Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
The Assumption of Mary is not explicitly defined in the Bible. So what! Everyone here agrees on that point.
The Assumption is based on a condemned GNOSTIC writing called De Transitu Virginis Mariae Liber.
Pope Gelasius explicitly condemns the authors as well as their writings and the teachings which they promote and all who follow them. And significantly, this entire decree and its condemnation was reaffirmed by Pope Hormisdas in the sixth century around A.D. 520.
In the 3rd of 4th century there was composed a book, embodying the Gnostic and Collyridian traditions as to the death of Mary, called De Transitu Virginis Mariae Liber. This book exists still and may be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima (tom. ii. pt. ii. p. 212)....The Liber Transitu Mariae contains already the whole of the story of the Assumption. But down to the end of the 5th century this story was regarded by the Church as a Gnostic or Collyridian fable, and the Liber de Transitu was condemned as heretical by the Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticus et Apocryphis, attributed to pope Gelasius, A.D. 494.
How then did it pass across the borders and establish itself within the church, so as to have a festival appointed to commemorate it? In the following manner: In the sixth century a great change passed over the sentiments and the theology of the church in reference to the Theotokos—an unintended but very noticeable result of the Nestorian controversies, which in maintaining the true doctrine of the Incarnation incidentally gave strong impulse to what became the worship of Mary.
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/assumption.html
Evangelical Christianity has become the largest religious tradition in this country, supplanting Roman Catholicism, which is slowly bleeding members, according to a survey released yesterday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life...
It might make RC apologists feel better to deny the truth, but it doesn't change the truth.
More Evangelical Protestants than Roman Catholics in the U.S.
God is good.
As anyone can see the only objective standard for selecting a single website and rejecting literally millions of other contrary other sites is that it agree with you. (And you wonder why no one believes you....LOL)
The so-called Septuagint, there was no single version, was compiled by Hellenist Jews in Koine Greek. It included the Hebrew books and additional material not part of the original Hebrew.
The Council of Jamnia compiled the only valid Scripture. The Hebrew Scripture.
so sorry, big omission of the word NOT~!!!
Got home from work and started firing off replies, better remember to preview from now on. LOL
Just because the Presbyterian church is dying doesn't mean John Wayne died a Presbyterian.
No one is insisting that Wayne was awake when he received Last Rites, we are insisting that he was awake and alert when he was Baptized, and not by Fr. Curtis, but by Archbishop McGrath.
Playing so loose with the known facts, even in your retorts, is just further damaging your credibility (if that is even possible).
But what if they say there is?
“LYING”
RC’S????
That’s simply impossible . . . by daffynition!
Facts are stubborn things and statistical conclusions are confusing for those not trained in analytical techniques.
The Pew study is able to establish a snapshot view of Church affiliation and compare it to an earlier snapshot, nothing more. It was based upon a presumption of a single alpha 1 deflection point in which a person, once changed, remains changed. It ignores the life cycle changes that many Catholics undergo. I know many devout Catholics who, at points in their lives, strayed from the Church, either to agnosticism or other denominations, only to later return. Tis doesn't even include the so-called "Cardiac Catholics" or "Death Bed Catholics". I know of many, many more.
So, to repeat a request to a repeated claim, put up at least one other study confirming your position or admit you don't know what the heck you are talking about.
THAR YA GO AGIN!
EXPECTING SOME RC’S
TO DEAL WITH . . . DRUM ROLL . . .
THE TRUTH OF HISTORY.
However, having been conditioned for a lifetime to accept only
very rubbery history . . . it’s a bit shocking to have to deal with
HISTORICAL FACTS.
One might should call out the EMT’s first . . . the shock might be toooooooooooo great to their systems.
PRAISE GOD.
BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.
At least you had the decency to ping her when agreeing with my assessment.
just like the media - can’t handle the Truth, so you lie. A large percentage of Catholics are liberals and voted for Barry.
***
You know that. Most? Proddys know that. God knows that.
However, so many RC's hereon obviously live on campus at the ALICE IN WONERLAND SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY AND TIME-WARPED HISTORY MANGLING.
And they are simply not equipped to have to deal with such FACTS. First of all, their Daffynitionary doesn't have "facts" in it. So, they can't even begin to understand the term.
And then when the REALITIES start slapping them upside the face, all they can do is go bury their heads in 3' deep layers of white hankys until the terrors ebb away, usually very slowly.
This is what Jerome says about the Canon DIRECTLY.
"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon"...(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).
"Let her treasures be not silks or gems but manuscripts of the holy scriptures...Let her begin by learning the psalter, and then let her gather rules of life out of the proverbs of Solomon...Let her follow the example set in Job of virtue and patience. Then let her pass on to the gospels...the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles...let her commit to memory the prophets, the heptateuch, the books of Kings and of Chronicles, the rolls also of Ezra and Esther. When she has done all these she may safely read the Song of Songs...Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt" (Ibid., Letter CVII.12).
"What the Savior declares was written down was certainly written down. Where is it written down? The Septuagint does not have it, and the Church does not recognize the Apocrypha. Therefore we must go back to the book of the Hebrews, which is the source of the statements quoted by the Lord, as well as the examples cited by the disciples...But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant...The apostolic men use the Hebrew Scripture. It is clear that the apostles themselves and the evangelists did likewise. The Lord and Savior, whenever He refers to ancient Scripture, quotes examples from the Hebrew volumes...We do not say this because we wish to rebuke the Septuagint translators, but because the authority of the apostles and of Christ is greater"..."(The Fathers of the Church (Washington: Catholic University, 1965), Volume 53, Saint Jerome, Against Rufinus, Book II.27, 33, pp. 151, 158-160). the New Catholic Encyclopedia states that the canon was not officially settled for the Western Church as a whole until the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century:
"St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...for example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books...According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent...The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent.93
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/canon.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.