THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries

christiantruth.com ^ | William Webster

[Gamecock]

Full Title: THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A Roman Catholic Dogma Originating with Heretics and Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries

The Roman Catholic doctrine of the assumption of Mary teaches that she was assumed body and soul into heaven either without dying or shortly after death. This extraordinary claim was only officially declared to be a dogma of Roman Catholic faith in 1950, though it had been believed by many for hundreds of years. To dispute this doctrine, according to Rome’s teaching, would result in the loss of salvation. The official teaching of the Assumption comes from the decree Munificentissimus Deus by pope Pius XII:

All these proofs and considerations of the holy Fathers and the theologians are based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation. These set the loving Mother of God as it were before our very eyes as most intimately joined to her divine Son and as always sharing His lot. Consequently it seems impossible to think of her, the one who conceived Christ, brought Him forth, nursed Him with her milk, held Him in her arms, and clasped Him to her breast, as being apart from Him in body, even though not in soul, after this earthly life. Since our Redeemer is the Son of Mary, He could not do otherwise, as the perfect observer of God’s law, than to honour, not only His eternal Father, but also His most beloved Mother. And, since it was within His power to grant her this great honour, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that He really acted in this way.
Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.
For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God Who has lavished His special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honour of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare wilfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith...It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul (Munificentissimus Deus, Selected Documenst of Pope Pius XII (Washington: National Catholic Welfare Conference), 38, 40, 44-45, 47).

This is truly an amazing dogma, yet there is no Scriptural proof for it, and even the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:

But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).

In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject. Even Roman Catholic historians readily admit this fact:

In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts...Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).

How then did this teaching come to have such prominence in the Church that eventually led it to be declared an issue of dogma in 1950? The first Church father to affirm explicitly the assumption of Mary in the West was Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D. But the basis for his teaching was not the tradition of the Church but his acceptance of an apocryphal Gospel known as the Transitus Beatae Mariae which we first hear of at the end of the fifth century and which was spuriously attributed to Melito of Sardis. There were many versions of this literature which developed over time and which were found throughout the East and West but they all originated from one source. Mariologist, Juniper Carol, gives the following historical summary of the Transitus literature:

An intriguing corpus of literature on the final lot of Mary is formed by the apocryphal Transitus Mariae. The genesis of these accounts is shrouded in history’s mist. They apparently originated before the close of the fifth century, perhaps in Egypt, perhaps in Syria, in consequence of the stimulus given Marian devotion by the definition of the divine Maternity at Ephesus. The period of proliferation is the sixth century. At least a score of Transitus accounts are extant, in Coptic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. Not all are prototypes, for many are simply variations on more ancient models (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 144).

Thus, the Transitus literature is the real source of the teaching of the assumption of Mary and Roman Catholic authorities admit this fact. Juniper Carol, for example, writes: ‘The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’ (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149). Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, likewise affirms these facts when he says:

The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).

Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian:

The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150).

It was partially through these writings that teachers in the East and West began to embrace and promote the teaching. But it still took several centuries for it to become generally accepted. The earliest extant discourse on the feast of the Dormition affirms that the assumption of Mary comes from the East at the end of the seventh and beginning of the eighth century. The Transitus literature is highly significant as the origin of the assumption teaching and it is important that we understand the nature of these writings. The Roman Catholic Church would have us believe that this apocryphal work expressed an existing, common belief among the faithful with respect to Mary and that the Holy Spirit used it to bring more generally to the Church’s awareness the truth of Mary’s assumption. The historical evidence would suggest otherwise. The truth is that, as with the teaching of the immaculate conception, the Roman Church has embraced and is responsible for promoting teachings which originated, not with the faithful, but with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church. History proves that when the Transitus teaching originated the Church regarded it as heresy. In 494 to 496 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree entitled Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis. This decree officially set forth the writings which were considered to be canonical and those which were apocryphal and were to be rejected. He gives a list of apocryphal writings and makes the following statement regarding them:

The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below some which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics (New Testament Apocrypha, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed. (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1991), p. 38).

In the list of apocryphal writings which are to be rejected Gelasius signifies the following work: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus (Pope Gelasius 1, Epistle 42, Migne Series, M.P.L. vol. 59, Col. 162). This specifically means the Transitus writing of the assumption of Mary. At the end of the decree he states that this and all the other listed literature is heretical and that their authors and teachings and all who adhere to them are condemned and placed under eternal anathema which is indissoluble. And he places the Transitus literature in the same category as the heretics and writings of Arius, Simon Magus, Marcion, Apollinaris, Valentinus and Pelagius. These are his comments. I have provided two translations from authoritative sources:

These and the like, what Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Ebion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Bonosus, who suffered from similar error, also Montanus with his detestable followers, Apollinaris, Valentinus the Manichaean, Faustus the African, Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatus, Sabbatius, Calistus, Donatus, Eustasius, Iovianus, Pelagius, Iulianus of ERclanum, Caelestius, Maximian, Priscillian from Spain, Nestorius of Constantinople, Maximus the Cynic, Lampetius,Dioscorus, Eutyches, Peter and the other Peter, of whom one besmirched Alexandria and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his associates, and what also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics and schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but excluded from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with its authors and the adherents of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever (New Testament Apocrypha, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Ed., (Cambridge: James Clark, 1991).

These and [writings] similar to these, which ... all the heresiarchs and their disciples, or the schismatics have taught or written ... we confess have not only been rejected but also banished from the whole Roman and Apostolic Church and with their authors and followers of their authors have been condemned forever under the indissoluble bond of anathema (Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma (London: Herder, 1954), pp. 69-70).

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. (Migne Vol. 62. Col. 537-542). These facts prove that the early Church viewed the assumption teaching, not as a legitimate expression of the pious belief of the faithful but as a heresy worthy of condemnation. There are those who question the authority of the so-called Gelasian decree on historical grounds saying that it is spuriously attributed to Gelasius. However, the Roman Catholic authorities Denzinger, Charles Joseph Hefele, W. A. Jurgens and the New Catholic Encyclopedia all affirm that the decree derives from Pope Gelasius, and Pope Nicholas I in a letter to the bishops of Gaul (c. 865 A.D.) officially quotes from this decree and attributes its authorship to Gelasius. (See Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma (London: Herder,1954), pp. 66-69; W. A.Jurgens, TheFaith of theEarlyFathers, vol. I (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1970), p. 404; New CatholicEncyclopedia, vol. VII (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 434; Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), vol. IV, pp. 43-44). While the Gelasian decree may be questioned by some, the decree of Pope Hormisdas reaffirming the Gelasian decree in the early sixth century has not been questioned.

Prior to the seventh and eighth centuries there is complete patristic silence on the doctrine of the Assumption. But gradually, through the influence of numerous forgeries which were believed to be genuine, coupled with the misguided enthusiasm of popular devotion, the doctrine gained a foothold in the Church. The Dictionary of Christian Antiquities gives the following history of the doctrine:

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. In consequence of this change of sentiment, during the 6th and 7th centuries (or later):

1)The Liber de Transitu, though classed by Gelasius with the known productions of heretics came to be attributed by one...to Melito, an orthodox bishop of Sardis, in the 2nd century, and by another to St. John the Apostle.
2) A letter suggesting the possibility of the Assumption was written and attributed to St. Jerome (ad Paulam et Eustochium de Assumptione B. Virginis, Op. tom. v. p. 82, Paris, 1706).
3) A treatise to prove it not impossible was composed and attributed to St. Augustine (Op. tom. vi. p. 1142, ed. Migne).
4) Two sermons supporting the belief were written and attributed to St. Athanasius (Op. tom. ii. pp. 393, 416, ed., Ben. Paris, 1698).
5) An insertion was made in Eusebius’s Chronicle that ‘in the year 48 Mary the Virgin was taken up into heaven, as some wrote that they had had it revealed to them.’

Thus the authority of the names of St. John, of Melito, of Athanasius, of Eusebius, of Augustine, of Jerome was obtained for the belief by a series of forgeries readily accepted because in accordance with the sentiment of the day, and the Gnostic legend was attributed to orthodox writers who did not entertain it. But this was not all, for there is the clearest evidence (1) that no one within the church taught it for six centuries, and (2) that those who did first teach it within the church borrowed it directly from the book condemned by pope Gelasius as heretical. For the first person within the church who held and taught it was Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem (if a homily attributed to John Damascene containing a quotation from from ‘the Eutymiac history’...be for the moment considered genuine), who (according to this statement) on Marcian and Pulcheria’s sending to him for information as to St. Mary’s sepulchre, replied to them by narrating a shortened version of the de Transitu legend as ‘a most ancient and true tradition.’ The second person within the church who taught it (or the first, if the homily attributed to John Damascene relating the above tale of Juvenal be spurious, as it almost certainly is) was Gregory of Tours, A.D. 590.
The Abbe Migne points out in a note that ‘what Gregory here relates of the death of the Blessed Virgin and its attendant circumstances he undoubtedly drew...from Pseudo-Melito’s Liber de Transitu B. Mariae, which is classed among apocryphal books by pope Gelasius.’ He adds that this account, with the circumstances related by Gregory, were soon afterwards introduced into the Gallican Liturgy...It is demonstrable that the Gnostic legend passed into the church through Gregory or Juvenal, and so became an accepted tradition within it...Pope Benedict XIV says naively that ‘the most ancient Fathers of the Primitive CHurch are silent as to the bodily assumption of the Blesseed Virgin, but the fathers of the middle and latest ages, both Greeks and Latins, relate it in the distinctest terms’ (De Fest. Assumpt. apud. Migne, Theol. Curs. Compl. tom. xxvi. p. 144, Paris, 1842). It was under the shadow of the names of Gregory of Tours and of these ‘fathers of the middle and latest ages, Greek and Latin,’ that the De Transitu legend became accepted as catholic tradition.
The history, therefore, of the belief which this festival was instituted to commemorate is as follows: It was first taught in the 3rd or 4th century as part of the Gnostic legend of St. Mary’s death, and it was regarded by the church as a Gnostic and Collyridian fable down to the end of the 5th century. It was brought into the church in the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries, partly by a series of successful forgeries, partly by the adoption of the Gnostic legend on part of the accredited teachers, writers, and liturgists. And a festival in commemoration of the event, thus came to be believed, was instituted in the East at the beginning of the 7th, in the West at the beginning of the 9th century (A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, William Smith and Samuel Cheetham, Ed., (Hartford: J.B. Burr, 1880), pp. 1142-1143).

R.P.C. Hanson gives the following summation of the teaching of the Assumption, emphasizing the lack of patristic and Scriptural support for it and affirming that it originated not with the Church but with Gnosticism:

This dogma has no serious connection with the Bible at all, and its defenders scarcely pretend that it has. It cannot honestly be said to have any solid ground in patristic theology either, because it is frist known among Catholic Christians in even its crudest form only at the beginning of the fifth century, and then among Copts in Egypt whose associations with Gnostic heresy are suspiciously strong; indeed it can be shown to be a doctrine which manifestly had its origin among Gnostic heretics. The only argument by which it is defended is that if the Church has at any time believed it and does now believe it, then it must be orthodox, whatever its origins, because the final standard of orthodoxy is what the Church believes. The fact that this belief is presumably supposed to have some basis on historical fact analogous to the belief of all Christians in the resurrection of our Lord makes its registration as a dogma de fide more bewilderingly incomprehensible, for it is wholly devoid of any historical evidence to support it. In short, the latest example of the Roman Catholic theory of doctrinal development appears to be a reductio ad absurdum expressly designed to discredit the whole structure (R.P.C. Hanson, The Bible as a Norm of Faith (University of Durham, 1963), Inaugral Lecture of the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity delivered in the Appleby Lecture Theatre on 12 March, 1963, p. 14).

Pius XII, in his decree in 1950, declared the Assumption teaching to be a dogma revealed by God. But the basis upon which he justifies this assertion is not that of Scripture or patristic testimony but of speculative theology. He concludes that because it seems reasonable and just that God should follow a certain course of action with respect to the person of Mary, and because he has the power, that he has in fact done so. And, therefore, we must believe that he really acted in this way. Tertullian dealt with similar reasoning from certain men in his own day who sought to bolster heretical teachings with the logic that nothing was impossible with God. His words stand as a much needed rebuke to the Roman Church of our day in its misguided teachings about Mary:

But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things, suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it ... It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do...(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Vol. III, Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch. X and XI, p. 605).

Tertullian says that we can know if God has done something by validating it from Scripture. Not to be able to do so invalidates any claim that a teaching has been revealed by God. This comes back again to the patristic principle of sola scriptura, a principle universally adhered to in the eaerly Church. But one which has been repudiated by the Roman Church and which has resulted in its embracing and promoting teachings, such as the assumption of Mary, which were never taught in the early Church and which have no Scriptural backing.

The only grounds the Roman Catholic faithful have for believing in the teaching of the assumption is that a supposedly ‘infallible’ Church declares it. But given the above facts the claim of infallibility is shown to be completely groundless. How can a Church which is supposedly infallible promote teachings which the early Church condemned as heretical? Whereas an early papal decree anathematized those who believed the teaching of an apocryphal Gospel, now papal decrees condemn those who disbelieve it. The conclusion has to be that teachings such as Mary’s assumption are the teachings and traditions of men, not the revelation of God.

[metmom]

Matthew 7:28-29 And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.

Mark 1:22 And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes.

The scribes were the intellectual heavyweights of the day. So much for intellectual prowess being needed.

[Iscool]

Fine, but please don’t refer to Christ as an “itinerant preacher.” It conjures images of anyone with white robe, bare feet, long hair and beard, like Indian shamans going about preaching their “own” interpretations of Scripture adding to Biblical anarchy.

That's the way Jesus shows up in Catholic paintings...That's the way Jesus shows up in the bible...I'll stick with the bible...

Petrine authority is not given to anyone and everyone to go teach anything and everything. Christ singled out one person Peter upon whom He founded His One Church, and solemnly bestows on Peter and His successors One authority to instruct in One truth.

Peter didn't teach much about the church as compared to Paul...And it was Paul who taught us to call no man father, condemned those who insist that Christians eat no meat on Friday, condemned those who insisted that clergy are forbidden to marry, and on and on...

But you would have us believe that while Peter didn't teach so much on the church, there was a succession of (unbiblical) priests who would follow Peter who taught you to ignore what Paul wrote...These followers would create a 'Church' unknown to the apostle Paul...And THAT Church would develop over the Centuries...

But we can see with the actual words of Gad that Paul never acquiesced to Peter but put him in his place a couple of times...

Peter never said anything about apostolic succession...It was some shyster down the road a ways who said, hey, I'm going to claim I'm the head of this religion and my authority goes back to Peter...Trouble is, up popped a few more of these shysters and the had to kill each other off...The last one standing was the leader of your religion... Again, I'll stick with the bible...

[metmom]

The fundamentalist tradition is basically anti-intellectual.

Simply a matter of opinion.

Besides, even if it is....

SPIRITUAL TRUTHS ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED

1 Corinthians 1:18-31 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

1 Corinthians 2:1-16 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—

these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

Nobody can intellectually reason their way to God.

[metmom]

It doesn't prove that we somehow lost the "originals" in a different language and we're "stuck" with Greek. Only that what we DO have is what God meant for us to have and it IS and REMAINS God's word.

That kind of thinking reflects the idea that God wasn't able to preserve His word for the world.

[dsc]

“but now that I see the mods have let you know”

That’s what they said.

“none of the “Protestants” turned you in for bad behavior”

I have not exhibited any “bad behavior.” Putting fang and claw protestants’ bad behavior at 100, no Catholic has exceeded 15 here, and that only under extreme provocation.

“You seem to have made up a “group” here in the RF”

You need to look up the difference between “made up” and “observed.”

“called the fang and claw protestants and accuse them of turning you in”

Yeah, the predictability with which the moderator rides to their rescue led me to that opinion. When you think about it, it’s actually worse that no one hit the abuse button, because that means the moderator is taking the time and energy to be pro-active about it. I wonder if the moderator posts here under a different name.

“Which they did not do.”

I have already admitted that, based on the moderator’s statement. Dwelling on it is just bad form.

“Not true, so wrong “opinions” twice.”

Nope, still the same error, still once.

“Wrong “opinion” again, third time.”

No, that one is correct. To hide their own thin-skinned behavior and distract the eye from their own bad behavior, the fang and claw protestants do, in fact, make a habit of slinging around false accusations of over-sensitivity.

You see, the moderators do allow personal insults here, so long as the poster is a tiny bit clever about it. I have demonstrated that on numerous occasions, and you demonstrate it once again by putting the word “opinion” in danger quotes.

*“As has been mentioned many times, if you (or any poster) is too thinskinned for the open threads, they should not be on them.”*

I really hate a bully.

“What’s wrong with that. It sounds like good advice to me?”

On a level playing field, there might be nothing wrong with it. What’s wrong with it here is that it translates to this: “We will insult you and lie about you to our heart’s content, and you will not be allowed to answer with the truth, so shut up.”

“What a concept! The posters arguing against the assumption of Mary”

They haven’t been “arguing,” in the correct sense of the word. The only argument they have is “it ain’t in da Biibull,” which is also true of things like the weather on the day of Jesus’ baptism. Since it’s not in the Bible, I assume there was no weather on that day. It was neither hot nor cold nor medium, it was neither sunny nor cloudy, windy nor not windy...there just wasn’t any weather that day, because it isn’t mentioned in the Bible.

“Non Catholic Christians don’t give those writings the weight of wisdom from God”

Do what?

“they (we) use the Bible...”

...incorrectly, to propagate error.

[mlizzy]

Then why not have pictures and statues of Jesus and only Jesus around your house???

Because we do not remember Jesus only as the Risen Lord. We remember him through his mother's Immaculate Conception, as the Babe in the Manger (with Mary obviously being there), along with [St.] Joseph, then the shepherds and wise men. Many holy people contributed to the "Jesus story." We do not forget them; they bring us closer to Christ.

Little story about the Sacred Heart of Jesus statue (on the right). This statue weighs an absolute ton; it takes two of the men in the family to move and position him. We originally left Jesus at the home we had lived at for 20 years, just because he weighed so much; we were about ready to drop after moving two decades of stuff, but a few days later, revived and missing our statue, we went back onto the property and seized him. We've moved twice since then; this latest move was only nine months after the previous one. Ugh! Anyway, my husband and one of our fallen-away sons, knew what they had to do for the third time in two years (a trinity of moves?), and as they grabbed Our Lord, with sighs and groans, I looked at my son who was about to collapse, and said, "Holy Jesus," eh, Patrick? Well, maybe you'd have to have been there, but it got a big laugh. My husband chose the location, which is perfect, Jesus, "Our Doorman."

[dsc]

“This? From a CATHOLIC?”

Amazing. I really don’t know how people look at one thing and see another. That’s why I distrust a person’s motives when they say things that diverge wildly from the truth.

[dsc]

“You maybe should have considered “..at Judge Parker’s convenience...”

The last time the protestants came after the Catholics in this country they had to misuse the KKK to do it. We survived.

[dsc]

What? You mean there have been bad popes?

You astound me, Homie.

Here’s a joke for you:

There were a couple of merchants who were friends, one a Catholic the other a Jew, and they were in constant discussions as to the superior nature of their chosen religions. At the time—around the 13th century—Christianity was on the rise, and the Jewish merchant was constantly amazed at the stream of conversions. The two friends attempted to convert each other, but neither could succeed. When on one occasion the Jewish man was planning a trip to Rome for business, he told his Catholic friend in a bit of a joking way that if what he found in Rome could convince him of the superiority of the Catholic church, he would convert. Upon hearing this, the Catholic man was fraught with fear, as the Rome of that period was as corrupt as could be. Bishops and Priests were selling dispensations and indulgences, while themselves participating in drunken debauchery and whoring. However, the Catholic merchant said nothing about this to his friend, hoping that he might not observe such things during his trip.

The Jewish merchant made his trip, and upon his return came to his friend and stated that he would convert to the Catholic Religion. His friend was perplexed, and asked what had been the determining factor. The Jew then went on to describe the worst excesses of a corrupt era. The Catholic man was shocked at what he heard, and asked his friend why he would want to convert in the face of such corruption. The Jewish man said, “Only through divine intervention could the Church survive the depredations of such corrupt men.”

[CynicalBear]

>>and as they grabbed Our Lord<<

You call that graven image "Our Lord"? Not much more needs said on that deal.

[CynicalBear]

>>That’s why I distrust a person’s motives when they say things that diverge wildly from the truth.<<

You mean like when somebody accuses someone else of hitting abuse when they didn't?

[CynicalBear]

>>The Jewish man said, “Only through divine intervention could the Church survive the depredations of such corrupt men.”<<

He must have foergotten how Satan also preserves Muslims and other religions.

[MamaB]

I grew up in a small MS town. I know there are more than 3 Catholic families there now but when I lived there, there were 3 families that I know were Catholcs. I knew all of them from school but we never talked about religion with them. Do not know why, we just didn’t. I can remember having friends:relatives from:
Assembly of God
Baptist—Southern, Hardshell, independent, and a few others which had started back in the 1800’s
Church of Christ
Church of God
Church of God of Prophecy
A few Black Churches
Methodist
Nazarene
Presbyterianmany of these were small community churches which did not have many people attending
I came across a poem about Cowboy churches. Their prayer was to have services in God’s outdoors. I can remember going to brush arbor services. They were wonderful. It was out in the boonies and we could admire God’s stars. I doubt if many people attended those which is a shame.

[mlizzy]

The Jewish merchant made his trip, and upon his return came to his friend and stated that he would convert to the Catholic Religion. His friend was perplexed, and asked what had been the determining factor. The Jew then went on to describe the worst excesses of a corrupt era. The Catholic man was shocked at what he heard, and asked his friend why he would want to convert in the face of such corruption. The Jewish man said, “Only through divine intervention could the Church survive the depredations of such corrupt men.”

BINGO! And, of course, it applies today as well.

[MamaB]

Some are not able to base their claims on what the Bible says and quotes what men say. I believe the Bible not men.

[MamaB]

Amen.

[Elsie]

I do not see how you derive (or support) the principle of Sola Scriptura from a passage that talks about judging people.

Perhaps the text was too small...

"Do not go beyond what is written."

[Elsie]

Putting fang and claw protestants’ bad behavior at 100, no Catholic has exceeded 15 here, and that only under extreme provocation.

I just loved it when the teacher said, after a test was finished, "Students; grade your own work."

[caww]

.....”I distrust a person’s motives when they say things that diverge wildly from the truth”.....

One has to actually know the truth as it is,... not what they want it to be,.... before they can declare another “says things that diverge wildly from the truth”. ......

The problem is not in the truth but in its application, as is often the case with philosophical verbal gymnastics which catholicism’s teachings invariably do..

As Christians we are told......”See to it that no one takes you captive ‘through’ philosophy and empty deception, ‘according to the tradition of men’, according to the elementary principles of the world,... rather than according to Christ,”....... (Col. 2:8)

It doesn’t matter how much one 'sincerely' believes a wrong key will fit a door; the key still won’t go in and the lock won’t be opened......Someone who picks up a bottle of poison and sincerely 'believes' it is lemonade will still suffer the unfortunate effects of the poison.... Or a person may strongly 'desire' that their car has not run out of gas, but if the gauge says the tank is empty and the car will not run any farther, then no desire in the world will miraculously cause the car to keep going.

Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias puts it this way....., “The fact is, the truth matters – especially when you’re on the receiving end of a lie.”.... And nowhere is this more important than in the area of faith and religion. 'Eternity is an awfully long time to be wrong'.

We do know that many things can have the truth, but only one thing can actually 'be' the Truth....it must originate from somewhere.......Jesus Himself declared He is the truth....and He, with certainty, gave us His word as the standard and ultimate source of His truth....

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2 Tim.3:16-17).

[BlueDragon]

oh puh-leaze.

As if the history of Roman Catholicism didn't have a bit of a history with the Joo-oos.

That was the "Judge" aspect.

Hanged at his convenience.