The Assumption of Mary

[Crumpy]

Hi

According to Quran/Islam/Muhammad Mary was a pious lady mother of a Prophet of GodAllahYHWH but she died a natural death as did her son, they both assumed/exalted to heaven after their natural death and buriel.

Quran
[23:51] And We made the son of Mary and his mother a Sign, and gave them shelter on an elevated land of green valleys and springs of running water.
Unquote

Thanks

With all due respect to you and your beliefs, Christians should and do know their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ better than does the Koran. The Koran is actually of human origin only, and the proof is that its view of Christ is based on the heresy of Arianism. That is the only view that the human authors of the Koran would have had, given the history of the time. That is to say, the version of Christianity near Arabia was this Arian heresy, which is what got picked up in the Koran.

Although Arianism was fairly widespread, it was, nevertheless, an error.

I apologize to your deep sensitivity to these matters, but surely you realize that we disagree here essentially.

Blessings on the sons of Abraham. Amen.

 

[Kimella]

Thanks all, I’m just starting to roll now so depending on how I go with all your help and the links, I’ll be back posting more Qs.

 

[epostle]

As Patrick Madrid notes in the article cited above, the Mary/ark imagery appears in Revelation 11:19 and 12:1-17, where she is called the mother of all “those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus” (verse 17). The ark symbolism found in Luke 1 and Revelation 11 and 12 was not lost on the early Christians. They could see the parallels between the Old Testament’s description of the ark and the New Testament’s discussion of Mary’s role.

Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 can be read as one verse. There were no verse numbers until the 13th century, and chapter numbers were added 100 years after that. Capital letters did not appear until the uncial alphabet in the 9th century. If John wrote in Torah style, spaces and punctuation probably weren’t there either.

The Ark of the Old Covenant was a physical reality, forshadowing the the earthly human reality, Mary: The Ark of the New Testament, the ark of God in Rev. 11:19. is a heavenly reality. “Woman” can have more than one meaning, but to intentionally exclude Mary as one of them demands enormous scriptural contortions and back-flips.

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;

 

[DLC]

No, not in the least. There is passage of Scripture that teaches Mary’s assumption. It based on tradition alone that diasgrees with the Bible.

 

[maurin]

No, not in the least. There is passage of Scripture that teaches Mary’s assumption. It based on tradition alone that diasgrees with the Bible.

Prove that alleged disagreement, DLC, or refrain from making such wild statements, please.

 

[maurin]

No, not in the least. There is passage of Scripture that teaches Mary’s assumption. It based on tradition alone that diasgrees with the Bible.

Unlike your man-made traditions of sola Scriptura and sola Fide? Chapter and verse for each please! Or at least admit they are nowhere to be found in Scripture, but instead are “based on tradition alone that disagrees with the Bible.”

 

[epostle]

It is impossible to separate Tradition from Scriptures, and when it is artificially done, all that’s left is ink and paper, interpreted by human scholarship, lexicons and concordances: purely human effort. It’s Pelagianism. The authority of Scripture is just as valid a tradition as is the Assumption of Mary.
Critics of Tradition are in a serious state of denial (or ignorance). Ancient rabbis interpreted the Torah in the strict light of tradition that Jesus instructed his listeners to obey. Jesus NEVER instructed the Apostles to write, with the exception of Revelation. Jesus NEVER instructed the Apostles to read the Gospel. Oral preaching did not die with the advent of the Bible or the invention of the printing press, yet some treat the idea as if it were doctrinal. Nowhere in scripture is the “Gospel message” confined only to the written word. And nowhere is the Gospel message intended to be the property of each individual believer to teach opinions.

The authority of Scripture is a Tradition of the Church without which, there would be no Bible. All the primary Traditions of the Church PREDATE the canon of scripture, with truckloads of evidence critics of Tradition must deny. The authority of Scripture is just as valid a Tradition as is the Assumption of Mary.

The Apostles themselves were witnesses to Mary’s empty tomb. They did not suddenly develop comprehensive Marian theology on the event. Marian development paralled Trinitarian development. St. Thomas was called in from India (where he established a Church without one word of scripture) so it must have been viewed as important. The event probably occured AFTER the Epistles were written, so to demand scripture verses is plain dishonest.

At a time when the bodies of saints were highly prized by the faithful, there is not one single claim to Mary’s body. If Mary was not assumed bodily in heaven, the only logical explanation is that the Apostles were deceitful and conspired to hide her body, then lie about what they saw.

Maybe Dan Brown and a group of Tradition critics can form an expeditition and go to Palestine to dig one up.

 

[ChangingHeart]

The Apostles themselves were witnesses to Mary’s empty tomb.

Where are you getting that from??? Mary had a tomb??? The Church teaching, as I understand it, is that the Church is unsure as to whether Mary died first and then was immediately assumed, or whether she was assumed immediately before she otherwise would have died. While the Church takes no stance on this, either scenario would eliminate the notion of Mary having a tomb.

Yes, I support the Glorious Assumption 100%, but where are you getting this idea of Mary’s tomb from? Surely, if such a tomb existed, there would be pilmgrimages made to it.

 

[epostle]

In one of the nine postulates concerning the Assumption of Our Lady which was submitted to the approval of the [first] Vatican Council, endorsed by 113 Fathers of the Council, one reads, among others, these words: “Furthermore, according as the unanimous consent of our predecessors and the solemn cult, public and constant, in favor of the resurrection and Assumption into heaven of this Immaculate Virgin teaches, the ancient tradition of both Churches militates in favor of this doctrine, corroborated by the intimate union of this mystery with the other prerogatives of the Virgin, the total absence of relics, and the sepulcher empty of the virginal body”

Whether or not Mary died a physical death, the Church is silent, but silence does not mean denial. JP2 in his writings indicate that she died, but it’s really not important. A detailed history of shrines, art, and archeological evidence seems to point to the Sarcophagus of the Eighteen Martyrs where evidence can be found.
The Assumption of Our Lady in Monuments prior to the Council of Ephesus
personal.psu.edu/bmd175/assumption.htm#2

 

[Kimella]

Below are my posts and his replies as of this morning:

I wrote: “GOD’S WORD IS NOT LIMITED TO ‘THE BIBLE ONLY’. God is always revealing new things every day to show His Glory. He revealed His Glory in the time of Abraham, the time of Jesus, does it stop there? No! He continues to reveal His Glory even after the death of Christ.”

He replied: "And that Glory was his written Word, which is our reference For His Truth. His Truth is the Work of his Glory. Not the other way around. his Truth is that Acts 4:12 nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. John 16:13 He will guide you in all truth(Holy Spirit. Not Mary, compendium catechism page 195 mary Shows us the way to her son.

---

I wrote: “The Bible was composed to help us believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Jn 20:30-31 tells us clearly why ‘the written accounts of Jesus’. Seen that u r all for Bible only, I wonder what you would be like these days if the Bible was never composed/canonised by the Church. Who would u be listening to to teach the truth? OR u might never believe at all that Jesus is the Messiah because it is not written as proof for u to believe since u r for ‘only what’s written in the Bible is true’.”

He replied: "Dear Lord, Thats like saying what if God never created. we would not be here today to even discuss such unbiblical non scriptural garp such as False assumptions and attributing such garp to Godly inspiration, when it IS only the Traditions of fallable men, that is a fact… What IF is not How God works in his Truth. It is written, is more of Gods style, so we can even see in your thinking that you are not grounded in Truth, but are tossed to an fro (1Tim 4)

---

I wrote: " When people who lived in the very early centuries recognised(as in ‘much talked about’) the Assumption, u in the 21st century call it a fairytale? But again u’d repeat ‘it’s not in my Bible so, it is false teaching’. I’ll open a new post on The Assumption."

He replied: “make sure you put this in your false assumption. Pope LeoI(440) The Lord Jesus christ (Alone) among the sons of men was born immaculate;sermon24Nativ.Dom)Pope Gelasius(492) It belongs alone to the immaculate lamb to have no sin at all(GelassiiPapaeDicta,vol.4,col.1241,Paris,1671
Pope Innocent III(1216) She(Eve)was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she(mary)was produced in sin,but she brought forth without sin(deFestoAssup,sermon2.”

---

I wrote: “It is a mistake to LIMIT Gods word to the Bible only. The Gospel was preached through Tradition OR orally passed on Truth from Christ in the early Church. Did the people need the Bible to believe? Of course not. There was no NT then, instead they obeyed Christ through the authorative teaching of the Church which Christ gave.”

He replied: “So its a mistake to take God at his Word= holy inspired scripture. Again, the assumption was not believed in tradition nor fact in the early church. Your early tradition might be believed now, but it has no reference in Gods Truth-bible. Nov 1st 1950 Pope Pius XII declared the assumption 2B an infallible doctrine of the catholic church, excluded from biblical Truth.”

---

Below are others he didn’t address:

"2Tim3:16 - Newman wrote: “It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.”

He wrote earlier: “Again dear friend, i only need check my bible for TRUTH.”

To which I replied “Who is the pillar and support of that TRUTH, who lamri? Quote it(1Tim3:15), I want to read it on this board. Surely Paul would be contradicting himself here with ur interpretation of 2Tm3:16, wouldn’t he? You can’t separate the Church and the Bible, NO YOU CAN’T because it canonised it, it determined which books were inspired and which weren’t. The Word of God is in the heart of the Church. It composed the Bible to help us believe that Jesus is the Messiah.”
…

Pls correct any errors I may have made. And someone has to come on you tube, au.youtube.com/watch?v=hpINS8mA2Ms#nA3WZ4x7SSY and convince this man into checking our websites for detailed explanation. My username: oneinfaith, His: lamritee.

It’s like He’s made up His mind to believe in sola scriptura. Am I wasting time?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

It’s like He’s made up His mind to believe in sola scriptura. Am I wasting time?

Keep in mind, he probably has already made up his mind. But I thought you did pretty good to be honest.

My only note that I don’t think anything new is necessarilly revealed. To be fair, the answers have already been given in advance. We in the church, if an analogy can be drawn, have been given the mathematical question and answer already. It remains, however, for us to work out the mathematical question in order to arrive at the answer that has already been given.

It’s kind of like checking one’s answers at the end of the math text book. We know the questions and the answers already. But we’re trying to figure out the middle groundwork in between the question and the answer. As we do our work and arrive at an answer, we then check our answer to the end of the book to ensure our answer is correct.

This is a simple analogy which may cause inconsistencies upon further examination. For example, someone could start with the quesiton, make a mathematical mistake, and then still arrive at the correct answer-- albeit, incorrectly. But, if that’s the case, then the formula we use will not actually being us to the truth upon closer examination. It will actually delude us-- which is why we have the Chruch (as a teacher) which Christ gave us to guide us through the mathematical work.

 

[ChangingHeart]

Due to length, I need to break this down into two posts. Read them both. It is worth it.

Kimella, you are doing well. Be sure to capitalize when he leaves himself wide open. He brought John 16:13 into the argument, about the Holy Spirit guiding us to all truth. John 16:13 is a verse that Catholics can use to shut Protestants down. Don’t ever let a Protestant try to use that verse against you. Here are some things about that verse.

1. Jesus was speaking to the Apostles, who made up the magisterium of the early Church, divine authority that was passed down(apostolic succession) and remains in the Church, today. The Holy Spirit guiding them to all truth includes(but is not limited to) the writing, canonizing, and interpretation of the New Testament, as well as the interpretation of the Old Testament, portions of which were specifically interpreted in the writings that were eventually canonized in the New Testament. This also includes the entire deposit of faith, both written in Scripture, and conveyed orally.
2. Today, this promise still remains within the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. Most specifically, the Pope when speaking authoritatively ex-cathedra on matters of faith and morals is guaranteed guidance by The Holy Spirit, to all truth. In the approximate 2000 years of Church history, you will NEVER find a Pope teaching error when speaking ex-cathedra in matters of faith and morals. That is not to say that Popes have never committed sin in their actions, (so don’t accept Galatians 2:11-14 as a valid refutation of this point), merely that any binding doctrine that any Pope has ever declared ex-cathedra in matters of faith and morals has never been flawed nor does it contradict the original and consistent deposit of faith or a PROPER INTERPRETATION of the Bible.
3. That promise is NOT nor has it ever been granted to those who chose to break away from the Roman Catholic Church, nor those who were born into schismatic or heretical denominations, even if they rise to a level of “authority” in such denominations. Furthermore, lay Catholics are not granted that promise either, only that we can trust that the Church that guides us, through The Holy Spirit, is granted that promise. Protestants like to apply certain promises that were given strictly to the Apostles to all “believers.” For example, many Protestants think that they, as individuals have the authority to “bind and loose,” as they are not willing to accept the historical fact that Jesus gave that authority to PETER, as recorded in Matthew 16:19.
4. If your friend wants proof that John 16:13 doesn’t apply to Protestants, point out the simple fact that there are nearly 30,000 different Protestant denominations that believe conflicting “truths” with each other, yet all claim to be guided by The Holy Spirit. Clearly, truth can not contradict truth, The Holy Spirit can not contradict Himself, and therefore, the promise of John 16:13 can NOT POSSIBLY be that that The Holy Spirit will guide, “all who claim to believe in Jesus, regardless of their denomination,” to all truth, because clearly, such a notion would suggest that truth contradicts truth. Therefore, this is not a matter of theology or interpretation, but a logically proveable FACT that John 16:13 can not possibly apply to Protestants, not even in their interpretations of Scripture, no matter how “Guided by The Holy Spirit,” they may think their own interpretations of Scripture are.
5. I am NOT suggesting that The Holy Spirit never guides Protestants in truth, as likely every Protestant denomination believes SOMETHING that concurs with the truth as infallibly defined in The Catholic Church, under the guidance of The Holy Spirit. I am merely saying that Protestants were never granted the promise of John 16:13, that the Holy Spirit will guide them to all truth.

to be continued in my next post…

 

[ChangingHeart]

1. I am by NO MEANS suggesting that The Holy Spirit is lying to Protestants. That is unthinkable! All guidance that GENUINELY comes from The Holy Spirit will be truthful guidance, and that applies to all Catholics and all Protestants. What is lacking in Protestantism, however, is the ability to discern when they are guided by The Holy Spirit from when they are mistaking their own ideas with guidance from The Holy Spirit. Catholics, on the other hand, regarding doctrines, can discern this by seeing whether what we feel was “revealed” to us is consistent with Church teachings or not. Protestants don’t have that option, because, whether they realize it or not, by rejecting the Roman Catholic Church, they are thereby rejecting the truth that was revealed by The Holy Spirit, and thereby rejecting the promise of John 16:13. They have no infallible authority they can go to, since what they view as “The Bible,” is merely their own interpretation of the Bible, which when interpreted by Protestants lacks the John 16:13 guarantee, and therefore remains a fallible interpretation of an infallible book, regardless of how much they’ve prayed and fasted before reading it.
2. As for your friend’s argument trying to use John 16:13 to attack Mary, note that the verse does NOT read, “The Holy Spirit alone will directly guide you to all truth, with no assistance from any person nor book, living or dead.” Basically, if your friend is going to make the claim that the verse suggests that The Holy Spirit can’t use Mary to help guide us into truth, then you can also say then by that logic, neither can The Holy Spirit use the Bible, or any other person to help guide us into truth, but that it all must come to us personally and directly from The Holy Spirit. Thus, by that logic, reading the Bible, going to Church, and talking to other Christians would not be valid means of acquiring truth.

Now, I would imagine that your friend would want you to show a Scriptural example of where the Pope had the authority to declare a doctrine based on what The Holy Spirit revealed to him, whereas another “believer” lacked that authority. Chapter 15 of Acts is wonderful for proving this point. The issue being circumcision. Protestants would agree with Catholics that St. Paul was very influential in relatively early Christianity, in that he wrote multiple letters that would eventually be canonized as books of the New Testament. Look at Acts 15:2, however. St. Paul did not have the authority to make an official binding declaration in regards to circumcision. Instead, St. Paul needed to consult with the magisterium, specifically, the Pope, St. Peter. Now, look at Acts 15:7-11. St. Peter makes the infallible declaration, having that Papal authority granted in Matthew 16:19, and the promise of John 16:13. Then, notice how verse 15:12starts. “At that, the whole assembly fell silent.” No one questioned what St. Peter said, because they knew that as Pope, he had the authority to bind and loose, and the promise that The Holy Spirit would guide him in all truth. There were no arguments of the nature of, “Well, wait a minute. Who gave just YOU the authority to declare that? As believers, we all have the authority to bind and loose. Jesus promised us all that The Holy Spirit will guides us to all truth. The Holy Spirit has used my pastor to reveal to me that truth is limited to God’s written Word alone, and clearly, Genesis 17:9-14 says the exact opposite of what you just declared. Since it’s in the Bible, we know it was guided and inspired by The Holy Spirit. But, you, Peter, on the other hand, are just some man. The Holy Spirit revealed to me to trust in my own personal interpretation of the written Word alone, not some declaration by a Pope. Therefore, my kids will be circumcized, like it or not!” Now, one may argue, but Acts now is in Scripture. Well, it wasn’t at the time the events happened. Luke had not yet written the Book of Acts. Peter didn’t say, “Well, according to the Book of Acts, I’m supposed to declare that circumcision is no longer required.”

So, engage your friend on that verse John 16:13, making these specific points. DO NOT let him skirt around the issue, try to change the subject, or recite his broken record, “Scripture alone” rhetoric. Challenge him using my aforementioned points. May God be with you.

 

[Mannyfit75]

No, not in the least. There is passage of Scripture that teaches Mary’s assumption. It based on tradition alone that diasgrees with the Bible.

Elijah and Enoch both were asssumed into heaven. I think Revelation 12:1-5 is evidence enough to show that a woman appear in heaven indicted that she did assumed prior to her from coming there. You also have to understand the Revelations can be interpreted in two senses, literal sense, and spiritual sense.

I don’t see how it is against Scripture? Just because the belief is not specifically stated in the Bible doesn’t make it unbiblical. By your premise you can take the belief that God is a Triune God out from your own belief, or use the praise word incarnate.

Second, why do you have make a case for saying that this belief is un-biblical? Think about it for a second, Jesus became flesh, because the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary after she consented to God’s will by becoming the Mother of the Lord.

While keeping that into mind, Jesus spend the majority of his life with his foster-father, Joseph, and Mary. When Joseph died, Jesus, who is the Eternal Word, spend his time with his mother, and took over the family business of being a carpenter. They were still poor.

I’m sure any man **loves his mother **deeply. How many sons do you see disowning their mothers when they grow old? I tell you, many people, include in my family, that if anyone disrespect his mother, that son will be very upset.

I often** heard African American male get easily offended when someone talk bad about their mother**. I tell you there is a bond between a child and his mother. It didn’t matter if the child is a male or female, but that bond between child is strong.

It sticks with you until you die. I love my mother very much. I spend my first 9 months in her womb. Jesus also spend his first 9 months in Mary’s womb. I’m sure when my mother dies, I will grieve the lost, but I know I will soon join her sometime in the future.

I know Jesus love his mother. When she died, he did not see fit that she should be subject to decay and death. He is God after all. We know Jesus to be God, and he would want what any son would want for his mother. He would not let her die and be food for worms.

Jesus, who is God raised his mother from the dead, and by his own power taken his Mother, the Ark from which he came into the heavenly glory. Would not a son want that for his mother? Wouldn’t you? Especially if your relationship with your mother is very dear?

Do you think Jesus would let his mother decay in earth, and be defiled in such a way? I don’t think so. I remember reading Scripture that each of us will be given different graces. One of us have a charismatic gift which are greater than others.

Compared to Mary. We humans are nothing. She is a created being like us. But there is one difference. She gave birth to the Eternal Word! Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity. No human have ever given birth to a God.

Her reward would be indeed much greater. In fact, God rewarded her so much that he gave her the crown of glory and made her the Queen of Heaven. As we see in Revelation 12:1-5, the woman has a crown on her head.

Oh, I’m sure you are shock at this ‘revelation,’ don’t be. We took will be crown with glory as well. The faith that Mary experience is only a preview for us Christians (if we endure to the end and remain faith to the commandments of the Lord). In the End Times, we will also be resurrected like Mary, and we will be taken up (raptured) into heaven. We will enter into the joy of the Master’s house.

 

[Kimella]

Did other Popes in the early centuries write about Mary not being sinless. Popes like Leo1-440, Gelasius-492 etc, etc. Why the contradiction?

I knew he’d bring this up and he did.

I asked him to give a ref. where the author of that n-C website get his quotes.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Did other Popes in the early centuries write about Mary not being sinless. Popes like Leo1-440, Gelasius-492 etc, etc. Why the contradiction?

I knew he’d bring this up and he did.

I asked him to give a ref. where the author of that n-C website get his quotes.

it’s really late here (2:13 AM).

I hope this helps.

Mary as the second Eve
This celebrated comparison between Eve, while yet immaculate and incorrupt – that is to say, not subject to original sin – and the Blessed Virgin is developed by:

Justin (Dialog. cum Tryphone, 100),
Irenaeus (Contra Haereses, III, xxii, 4),
Tertullian (De carne Christi, xvii),
Julius Firmicus Maternus (De errore profan. relig xxvi),
Cyril of Jerusalem (Catecheses, xii, 29),
Epiphanius (Hæres., lxxviii, 18),
Theodotus of Ancyra (Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and
Sedulius (Carmen paschale, II, 28).

---

The absolute purity of Mary
Patristic writings on Mary’s purity abound.

The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, “Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me”);
Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings (“Hom. i in diversa”);
Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
Maximus of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace (“Nom. viii de Natali Domini”);
Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve, nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God (“Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.”).
In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly known of sin “except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned” (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).
Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, “Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.”);
it is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, “Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.”, I, 3);
she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, “Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.”, ii).
The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary’s grace and sanctity: “Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity …, alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . … flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate” (“Precationes ad Deiparam” in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate (“Carmina Nisibena”).
Jacob of Sarug says that “the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary”. It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin (“the sentence against Adam and Eve”) at the Annunciation.

It’s not a new idea if that’s what they’re claiming.

 

[Kimella]

Quote: “Well maybe pope Urban II had some truth you could tap into, inspirer of the first crusade, decreed that all heretics were to be tortured and killed, that became a dogma of the “church” (catholic) Nice chap this Urban fellow. Do you think he was interested in Christs words, was this the secret work of the Holy Spirit? Your church Fathers were under the doctrine of Demons .”

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Quote: “Well maybe pope Urban II had some truth you could tap into, inspirer of the first crusade, decreed that all heretics were to be tortured and killed, that became a dogma of the “church” (catholic) Nice chap this Urban fellow. Do you think he was interested in Christs words, was this the secret work of the Holy Spirit? Your church Fathers were under the doctrine of Demons .”

I would sever communication with his person, since he seems to be firing buckshots at you. If he cannot remain civil and keep the discussion forcused on the topic at hand then he’s simply not competent enough to actually debate fairly.

By the way, if he’s actually resorting to this kind of tactic, then I would say you’ve won as far as planting the seeds. Let him mull over it for some time. Perhaps in 20 years or so it will dawn on him.

Note: Simply praying for him at this time would be the best thing to do.

 

[guanophore]

No, not in the least. There is passage of Scripture that teaches Mary’s assumption. It based on tradition alone that diasgrees with the Bible.

This is an absurd statement. There is nothing in Tradition that disagrees with the Bible. The Bible was written from that Sacred Tradition, and represents it. If one perceives a “disagreement” then one does not understand one or the other. The two are inseparable and infallible streams of the same Divine Revelation.

 

[guanophore]

“GOD’S WORD IS NOT LIMITED TO ‘THE BIBLE ONLY’. God is always revealing new things every day to show His Glory. He revealed His Glory in the time of Abraham, the time of Jesus, does it stop there? No! He continues to reveal His Glory even after the death of Christ.”

" lamritee:

"And that Glory was his written Word, which is our reference For His Truth. His Truth is the Work of his Glory. Not the other way around.

This is an erroneous assumption. God is glorified in His Saints (people). The Word is a Person (not a book) see John chap. 1 vs. 1. Jesus, the Eternal Word, reveals Himself in written and oral form.
lamritee:

his Truth is that Acts 4:12 nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. John 16:13 He will guide you in all truth(Holy Spirit. Not Mary, compendium catechism page 195 mary Shows us the way to her son.

This thinking sets up a false dichotomy. The HS uses many people to draw us unto Christ. Mary is one, and the most powerful, as she knows her Divine Son best. Mary is “in Christ”, and to imply that she is separated is an error.

This quote just indicates that he has already made up his mind that the Apostolic Teaching is “garp”. What this boils down to is a rejection of the Teaching Authority of the Church. He denies that “he who rejects you, rejects me”.

When people who lived in the very early centuries recognised(as in ‘much talked about’) the Assumption, u in the 21st century call it a fairytale? But again u’d repeat ‘it’s not in my Bible so, it is false teaching’.

lamritee:

make sure you put this in your false assumption. Pope LeoI(440) The Lord Jesus christ (Alone) among the sons of men was born immaculate;sermon24Nativ.Dom)Pope Gelasius(492) It belongs alone to the immaculate lamb to have no sin at all(GelassiiPapaeDicta,vol.4,col.1241,Paris,1671
Pope Innocent III(1216) She(Eve)was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she(mary)was produced in sin,but she brought forth without sin(deFestoAssup,sermon2."

There are many historical writings that are not consistent with the Teaching of the Church. Even some of the great theologians and doctors of the church disagreed with Church teaching at times. Their individual refusal to accept the Apostolic Teaching does not invalidate it.

“It is a mistake to LIMIT Gods word to the Bible only. The Gospel was preached through Tradition OR orally passed on Truth from Christ in the early Church. Did the people need the Bible to believe? Of course not. There was no NT then, instead they obeyed Christ through the authorative teaching of the Church which Christ gave.”

" lamritee:

He replied: "So its a mistake to take God at his Word= holy inspired scripture.

No, the mistake is to separate the Holy Scripture from the Sacred Apostolic Teaching from whence it was produced.
lamritee:

Again, the assumption was not believed in tradition nor fact in the early church. Your early tradition might be believed now, but it has no reference in Gods Truth-bible. Nov 1st 1950 Pope Pius XII declared the assumption 2B an infallible doctrine of the catholic church, excluded from biblical Truth."

Since he is basing his “evidence” of what the early Church believed on his limited understanding of scripture, it is difficult to know anyting that was “in fact believed” in the early church. He will also say that baptism is not required, and that eucharist is not Real Presence.

Pls correct any errors I may have made.

I think you are doing great!

It's like He's made up His mind to believe in sola scriptura. Am I wasting time?

It never hurts to plant seeds. Also, when you are writing in public, there are many readers that never post, and are interested in learning.