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.

[CynicalBear]

>>Wow, just wow.<<

Ezekiel 3:1 And he said to me, "Son of man, eat what is before you, eat this scroll; then go and speak to the people of Israel."

Surely Catholics obey before they go teach don't they?

[mlizzy]

That was hard to read but Mary’s assumption never happened. It is not mentioned anywhere in God’ Word.

Abortion, the gravest sin of all time, is not mentioned by name in the Bible. But St. Thomas Aquinas did appear in an abortionist's dream (the doctor had previously performed some 48,000 abortions), and he converted. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/another_champion_of_abortion_becomes_defender_of_life_the_story_of_stojan_adasevic/

[jjotto]

If one says in the original that he would be called a n-tz-r, the context would indicate a branch as in a family tree. To interpret n-tz-r as meaning a place requires an understanding outside of the text itself - a tradition.

Problem is, the text of the New Testament itself makes the connection in Romans, and I think in Revelation.

[AllAmericanGirl44]

bkmk

[MamaB]

Or, they said they were, when in realty, they did not walk the walk. Anyone can say things when they know good and well, they are lying. Just like those priests who abuse children. They were never really saved in the first place. The church officials should have done something about them in the beginning instead of covering it up. There was a man in this state who taught kids in a hurch and abused some of them. He was fired right then and there. That is the right way of dealing wih criminals and that is what they are.

[BlueDragon]

"...because such a way of thinking was unheard of before the "Reformation"."

See #247 for starters. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.

But you may be partially correct, for though such ways of thinking were once prevalent within the wider, catholic thus universal Church, in the Western Church (entirely dominated by the Church of Rome) prior to the Reformation that tradition had been superseded by sola ecclesia (whatever we say) by those of the Church of Rome.

Like a monkey with an arm in jar having a narrow opening, and it's paw around a nut it is convinced it just has to have -- the RCC is still captured by it's own desires to be the place having the bishop of bishops and supremacy over and above Scripture when the scriptures are inconvenient to the desire.

[FourtySeven]

” [Scripture is the] measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intent”

That’s not contrary to Catholic (Church) teaching. In fact that’s what is taught by the Church (that no teaching can violate Scripture, which is essentially what that phrase quoted above says)

On top of all that, the phrase quoted above is not the same thing as saying, “Scripture is the only source of truth and morals”, which despite protestations to the contrary (no pun intended) “sola scriptura” reduces to just that in practice: “show me that in the Bible, or else it’s not true”.

That IS sola scriptura in PRACTICE, even though (I am well aware of the following fact I can assure you), that’s not the formal definition of sola scriptura.

[BlueDragon]

They’re exempt because they’re *special*.

Have the short-bus manufacturers identified this potentially hugh & series market?

I see opportunities. It could a great boon to their business.

I'm *special* my mommytoldme so

[Iscool]

Besides, do you really think -- honestly, now -- that Catholics are so ignorant and stupid that they would dogmatize something in the 19th century that had been condemned as heresy in the sixth?

Absolutely...The bible condemns calling your religious leaders father...It condemns many things your religion ignores...

[Iscool]

It's kinda -- hmm, nicely, nicely --- it's kinda unnecessarily constricted to say you doubt something happened if it didn't happen in Scripture, which --- correct me if I'm wrong --- seems to be your opinion. A whole lotta history happened over the past 2,000 years, and can't use the fact that it's not in Scripture as your sole criterion to determine whether it happened or not. Scriptural truth isn't the only truth. There's also the birth, marriage and death records at the County Courthouse, for instance, other facts and reasonable inferences from facts which are the common stuff of legitimate historiography.

The bible doesn't tell us that there would be no prophet named Joseph Smith nor does it tell us there wouldn't be a prophet named Mohammed who would turn out to be God's main prophet to mankind, just as God didn't tell us Mary would go to heaven and sit next to God as the queen of heaven...

You could just as easily have been born into a muzlim or Mormon family and used the argument you use now that since God didn't say that it couldn't be that it could be...

As long as the bible is not the sole authority for all three of those religions, one is no more legitimate than the other...You have all added to (and taken away) the words of God and made those words equally authoritative with God's words to the point of making the words of God of 'none effect'...

Although God 'does not say' that Mary was assumed to heaven and became the queen, He says many other things that make that scenario impossible for a Christian to believe...

And as the church father Tertullian stresses:

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).

[BlueDragon]

Since it is not the formal definition, then it is doubtful it is the practice at all the times and locations it would need to be --- in order to keep the 'ol eyes slammed shut against the weight of scriptural evidence and earliest Church tradition also (concerning how scriptures were understood and then applied) which refute the claims the Church of Rome makes for it's own "pope" and self-reverentially titled "magesterium".

As has been clearly established (by documentary evidence supported by reasoned analysis which puts a stop to the shallow Romish 'spin' of such things) in perhaps thousands of ways --- there is no "universal consent of the fathers" when it comes to the claims of the Church of Rome for it's own singular grandeur and "authority".

Which means one simply must return to the texts -- then go from there.

Doing so can allow one examining history to better see where the true novelties were introduced.

What can be more difficult to separate out are the slight changes made between the development & establishment of one way of thinking/writing about an issue (or many) and the yet further assumptions based on those --- resulting in theology itself being based upon commentaries and derivative opinions -- even turns of phrase (not found in the scriptures) themselves being seized upon as if the scripture.

After a while one needs to look back to what was more originally most widely preached, understood and accepted -- then honestly compare that to the here and now.

What happens when we do this?

"Papacy" goes right out the window --- including any "authority" that may be claimed which empowers any "pope" and allied "magesterium" to say even to ANYONE

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

[ronnietherocket3]

metmom's statement was The Holy Spirit guides individual believers through His word as He enlightens them to the truth found in it. was in response to my statement but the trust is in the Holy Spirit to guide us through the Church.

My question was where does the bible say this and only this is the mechanism through which the Holy Spirit Guides us. The question was not where does the Bible say this, but where does the bible say this and only this. So the first question is what did I mean when I wrote this? The word this in the sentence referred to metmom's statement that The Holy Spirit guides individual believers through His word as He enlightens them to the truth found in it. How I interpreted this is that metmom claimed that the only way one could arrive at the Truth is to study/meditate on Scripture and have the Holy Spirit enlighten them. If my interpretation of metmom's statement was wrong, please correct me. My disagreement is not with the claim that one can be enlightened through this, but that one is only enlightened through this.

Concerning John 16:13, nothing in this (or the surrounding passages) says anything about Scripture. My claim is that the Holy Spirit will act through the Church (but not only through the Church). 1 Jn 2:20 (which appears to reference Catholic Confirmation) does not appear to actually have the statement and you do not need anyone to teach you. I checked NIV and RSV2CE; which version has the above statement. In addition the context of the passage is referring to someone denying Jesus is Christ. I am unaware of where in all dogmas, doctrines, pious beliefs and other things the Catholic Church teaches, where the Catholic Church denies that Jesus is Christ. 1 Cor 2 references Scripture (Isaiah) but does not appear to state one must be reading/thinking about Scripture to have them enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

[AppyPappy]

How do they know?

[ronnietherocket3]

First, I do not understand how Galatians 1 can be used to disprove the Catholic Church. Examining the context, it appears that the Galatians had turned away from living in the Grace of Christ and to a different Gospel. Where the Catholic Church teaches us to do this, I am unaware. I am further unaware of how the Assumption of Mary (or the Immaculate Conception) contradict the true Gospel.

Now please show your infallible source that shows where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary and the requirement for it's belief.

Please read comment 77.

[ronnietherocket3]

Because it's ultimately your burden to demonstrate Scripture is the only source of moral certainty for a Christian, because such a way of thinking was unheard of before the "Reformation".

No it dates back to the time of Christ; the Sadducees taught it.

[Georgia Girl 2]

“Another anti-Catholic thread?’

What else is new?

For non believers they sure get worked up about what Catholics believe. :-)

[metmom]

FOTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!

That is TOOO funny.....

[metmom]

Is that like Chocolate Quix?

[Steelfish]

So by your logic pray tell me who has it right? Rev. Moon? David Koresh, Mormons? Jehovah’s Witnesses? Joel Osteen? Billy Graham? Rev. Schuller? Jim Jones? Rev. Wright? They all “read” and “teach” from Scripture, don’t they? Assume they all read from the “same” Bible.

Yet they all “teach” from a Bible whose books were put together using decades of historical, scholarly, and theological research guided by the oral tradition, custom, ritual, and Divine inspiration as to what books should be properly included and excluded by the early Church Fathers. That divinely inspired interpretation (Petrine authority) suddenly stopped by your logic. At what point(s) and why? Oh, because “you” like the rest above suddenly disagreed by what the Church teaches even though the Church used the same methods it used before for selecting the Word of God.

So why did this authority end at these later points? What makes “you” (meaning all of you, and all 35, 000 sects of Protestantism) think that somehow the early Church Fathers got it all right during the first several decades before the Bible was put together? Why don’t you extrapolate interpretative error back in time and argue,Oh, the Church failed to include this book or that one?

Your arguments are both inherently contradictory and utterly implausible. This is why serious theologians who have studied scriptural interpretation from Augustine to Aquinas to Newman to Benedict XVI after whom university theological chairs and colleges have been named treat your reasoning as childish, uninformed, and a form of street interpretation like what TD Jakes and Rev. Moons and others do. It’s simply laughable.

This is laughable not only to a large constellation of Catholic theologians but also to such eminent Protestant and Anglican theologians of the likes of Henry Newman of the Oxford University Movement, Richard Neuhaus, America’s foremost Lutheran scholar, author, and professor, and Francis Beckwith who as President of the Evangelical Theological Society, all converted to Catholicism.

These are only a small handful of the hundreds of brilliant minds who did so and they all subscribe to ONE truth and ONE teaching authority through the end of time. This ends all debate.

Fools still keep searching for the “truth” by each one offering “their” own interpretation like any of the Billy Graham-David Koresh-Joel Osteen- Rev Moon group mentioned above. They cater to “Oprah-type” audiences for whom serious intellectual inquiry is beyond their pay grade.

Here is a list of notable minds who converted to Catholicism. Apparently, by your lights they were all ‘wrong” or “misguided” or failed to appreciate the “literal” text that you keep throwing around from time to time taken from here and there from books put together by the Church and lived by its saints and martyrs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Catholicism

[metmom]

Ping to great cereal box. I can go alone with popesicles, popecorn, and other pope treats.