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

christiantruth.com ^ | William Webster

[CynicalBear]

You can deny all you want. Try to somehow justify or whatever. We see the words.

[caww]

you appear to be fishing again...but glad to hear you’re “free” from Rome to study other than catholic literature etc.

I’ve written nothing here about the “Kabbalah”....which is nothing more than an esoteric method, discipline, and school of thought that originated in the ‘Mystic’ Judaism. New Age, and Occultists are “borrowing” from it and combining it with Christian language to make it palatable to the masses.

There’s nothing at all about it to do with the so called assumption of Mary. Nor with anything else on this thread as you seem to want it to be.

[CynicalBear]

And then still deny after having been shown clear evidence. It’s stunning to watch.

[caww]

One of their religious teachers said ‘catholicism is like climbing a wall of glass’......

[ronnietherocket3]

So now Mary is the Jerusalem which is above too? That's one versitile woman!

Both Mary a Zechariah refer to Abraham as "our father"; Jesus admits it is a theoretical possiblity. This raises a question, was Sarah their Mother?

[Heart-Rest]

"Do you have enough brains to understand I do not go chasing these Catholic rabbits down the holes you keep trying to dig?"

Well, that's one rather unusual way to answer that simple question, but you could also have just said, "I don't know how to answer that, so I won't".

[CynicalBear]

>>She was the bait to lure them in.<<

Exactly.

[caww]

...”Jesus is too frightening for them to approach”....????

Why would catholics in “grave sin” think that?....Who put that idea into their heads?

[Syncro]

I don't know if there is a taboo on "speaking cadidly" about it so as to seem they were denying it.

Of course the Mormons are flatly denied the right to discuss certain things up fear of instant expulsion.

I was just going on what is stated in the first sentence of this thread, not the bolded area:

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

Pretty plain it seems. No wonder no Catholics on this thread will dispute the fallacy of the assumption of Mary, they could lose their salvation!

Pretty sad to belong to such a belief system that if they decree something extraBiblical and you don't go along with it, they condemn you to hell.

Of course that wouldn't happen, any Catholic who wakes up to the truth won't lose their salvation, just their membership in the Catholic denomination.

Many, even some of the posters on this thread, have had to leave Catholicism and then discovered what a relationship with Jesus is like. It's glorious, but a hard row to hoe and the indoctrination is so fierce and frightening.

[CynicalBear]

>>When a religion has to de-emphasize sacred Scripture in order to assert the superiority of their hierarchy, it’s a sure warning to escape from that religion as fast as you can.<<

Amen, Amen, and Amen!

[Steelfish]

1. These folks first deny Petrine authority based on scripture and accepted by hundreds of theologians over the last several centuries to say nothing of leading Protestant and Evangelical theologians who have accepted this and switched over to Catholicism. But according to the FourSquare Church “street” preacher logic they continue to deny this.

2. Having denied Petrine authority they cannot now account for why “their” view of scriptures takes precedence ever that of Rev. Moon or Billy Graham or David Koresh who also use scripture to preach to their followers. We end up with different “truths” (Biblical anarchy) that is incompatible with the Word of God.

3. They deny the dogma of the Assumption simply because it is unclear when Feast of the Assumption was first celebrated. (Check out Cynicalbear’s post) .This is foolish as saying the birth of Christ is questionable because during early times it was unclear what time or during what particular year He was born. Apparently, The Son of God whose whose human flesh and blood was entirely that of His mother, who nourished him, and was there at the foot of the cross was allowed to rot on earth even though she died while St. John was writing his Book on Revelations and the presence of strong circumstantial evidence of her Assumption, a belief accepted by eminent Protestant scholars and theologians who converted to Catholicism, to say nothing of brilliant Catholic scholars. But not to these “street” theologians.

4. Scripture says
Douay-Rheims Bible Jn. 21:25
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”

5. Thus the early Church fathers used the sacred rituals and oral traditions of what Christ said but was not written out to sort out what books to ignore; what to discard; and what to include.

6. So why question Petrine authority now? When did it become ineffective? It cannot be because the authority was given by Christ. It was absolute. “WHATSOEVER…thou shall bind on earth,” and it was until the end of time “The Gates of Hell shall never prevail against her”

In summary: neophyte readers of Scripture are caught in a bind. They resort to simplistic snippets of Scriptures, toss around such ridiculous nonsense like born again, and again and again, like a Hindu/Buddhist rebirth. At Easter they participate in a so called vapid beach type “Sunrise Services” with a self appointed pastor (choose your own reverend: from Osteen to Sharpton) , sing out some alleluias, do a hand holding kumbaya, and voila, this is a celebration of Easter. No, the supreme sacrifice of the Mass, the center of all Catholic adoration and worship is beyond their grasp.

[ronnietherocket3]

Mary said God was her savior. Only sinners need a savior.

The belief is that she was saved from Original Sin at the moment of her conception by God. So God is already her Savior. Jesus died on the cross to save all mankind from their sins, but with respect to Mary, his sacrifice prevented her from being stained at her Conception (yes God can operate backwards in time). You want evidence for this, see Rev. 12. You want biblical proof, there does not appear to be any that meets the Sola Scriptura level. However, I am not a Sadducee, so I do not hold SS to be doctrine.

[boatbums]

I've been here longer than that and I agree that the same arguments keep getting recycled. Instead of actually discussing the topic of threads, they usually devolve into flame wars because one side is feeling bashed and persecuted. So, the same defenses and counter defenses get tossed out and threads go to thousands of posts and we rarely see anything resolved.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've read a FRoman Catholic say, "Yeah...but you guys have Martin Luther and he threw books of the Bible in the garbage can.". I've corrected that false statement at least a dozen times this year complete with links and everything, but the same people will state it anyway as if they were oblivious to ever being corrected. Why is that?

I pray for every person that reads these threads and I sincerely try to be respectful because I know that it is only through the Holy Spirit that eyes and hearts can be opened to hear and know the truth. I can't say I have never answered back in anger, but I do feel I have grown and I don't see this site as anything other than a mission field for spreading the good news of the grace of God who saves us through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Maybe if everyone started thinking that way, flame wars could be avoided. I know they don't honor the Lord and they don't project a good image of Free Republic. We should all be mindful of that.

[GeronL]

only because it is NOT Christian

[CynicalBear]

You keep asking questions but denying the scripture I give in favor of conjecture. Bottom line; the teachers of “dogma” that the apostles didn’t teach are considered accursed by God. Follow them at your own risk.

[caww]

...”Pretty sad to belong to such a belief system that if they decree something extraBiblical and you don't go along with it, they condemn you to hell”.....

Actually that type of “instilled fear” is pretty prevalent in many false religions and cults..... Mormonism, Scientology, New Age, Islam...the list goes on...but it's usually there once they've been baited and switched. Just as with New Ager's ,and the lot from Hinduism, and Tribal Practices, etc.... there's a lot of apparitions and experiences that drive that fear, while at the same time their hosts tells them over and over NOT to be afraid. It's a very dark and ugly way to indoctrinate people.

[Steelfish]

According to “your” interpretation!

[boatbums]

BORING!

[WVKayaker]

CynicalBear; Syncro; Iscool; boatbums; Elsie; NYer; narses; Salvation ....

What a laughable twit. First, you equate Billy Graham to cultists, and then try to weasel out by repeating your mantra of " leading Protestant and Evangelical theologians who have accepted this and switched over to Catholicism. ".

You cannot create Scripture out of thin air, my FRiend. You cannot "suppose" something into existence when there is absolutely no reference to it. You can only repeat your catechismal teachings to which you were indoctrinated, regardless of how much it ignores God's Final Authority. That Authority is the same one which you tout as coming from Roman Catholicism, yet which is mostly considered spurious or "unreasonable" (that means you cannot reason with the truth, so you invent what you wish it to say).

It fails when you can only resort to such ignorance and try to substantiate with innuendo.
INNUENDO
a : an oblique allusion : hint, insinuation; especially : a veiled or equivocal reflection on character or reputation
b : the use of such allusions

Galatians 3: 23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. ...

[daniel1212]

Things are moving MIGHTY fast here!

I have never seen so many comments removed in such a short time and space, and close to 40 for the whole thread. I suspect a RC was trying to get it locked to protect the demigoddess who is not seen in Scripture.