There is no evidence in Scripture that she was assumed into heaven nor are there any eyewitness accounts for it in the first century.
Just because a church has authority does not mean its always correct. For this claim to be true it must have some evidence.
i agree. However fallible men can lie.
Scripture does not serve the purpose of explicitly defining articles of faith. It is an essential function of the Church to make explicit what is implicit in Scripture. Scripture comes from Tradition, so the former must be interpreted only by the Church in light of the latter from whence it comes. Scripture and Tradition are the two mediums of divine revelation. The canon of Scripture comes from the Catholic Church, so naturally it must reflect Catholic theology and Church teachings. As long as you hold the erroneous view that everything God reveals to us must be explicitly written down and literally conveyed in single passages, as if it were a catechism, you will fail to see the fullness of divine truth. The Bible must be taken as a whole to discover the divine truths that lie beneath the surface of the written word in single passages.
“For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
But certainly scripture is relevant and extremely clear in what the Apostles were to preach as the gospel message in its “fullest” and most “meaningful” fashion. Jesus was quite clear when it came the heart of the matter.
Quite clear? How do you figure it was “quite clear” when most Protestants can’t even agree on the simplest things. What do you do with John 21:25?
***There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. ***
Leeann:
What that verse clearly tells us, is that Jesus was sending the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, the “Church” is not mentioned at all.
John 16:13 (Douay Rheims bible online)
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth.
So, you think that the authority of that Apostles ended when the last one died?
**Why, then, did they elect a new Apostle to take the place of Judas in Acts 2? Who do you think was in charge of the Church on earth? **
Tell me something, Leeann – when the Apostles convened the3 Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, by what authority did they make their decision? The authority of Scripture? It hadn’t been written yet. No – it was the authority of Jesus commands and promises.
I wouldn’t be so smug if I were you about the Authority of the Church.
Don’t forget what Jesus told Saul (later, Paul) on the road to Damascus when he was knocked off his horse:
***“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute ME?” ***
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.”
Did he say, “Why are you persecuting the Church? Nope! He said, “ME”.
Saul was persecuting the Church and Jesus equated himself with his Church. Jesus and his Church are ONE.
\
Again - see my response above about the Church.
Leeann:
Well obviously….what else could he say…he was Catholic!
Yes, he was!I’m glad you said that because many Protestant scholars will tell you differently.
Quite clear? How do you figure it was “quite clear” when most Protestants can’t even agree on the simplest things and ignore the Old Testament prefigurements of Mary and her Purity.
So, you think that the authority of that Apostles ended when the last one died?
I wouldn’t be so smug if I were you about the Authority of the Church.
Again - see my response above about the Church.
Yes, he was!I’m glad you said that because many Protestant scholars will tell you differently.
"Rome has spoken; the case is closed"**** (St. Augustine, Sermon 131:10, against the Pelagian heresy)
**Are you saying that the Church does, indeed have Authority?
**Except for when the Holy Spirit is speaking through them – as Jesus promised. **This is the case with the Marian dogmas.
Leeann: “Please explain the ‘Tradition’ where the scriptures come from.”
Good Fella: The evangelist should give you a fair idea of how Sacred Tradition precedes Sacred Scripture. Good Fella: Naturally, or more precisely supernaturally, Catholic theology and Church teaching does reflect the divine truth as mediated through Scripture and Tradition. If this were not so, then Jesus broke his promise to his apostles and us. And you make our Lord, who claimed to be the Truth, out to be a despicable liar.
Leeann: “In the Catholic Church’s opinion (that Mary was endowed with God’s sanctifying and habitual grace at the precise moment God fashioned her soul upon her conception, not at her birth.).” Good Fella: Well, are you willing to go so far as to affirm that Mary was made sinless when she was born? That’s a good start. And while you’re at it you may as well reject Catholic teaching that the Son of Man was made sinless at his incarnation, not at his nativity. We become human as soon as we are conceived, at which precise instant we receive our souls from God, not when we are born. Original sin stains the soul in union with the body. 
Leeann: “Could you please supply the scripture verses for these statements from Luke?” Good Fella: Luke confirms the traditional belief of the Church that Mary was sinless, by being the one who originally typified Mary as the pure and undefiled ark of the Old Covenant. He portrayed Mary as the immaculate Ark who carried the Word made flesh. Please reflect on the following pairs of passages: Leeann: "An erroneous assumption made on your part…I have never stated that (everything God reveals to us must be explictly written down and literally conveyed in single passages). And “what a novel and new idea (on GF’s part that the Bible must be taken as a whole to discover the divine truths that lie beneath the surface of the written word in single passages)!” Good Fella: "You deny the Church’s Marian dogmas on the grounds that they find no explicit support in the Scriptures; yet in the same breath you object to the approach of understanding a divine truth by taking the entire Bible - Old and New Testaments - into a single perspective and by penetrating what literally lies on the surface of the written word in a single verse. Ignatius of Antioch was criticized for having taken the same approach when he defended the divinity of Christ and the significance of his death and resurrection by appealing to the Old Testament. Will you criticize Luke as well with regard to the sinlessness of Mary?Well actually James does quote from the ‘words of the prophets’ – “just as it is written” - in verses 15,16,17 – and then goes on in verses 18-21 in a way of explanation to help bring understanding to the Jewish believers about the dispute at hand.
I don’t feel smug about it at all, I feel concerned that those placing such trust in the “authority” offered by the Catholic church (as we know it today)…are being mislead. Jesus did indeed consider His church as a part of Himself……HIS church….and I don’t see that as the Catholic church.
What if in 500 years they dig her body up and it is corrupted? Or in 1500 years it has turned to dust? Would this mean a miracle did not happen and the church was mistaken?
There is no proof for this assertion.
Tell me, Leeann -
If “Churches” is not a correct term for the individual churches making up the one true Church under the Lord Jesus Christ, then why does both Jesus and John address the “seven churches” in Revelation Chapter 1?
Excellent points. Not once does the Lord Jesus rebuke them for not listening to the church in Rome nor does He appeal to the seat of Peter nor the bishop of Rome.
What part of “We don’t adhere to Sola Scriptura” don’t you guys understand? The term “Catholic Church” was used at the end of the 1st century in the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (in his Letter to the Smyrnaens).
Leeann: “Please explain the ‘Tradition’ where the scriptures come from.”
Since many have undertaken to complete a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after having investigated everything accurately anew, to write it down in orderly sequence for you, dear Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.
Luke 1, 1-4
In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed down in two ways: First, orally by the spoken word of the apostles’ preaching of what they had received from Christ, whether from his own lips (Not everything Jesus had told them was explicitly put down in writing. The Gospels contain 18 hours worth of what Jesus told his apostles and the crowds in his 3 year ministry.), from his way of life and good works, or by the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Second, in writing, by the apostles and their fellow disciples who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The word was preached before it was committed to writing. The written word confirms the spoken word traditionally handed down from the apostles by their preaching, the institutions they established (including the Seven Sacraments), and what they themselves had received [cf.CCC, #76].
Yes, I understand about the writing down and that not everything was told to them when Jesus was with them, I’ve never had a problem with that….but I see now where you’re getting your “Tradition” information from…CCC#76…on the institutions they established (including the Seven Sacraments)…which once again is simply being “stated” as being true by the Catholic church itself.
Goodfella, thank you for taking the time to put that down for me!