to understand about mary’s assumption if the bible already tells us that Elijah and Enoch both went straight to Heaven?

They’re not more perfect than mary so what’s so hard to understand about it/

when jesus raised Lazarus he proved that a dead body could be raised.

When mary was assumed into heaven that was proof that not only jesus–but anyone jesus wished could Bodily go straight to heaven.

While I understand what the assumption is, I don’t see what the ark has to do with it. I kind of see what you guys are saying regarding the IC but don’t see a connection between the ark and the assumption.

I see Good Fella has posted something so I’ll read his post.

 

[zemi]

While I understand what the assumption is, I don’t see what the ark has to do with it. I kind of see what you guys are saying regarding the IC but don’t see a connection between the ark and the assumption.

I see Good Fella has posted something so I’ll read his post.

Hi Calvinator.

To understand the Catholic position on this read this article from the Protestant convert Scott Hahn himself. It’s probably the best article on this I’ve found. He dug really deep into this before becoming a Catholic. So here’s the connection:

zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ma.html

I found this connection amazing when I first read and heard this explained

 

[Good_Fella]

While I understand what the assumption is, I don’t see what the ark has to do with it. I kind of see what you guys are saying regarding the IC but don’t see a connection between the ark and the assumption.

I see Good Fella has posted something so I’ll read his post.

The first Church writer to speak of Mary’s Assumption is St. Gregory of Tours (594AD). He also provides a reason for this traditional belief, which apparently goes back to the time of the apostles, considering Bishop Juvenal’s reply to the Emperor Marcion at the Council of Chalcedon. Gregory’s rationale is related to her having been preserved from original sin. He says that it is inconceivable to think Mary’s sinless body, likened to the Ark of the Covenant which was made of incorruptible wood, should decay in the grave. The verse ‘Rise thou, and the ark of thy strength’ (Ps 132:8) was understood to mean that it was God’s will that, as Christ ascended, so too Mary would be received into heaven by the power of God.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

Justasking4 : “Are you aware that your church has not defined what all the scriptures mean? Since it has not, you and all the others are in the same boat on this. You have a fallible biased opinion. The weakness you have is that Mary’s Assumption has no scriptural support. Search the scriptures and you will see what I mean.”

Good Fella : I have searched the scriptures, and I see what you mean. There is nothing explicit about the divinity of the Holy Spirit. It is not written in the sacred texts that he is “God” and the third Person of the Holy Trinity; nor does the NT explicitly tell us that Jesus is “God the Son”, the second Person of the Holy Trinity. We believe in the Holy Trinity because the Catholic Church defined the triune Godhead at the Council of Nicea in 325AD. The Mormons, Jehova Witnesses, and Unitarians reject the Catholic Church’s definitive teachings on the Trinity because the “infallible and inerrant” scriptures tell us otherwise. Likewise, Luther and the early Protestant reformers rejected the teachings of the apostolic authority and espoused erroneous teachings by privately appealling to scriptures: i.e., ‘sola fide’, and ‘sola scriptura’. The scriptures tell us that these doctrines are false. The Catholic Church has soundly refuted these novel teachings which are the product of a lone individual who separated himself from the apostolic tradition. Peter, Paul, and James never taught these doctrines. The Calvinistic doctrine of ‘high predestination’ is also unscriptural, as is the case with John Smythe’s rejection of the Catholic dogma of ‘baptismal regeneration’. Ironically, some Protestant denominations hold to the teachings of the Catholic Church concerning baptismal regeneration, and some reject the doctrine of high predestination. The Holy Spirit cannot be guiding the Protestant traditions in all truth, since this religious movement is the antithesis of unity, unlike the Catholic tradition which comes to us from the apostles and is carried on by their successors, the pope and the world’s bishops, who form doctrines and proclaim dogmas in unison. We are not in the same boat as you are, for the Holy Spirit is guiding us in all truth until the end of time. Indeed, more definitions are on the way, for Christ has not yet returned in glory.

I have searched the scriptures to find support for the legitimacy of the Protestant movement, but I cannot find any. Yet Protestants contend that the so-called reformation came about by the intervention of the Holy Spirit. But that cannot be true, for Protestantism contradicts the prophetic words of Jesus: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. Our Lord said nothing about building an indefinite number of churches which would not entirely agree on essential doctrines based on scripture. (The Protestant churches were founded by erring mortals) Jesus could not break his promise to guide us in all truth until the end of time, for he also assured us that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church. The Catholic Church survived the reformation and came out of it all the more unified and stronger, while that movement which Satan started has crumbled into thousands of pieces. Meanwhile, Protestants can shop around for the denomination whose doctrines tickle their fancy.

The Protestant Reformation is prophesied in the scriptures. But what John envisioned on the island of Patmos was unfavorable and terrifying :

‘And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet; and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and to him was given the key to the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and the smoke of the pit ascended as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun was darkened, and the air with the smoke of the pit. And from the smoke of the pit, there came out locusts upon the earth, and power was given to them, as the scorpions of the earth have power.’ [Revelation 9:1-3]

Catholic scriptural scholars for the past 500 years have seen in this vision Luther’s revolt and the rise of Protestantism. Most modern biblical scholars see the fallen star in Luther, who fell from the Catholic Church and spread his false teachings with the support of European kings and princes who forced his heresies on their subjects.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Markway]

Justasking4 : “Are you aware that your church has not defined what all the scriptures mean? Since it has not, you and all the others are in the same boat on this. You have a fallible biased opinion. The weakness you have is that Mary’s Assumption has no scriptural support. Search the scriptures and you will see what I mean.”

Good Fella : I have searched the scriptures, and I see what you mean. There is nothing explicit about the divinity of the Holy Spirit. It is not written in the sacred texts that he is “God” and the third Person of the Holy Trinity; nor does the NT explicitly tell us that Jesus is “God the Son”, the second Person of the Holy Trinity. We believe in the Holy Trinity because the Catholic Church defined the triune Godhead at the Council of Nicea in 325AD. The Mormons, Jehova Witnesses, and Unitarians reject the Catholic Church’s definitive teachings on the Trinity because the “infallible and inerrant” scriptures tell us otherwise. Likewise, Luther and the early Protestant reformers rejected the teachings of the apostolic authority and espoused erroneous teachings by privately appealling to scriptures: i.e., ‘sola fide’, and ‘sola scriptura’. The scriptures tell us that these doctrines are false. The Catholic Church has soundly refuted these novel teachings which are the product of a lone individual who separated himself from the apostolic tradition. Peter, Paul, and James never taught these doctrines. The Calvinistic doctrine of ‘high predestination’ is also unscriptural, as is the case with John Smythe’s rejection of the Catholic dogma of ‘baptismal regeneration’. Ironically, some Protestant denominations hold to the teachings of the Catholic Church concerning baptismal regeneration, and some reject the doctrine of high predestination. The Holy Spirit cannot be guiding the Protestant traditions in all truth, since this religious movement is the antithesis of unity, unlike the Catholic tradition which comes to us from the apostles and is carried on by their successors, the pope and the world’s bishops, who form doctrines and proclaim dogmas in unison. We are not in the same boat as you are, for the Holy Spirit is guiding us in all truth until the end of time. Indeed, more definitions are on the way, for Christ has not yet returned in glory.

I have searched the scriptures to find support for the legitimacy of the Protestant movement, but I cannot find any. Yet Protestants contend that the so-called reformation came about by the intervention of the Holy Spirit. But that cannot be true, for Protestantism contradicts the prophetic words of Jesus: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. Our Lord said nothing about building an indefinite number of churches which would not entirely agree on essential doctrines based on scripture. (The Protestant churches were founded by erring mortals) Jesus could not break his promise to guide us in all truth until the end of time, for he also assured us that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church. The Catholic Church survived the reformation and came out of it all the more unified and stronger, while that movement which Satan started has crumbled into thousands of pieces. Meanwhile, Protestants can shop around for the denomination whose doctrines tickle their fancy. ; of the pit ascended as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun was darkened, and the air with the smoke of the pit. And from the smoke of the pit, there came out locusts upon the earth, and power was given to them, as the scorpions of the earth have power.’ [Revelation 9:1-3]

Catholic scriptural scholars for the past 500 years have seen in this vision Luther’s revolt and the rise of Protestantism. Most modern biblical scholars see the fallen star in Luther, who fell from the Catholic Church and spread his false teachings with the support of European kings and princes who forced his heresies on their subjects.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Again you make the same mistake! The Church of Christ existed from the beginning, but the idea of it’s being RC exists only in the minds of RC’s! The RC promotes unity?! LOL The scriptural basis for the legitimacy of the Protestant church is the exact same legitimacy that you claim. The early Church was Christ’s Church not the RC Church or the Protestant Church, or the Greek Orthodox Church for that matter.

The Mormon Church forbids it’s members from attending other church services. You have to wonder why. Is it because they might hear a rational, non-Mormon view of scripture? It is hard not to view the RCC in the same light, especially in light of the extravagant claims made for Mary that seem designed to promote Her into the Holy Family, a clearly heretical move.

 

[guanophore]

Again you make the same mistake! The Church of Christ existed from the beginning, but the idea of it’s being RC exists only in the minds of RC’s! The RC promotes unity?! LOL The scriptural basis for the legitimacy of the Protestant church is the exact same legitimacy that you claim. The early Church was Christ’s Church not the RC Church or the Protestant Church, or the Greek Orthodox Church for that matter.

The Mormon Church forbids it’s members from attending other church services. You have to wonder why. Is it because they might hear a rational, non-Mormon view of scripture? It is hard not to view the RCC in the same light, especially in light of the extravagant claims made for Mary that seem designed to promote Her into the Holy Family, a clearly heretical move.

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.

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?

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?

You seem to have removed the exclusivity of your priesthood,

Can you explain what this means? I know it was not directed to me, but I am confused about it.

but have not directed any comments or scripture towards praying to dead people.

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.

or to creating a new member of the Trinity.

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!

 

[Markway]

Since you have rejected the authority established by Christ of the Catholic Church to hold and teach His truth, why are you here? Why visit and participate in an enviroment that is contaminated so badly with the "fallible teachings of men? What are you DOING here?

Guano, don’t you get it? We are all fallible humans, put here to bear each other’s burdens, and to add light where we are blessed with it.