The assumption of Mary

[Kinsman]

1962Missal:

You contradict what the Bible, itself, teaches.

Provisions were made for the ongoing transmission of that oral Word. Note that already, four generations are accounted for: Paul’s generation, Timothy’s, those that Timothy is to teach, and those who, in turn, Timothy’s successors are to teach. Sounds like both oral Tradition and, incidentally, the Magisterial office of the bishops, the successors of the Apostles to me.

Scripture, the “permanent hard copy” is not the pillar and foundation of the truth, the Church is. It is within the Church that the living Tradition is maintained.

1. You and I know nothing of what Paul taught Timothy except what was wirtten in Paul’s letters to Timothy. Or are you telling me your Bishops can transport back in time and listen to their private converstations?

2. I’m amazed how you constantly try to devalue Scripture!! There’s no such thing as *“living traditions.” *It’s God’s Word that is “living and active” (Heb. 4:12).

1TI 3:15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support (i.e., stay) of the truth."

What Paul wrote Timothy became God-breathed Scripture. That is what is passed down to us. We know nothing else of what he personally taught Timothy. As for the Church (Paul does not have the church at Rome in mind here, but the whole Body of Christ. Certainly not Rome’s Magesterium. He refers to the Church as something that supports the truth, via sound doctrine, ect, but does not refer to the Church AS the truth. Jesus Christ Himself is the truth (Jn. 14:6). Local churches, such as the church of Rome, can veer off this truth by introducing destructive heresies and other corrupt teachings that rob from the glory of Christ. Are you familiar with church history?

3. You quoted the Abrahamic covenant. And of course you quoted it FROM SCRIPTURE. This was not handed down to you by oral tradition, was it? The Abrahamic covenant was unconditional. In other words, it was binding on God to accomplish. That’s why He delivered the Israelites out of Egypt to bring them back into the land He promised them in the Abrahamic Covenant. That’s also why He provided the Messiah through Abraham to bless the world. But we in this generation know exactly what constitutes this unconditional covenant because God hard-copied it in Scripture. That’s why Jesus opened their minds to the Scriptures to understand them.

**4.**The 1 Tim. 3:15 passage, and its context, says absolutely NOTHING about Apostolic succession. You read that into the passage.

 

[1962Missal]

1. You and I know nothing of what Paul taught Timothy except what was wirtten in Paul’s letters to Timothy. Or are you telling me your Bishops can transport back in time and listen to their private converstations?

Such facetiousness ill becomes you. If you cannot respond without mockery then I suggest you take a breather between reading and responding. As for what was received and handed on, we have the testimony of those who knew and immediately succeeded the Apostles as to what they were taught.

Clement I, AD 80

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry”

Ignatius of Antioch, AD 110

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible”

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”

Justin Martyr, AD 151

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” *

I can go on and on for pages and pages. The Real Presence, the Mass as Sacrifice, Apostolic Succession, Infant Baptism, Baptismal Regeneration, etc, etc. You asked what Paul handed on. There it is.

Justin

 

[1962Missal]

2. I’m amazed how you constantly try to devalue Scripture!! There’s no such thing as *“living traditions.” *It’s God’s Word that is “living and active” (Heb. 4:12).

Neither I, nor the Catholic Church, devalue Scripture. Once again, you create a false dichotomy by claiming that either Scripture is supreme or it is “devalued”.

You insist that there are is no living Sacred Tradition, but you ignore the testimony of the early church, see posts #71-74, above.

12: For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
13: And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

You didn’t get the context. The Word, here, is the same Word as in John 1:

1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2: He was in the beginning with God;
3: all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made…14: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

Beware, lest your words be confused with Bibliolatry.

Justin

 

[1962Missal]

1TI 3:15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support (i.e., stay) of the truth."

14: I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, 15: if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Again, you can see that what is written is a supplement to what was to be communicated face to face.

What Paul wrote Timothy became God-breathed Scripture

Absolutely.

That is what is passed down to us

.See posts #71-74, above.

As for the Church (Paul does not have the church at Rome in mind here, but the whole Body of Christ. Certainly not Rome’s Magesterium. He refers to the Church as something that supports the truth, via sound doctrine, ect, but does not refer to the Church AS the truth.

Please describe how a nebulous, “invisible Church of all believers” is a stable Pillar and Foundation…keeping in mind the current state of disunity and disagreement among those who profess to believe in such a Church.

3. You quoted the Abrahamic covenant. And of course you quoted it FROM SCRIPTURE. This was not handed down to you by oral tradition, was it? The Abrahamic covenant was unconditional. In other words, it was binding on God to accomplish. That’s why He delivered the Israelites out of Egypt to bring them back into the land He promised them in the Abrahamic Covenant. That’s also why He provided the Messiah through Abraham to bless the world. But we in this generation know exactly what constitutes this unconditional covenant because God hard-copied it in Scripture. That’s why Jesus opened their minds to the Scriptures to understand them.

You fail to acknowledge the point of the post. You claimed that oral teaching was never binding upon anyone other than the original recipient, and the Abrahamic Covenant was binding in oral form, for hundreds of years.

Justin

 

[Mathetes007]

2. I’m amazed how you constantly try to devalue Scripture!! There’s no such thing as *“living traditions.” *It’s God’s Word that is “living and active” (Heb. 4:12).

I thought we already went over these passages Kinsman. Yes, Scripture does say that God’s oral Word is “living,” “enduring,” and “works.” The examples are found in the very verses you seem to bring up or respond to:

1 Thessalonians 2:13:

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

1 Peter 1:22-25:

Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart, for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

For,

“ALL FLESH IS LIKE GRASS, AND ALL ITS GLORY LIKE THE FLOWER OF GRASS. THE GRASS WITHERS, AND THE FLOWER FALLS OFF, BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURES FOREVER.” And this is the word which was preached to you.

 

[jimmy]

Kinsman

Can you prove any catholic teachings wrong with the bible? No, you can’t. The bible supports the catholic church in every area.

 

[Kinsman]

1962Missal:

Such facetiousness ill becomes you. If you cannot respond without mockery then I suggest you take a breather between reading and responding. As for what was received and handed on, we have the testimony of those who knew and immediately succeeded the Apostles as to what they were taught.

I can go on and on for pages and pages. The Real Presence, the Mass as Sacrifice, Apostolic Succession, Infant Baptism, Baptismal Regeneration, etc, etc. You asked what Paul handed on. There it is.Justin

Sometimes facetiousness must be employeed to make the point. And what you avoid is the point being made. All you and I, or any church leader, have to form true Christian doctrine is what is hard-copied and divinely preserved in God-breathed Scripture. You quote so-called church fathers but they’re not telling you anything that backs up the fantastic story regarding the Assumption of Mary. Nor do your quotes PROVE that Paul taught baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, that sharing in the bread and wine (yes, both according to Scripture) serves as a “sacrifice” (since Scripture reveals a once for all Sacrifice), and nowhere, absolutely nowhere is Apostolic succession even hinted at by Paul or any Apostle. The appointing of elders is not Apostolic succession. Please, stay real with me! No my friend, these doctrines come from the mind of men, not God handed down to us in Holy writ.

You’ll have to PROVE to me Paul and the other apostles taught such doctrines. You can’t just quote so-called church fathers and say *“see?, this is what Paul taught too!” *However, Paul did warn this:

ACT 20:29 "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
ACT 20:30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

Paul’s prophetic words came true. You quote the writings of men like I quote the Scriptures. By doing this you devalue the Scriptures and elevate the writings of men to an even higher authority than God’s written Word. When in truth, even the writings of “church fathers,” as well as church councils, must be examined by what was already written by Paul and the other N.T. writers. And what does not conform must be rejected.

Today, espeically, you have no excuse! You have at your fingertips God’s written Word (thanks to men like John Wycliffe).

If you want your arguements to be valid with me, show me where it’s taught in GOD’s Word. Not the words of mere men.

 

[Kinsman]

jimmy:

Kinsman

Can you prove any catholic teachings wrong with the bible? No, you can’t. The bible supports the catholic church in every area.

Jimmy, can you PROVE by the Bible Mary’s Assumption? Or any of Mary’s elevated positions, for that matter?

 

[Kinsman]

Mathetes007:

I thought we already went over these passages Kinsman. Yes, Scripture does say that God’s oral Word is “living,” “enduring,” and “works.” The examples are found in the very verses you seem to bring up or respond to:

Yes!!! That’s my point. What we have are verses from hard-copied SCRIPTURE. This is what is handed down to us.

 

[1962Missal]

Sometimes facetiousness must be employeed to make the point. And what you avoid is the point being made.

No, I don’t avoid the point. I have faced the point which you have argued, but have not made, in every post. I have posted both from Scripture and the writings of the early Church Fathers in rebuttal to your argument.

All you and I, or any church leader, have to form true Christian doctrine is what is hard-copied and divinely preserved in God-breathed Scripture

.We obviously disagree. You have seen the evidence from both Scripture and the ECF’s that contradict your assertion here and you have made no attempt to rebut any of it. You only dismiss it.

You quote so-called church fathers but they’re not telling you anything that backs up the fantastic story regarding the Assumption of Mary. Nor do your quotes PROVE that Paul taught baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, that sharing in the bread and wine (yes, both according to Scripture) serves as a “sacrifice” (since Scripture reveals a once for all Sacrifice), and nowhere, absolutely nowhere is Apostolic succession even hinted at by Paul or any Apostle. The appointing of elders is not Apostolic succession. Please, stay real with me! No my friend, these doctrines come from the mind of men, not God handed down to us in Holy writ.

First, you have continually asserted that what is not explicitly taught in holy writ is from the mind of men, not from God, without ever attempting to demonstrate from why that must be so.

Second, you demand proof. I would say that the burden of proof is upon you to show that the Early Church Fathers, men who were martyred for refusing to even offer a pinch of incense to the Emperor’s statue, arch-conservatives whose writings are full of admonitions not to look beyond the Apostles’ teaching, were untrustworthy in their witness to authentic Apostolic teaching.

You’ll have to PROVE to me Paul and the other apostles taught such doctrines. You can’t just quote so-called church fathers and say *“see?, this is what Paul taught too!” * Nope, the ball is in your court. You came here to prove us wrong. We are commanded to give a reason for our hope, not to convince every cynic. In fact, a certain verse involving pearls and swine come to mind.

continued

 

[1962Missal]

However, Paul did warn this:

ACT 20:29 "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
ACT 20:30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

Paul’s prophetic words came true.

They certainly did. Read:

Polycarp disciple of the apostle John and by him ordained bishop of Smyrna was chief of all Asia, where he saw and had as teachers some of the apostles and of those who had seen the Lord. He, on account of certain questions concerning the day of the Passover, went to Rome in the time of the emperor Antoninus Pius while Anicetus ruled the church in that city. There he led back to the faith many of the believers who had been deceived through the persuasion of Marcion and Valentinus, and when. Marcion met him by chance and said “Do you know us” he replied, “I know the firstborn of the devil.” Afterwards during the reign of Marcus Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus in the fourth persecution after Nero, in the presence of the proconsul holding court at Smyrna and all the people crying out against him in the Amphitheater, he was burned. He wrote a very valuable Epistle to the Philippians which is read to the present day in the meetings in Asia.

The wolves were the Docetists, the Gnostics, etc.

If you want your arguements to be valid with me, show me where it’s taught in GOD’s Word. Not the words of mere men

Sorry, you will not apply Sola Scriptura here. You don’t make the rules.

Justin

 

[1962Missal]

Kinsman:

Yes!!! That’s my point. What we have are verses from hard-copied SCRIPTURE. This is what is handed down to us.

Have you not seen that what you are saying bears no support either from Scripture or the Early Church Fathers? We have shown you that the Bible testifies to the reality of God’s revelation being transmitted by oral Sacred Tradition and we have shown you, extensively (see posts #71-74, above) that the early Church embraced Sacred Tradition, in addition to Sacred Scripture, as being handed down by the Apostles. . And, yet, you continually repeat your unsupported claim for the Bible alone.

Justin

 

[Kinsman]

1962Missal:

Neither I, nor the Catholic Church, devalue Scripture. Once again, you create a false dichotomy by claiming that either Scripture is supreme or it is “devalued”.

You’re right, but it’s not a false dichotomy. Either Scripture remains our primary source for forming doctrine or it is automatically depreciated. Everything else, written or spoken by men, must be tested and subsequently accepted or rejected based on what God has provided us through Holy Writ. In other words, either God’s Word is absolute or it is not. True shepherds of God’s flock fight to retain this truth.

Doctrinal corruption found its way into the historic, universal Church (including the church of Rome) almost from its very beginning. The Epistles demonstrate this. The quest of the Reformers in the 1500s was to get back to a Biblically based faith, free from the leaven introduced by men. They were successful not in reforming Rome, but did manage to reintroduce to the people the great Biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Now even many of them have gone apostate in respect to that doctrine. But the Scriptures are back into the hands of men to be read and examined. Like God Himself, His Word never changes.

12: For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
13: And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
You didn’t get the context. The Word, here, is the same Word as in John 1:

The author of Hebrews was quoting Scripture and in context he is not referring to Jesus Christ but the O.T. Scriptures he quotes. Yes, to be sure J.C. is the living Word of God, become flesh, but not in this context. It is before God Himself, the Originator of those Scriptures, that no creature is hidden.

Again, you can see that what is written is a supplement to what was to be communicated face to face.

“No way Jose.” What was written is what is to be communicated to us face to face. That’s why Jesus, Peter, Paul and all the others quoted Scripture with authority. What the Apostles preached by divine authority in regards to new revelation, concerning the Person and work of J.C. on our behalf, was subsequently preserved FOR US by God-breathed, Holy Writ called “The New Testament.”

 

[Kinsman]

1962Missal:

You fail to acknowledge the point of the post.

Well, let’s follow through with your line of logic. The Assumption of Mary is a 4th century story first discovered in an apocryphal writing. Not until Gregory of Tours (d. 590) did any orthodox writer accept this extraordinary story as valid. Extraordinary because it has no historical validity, no Apostolic or Scriptural backing, and no eyewitness to the alleged event. So based on your line of reasoning (which you have argued now in many posts), since Gregory of Tours is introducing new revelation into the faith, he must of necessity be elevated to the rank of Apostle. And the apocryphal writing in which the story was found must, out of necessity, be considered God-breathed Scripture and added to the canon. The story was first spoken, then written, and finally accepted as authoritative by one of your reigning Popes. And according to your logic is equal to Scripture.

And since you present the writings of so called church fathers and other post-apostolic writers Christian writers to prove your extrabiblical Marian doctrine, then by necessity all these writings must be considered God-breathed and elevated to the status and authority of Scripture, as well. And for this reason I say that you constantly devalue what truly IS Scripture and elevate what we all know is not. All for the sake of holding to your beloved extrabiblical *“traditions.” *And we both know how Christ feels about the “traditions” of men that don’t conform to His Word (Mk. 7:9).

In conclusion, none of you could prove the historical validity of Mary’s Assumption. And if you can’t prove her Assumption you can’t prove the other extrabiblical, heavenly powers and positions predicated to her by Rome. “Homer” started the thread and abandoned it, nevertheless, many of the things he first pointed out regarding this extremely dubious story have not been disproved by any here. You can’t just reply, *“but you didn’t disprove it.” *The burden of proof is upon those who proclaim it. You haven’t done that. I personally feel I’ve exhausted this discussion with you since we’re now repeating ourselves. Bottom line, I’ll adhere to the authority of God’s inerrant Word in respect to the content of my faith; you cling to the words and traditions of mere men. That’s one of the joyous luxuies of living in this time of Church history, Rome no longer has the power to rule the conscience and convictions of men by force.

 

[Mathetes007]

Kinsman:

Yes!!! That’s my point. What we have are verses from hard-copied SCRIPTURE. This is what is handed down to us.

You’re funny Kinsman. If someone quotes the Church Fathers in reference to the topics you bring up, well it doesn’t matter since these are the words of man not God. If someone brings up Scripture to prove you wrong, well it doesn’t matter either since we’re quoting from the written Word. Wow what logic.

You brought the discussion to the point of using Scripture alone since it is “God-breathed” as you keep reminding everyone. You set that standard and accept no other authority. The purpose of quoting Scripture is to show you that your only authority proves you wrong. It plainly says that God’s oral Word is permanent. Now deal with it.

 

[Little_Mary]

Kinsman:

Yes!!! That’s my point. What we have are verses from hard-copied SCRIPTURE. This is what is handed down to us.

…***by whom??? ***

 

[Little_Mary]

Mathetes007:

You brought the discussion to the point of using Scripture alone since it is “God-breathed” as you keep reminding everyone.

Someone should also point out that Jesus breathed on the twelve when he ordained them…The authority he gave them, the first Catholic priests, was God-breathed …yet kinsman rejects that authority? I don’t get it.

 

[Mathetes007]

Kinsman:

You can’t just reply, *“but you didn’t disprove it.” *The burden of proof is upon those who proclaim it. You haven’t done that. I personally feel I’ve exhausted this discussion with you since we’re now repeating ourselves. Bottom line, I’ll adhere to the authority of God’s inerrant Word in respect to the content of my faith; you cling to the words and traditions of mere men. That’s one of the joyous luxuies of living in this time of Church history, Rome no longer has the power to rule the conscience and convictions of men by force.

Oh yes, we forgot, you did prove that God’s written Word was “sufficient.” And you also proved that God’s oral Word is inferior to the His written Word. And you also proved that the oral Word, being inferior, is not permanent. And you also proved that Peter taught that Scripture is of “private interpretation.”

Interesting how Kinsman falls short based on his own standards. Sola Scriptura came on the scene over a thousand years after the Lord walked the earth. The interpretation he gives of 2 Timothy chapter 3 did not exist until the man-made doctrine of Scripture alone was devised by man. Yet that doesn’t matter. Somehow, time is not an issue or a problem when it comes to this false belief.

Note also that when Catholics recognize that God worked through the Church to preserve the Scriptures Protestants usually respond that God protected Scripture not man. No credit should be given the Catholic Church. Yet they can turn around and say that thanks to the ‘reformers,’ we have Scripture. The double standards never cease.

 

[1962Missal]

Either Scripture remains our primary source for forming doctrine or it is automatically depreciated. Everything else, written or spoken by men, must be tested and subsequently accepted or rejected based on what God has provided us through Holy Writ. In other words, either God’s Word is absolute or it is not. True shepherds of God’s flock fight to retain this truth.

The false dichotomy is in the assumption that multiple authorities must compete for importance. That is not what the Church teaches.
Read:

1. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.

1. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

 

[1962Missal]

Doctrinal corruption found its way into the historic, universal Church (including the church of Rome) almost from its very beginning. The Epistles demonstrate this. The quest of the Reformers in the 1500s was to get back to a Biblically based faith, free from the leaven introduced by men. They were successful not in reforming Rome, but did manage to reintroduce to the people the great Biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Now even many of them have gone apostate in respect to that doctrine. But the Scriptures are back into the hands of men to be read and examined. Like God Himself, His Word never changes.

Now lets talk historically untenable. All evidence indicates that Sola Fide is the invention of the Reformers. If I am wrong, then certainly there should be some evidence (other than your interpretation of Scripture) to indicate its having been taught in the sub-Apostolic Church. As for the Scriptures being “back in the hands of men”, please tell me when the cheap, mass produced copies of the Bible that were so readily available in the Ancient World disappeared.

Justin