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

christiantruth.com ^ | William Webster

[mlizzy]

And the real truth is, this veneration of Mary is blocking people who are searching for God...Some people want to come to God and then they get Mary shoved in between them and God and they are lost forever...

This is interesting about Bobby Jindal (and Mary):

As I'm sure you recall, Governor Jindal, Susan's depression about her cancer quickly progressed from depression into despair, and you found yourself in a room with her and a bunch of Campus Crusaders for Christ and other well-meaning but green evangelicals, wanting to help but unable to do so. When you tried to join in the group's prayer, you felt "a weight on your chest," and initially could not overcome the darkness that was now taking ahold of your soul as well. But according to your 1994 article "Beating a Demon, Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare," "suddenly...and strangely, I found myself repeating the Hail Mary until it became a chant. As a recent convert to Catholicism, I had yet to accept the Catholic doctrines concerning Mary, and considered [them] to be idolatry. Though I had never prayed a Hail Mary before in my life, I now found myself incapable of any other form of prayer." But as it turned out, it was your prayers, along with the intervention of a crucifix (later found to have been blessed by John Paul II) that turned the tide for Susan, and her faith in Christ was restored. -T. O'Toole, "Beating Obama and BP: My 'beaded' letter for Bobby Jindal"

[mlizzy]

The RCC has made Him into a FEARSOME creature!

"Scary Jesus," you mean? I'm pleased to be in the good company of Scott Hahn [Catholic convert, theologian, apologist], and "Catholic Mom," who both love this mosaic of Jesus.

The biggest and best mosaic in the basilica [Washington]: "Christ in Majesty." A lot of people don't like this image because they feel that Jesus looks too stern, angry even. Our tour guide pointed out that this image of Christ as a strict judge is a traditional Byzantine depiction, and that when you look at the mosaic up close, his expression is more gentle and compassionate, especially when you look into His eyes... -Catholic Mom

From Scott Hahn on "Christ in Majesty":

[I]n the majestic mosaic image of Christ as ruler and in the Christ whose flesh I receive in the Eucharist, I see the same person: my sovereign Lord, who is also the Lamb who gives himself as bread so that I might live with him forever. I see him as my judge but also, and always, as my savior.

I would encourage anyone interested to read Scott Hahn's entire post.

[FourtySeven]

For reference.

I never knew who this William Webster was until you posted this. Thank you.

[daniel1212]

"There is no Genesis 315 and what you attribute to Genesis 315 is not in the Bible."

No, and while that was only the name of some poster it seems, them poster must believe that verse refers to Mary, perhaps based upon the Douay-Rheims use of feminine pronouns — she and her — implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse.

Yet as even RC apologist Akin states,

The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman. - http://jimmyakin.com/mary-and-genesis-315

Likewise the Catholic RSV-2CE states on about Genesis 3:15 :

*3:15, he shall bruise your head: i.e. the seed of the woman, that is, mankind descended from Eve, will eventually gain victory over the powers of evil. This victory will, of course, be gained through the work of the Messiah who is par excellence the seed of the woman. The Latin Vulgate has the reading ipsa conteret, "she shall bruise." Some Old Latin manuscripts have this reading, and it occurs also in St. Augustine, De Genesi contra Manichaeos, II, which is earlier than St. Jerome's translation. It could be due originally to a copyist's mistake, which was then seen to contain a genuine meaning-- namely, that Mary, too, would have her share in the victory, inasmuch as she was the mother of the Savior. (emp. addd)

The RC New American Bible translates Genesis 3:15, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”

The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia states on the IM, The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically," however it still insists the women is Mary.

There is also another use of the word for "seed" as coming to a woman in Rebekah in Gn. 24:60. And the Hebrew is said to allow a plural rendering.

And a banned (of course) CA (Catholic Answers) poster stated "The Hebrew can't be quoted as 'she.' The verb is a Qal-imperfect second person masculine singular with a third-person masculine singular object." http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=11314795&postcount=6

Gen 3:16 also says she will have labor pains, which Mary is said to be protected from.

And Romans 16:20 states, The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Yet as all that matters is what Rome says, CA answers the question (with a women teacher), "Who is the woman referred to in Genesis 3:15: Eve or Mary?" by quoting popes:

These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind . . . saying, "I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed" taught . . . that his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both [Mary and her Son] against the evil one was significantly e xpressed. - Pope Pius IX, in his dogmatic bull Ineffabilis Deus

And Pope John Paul II taught in Mulieris Dignitatem:

It is significant that [in Galatians 4:4] St. Paul does not call the Mother of Christ by her own name, "Mary," but calls her "woman": This coincides with the words of the Protoevangelium in the book of Genesis (cf. Gen. 3:15). She is that "woman" who is present in the central salvific event that marks the "fullness of time": This event is realized in her and through her.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/who-is-the-woman-referred-to-in-genesis-315-eve-or-mary

[daniel1212]

I went through a subset of the links provided. The repeated statements "it is written" establish the Authority of Scripture. I see no reason to believe it establishes the Sole Authority of Scripture.

And who said Scripture was the Sole Authority? It is the sole supreme infallible authority as the wholly inspired assured word of God, which even papal ex cathedra statements are not.

The alternative is the church thru her infallible magisterium being the sole supreme infallible authority, which is why my questions to you in post 825 need to be answered.

[mlizzy]

This entire thread I have been asking Catholics to show infallible evidence that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary. Not one time has anyone done that.

There is not a lot about Mary in the Bible (it wasn't about her). "[F]ull of grace" [Luke 1:28], however, will place you on the right path...........to her Son.

[NYer]

As I pointed out earlier, these discussions are repeated on multiple threads, over and over again. Jesus spoke Aramaic, as did His disciples. Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

"You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

[Kandy Atz]

There are two people who were translated to Heaven without enduring death - Elijah, the old Testament prophet, and the somewhat obscure antediluvian prophet Enoch. The Holy Spirit decided it was important that both events were recorded in scripture in the Old Testament. Most are familiar with the references to Elijah in the New Testament - comparison to John the Baptist, and his appearance at the transfiguration. And then there is Enoch, as random as his mention in the OT, Jude links him to an End Times prophesy, and Paul makes a point to elaborate on his translation in Hebrews.

Hebrews 11:5-6 (AMP)
5 Because of faith Enoch was caught up and transferred to heaven, so that he did not have a glimpse of death; and he was not found, because God had translated him. For even before he was taken to heaven, he received testimony [still on record] that he had pleased and been satisfactory to God.
6 But without faith it is impossible to please and be satisfactory to Him. For whoever would come near to God must [necessarily] believe that God exists and that He is the rewarder of those who earnestly and diligently seek Him [out].

You would expect if the Holy Spirit felt compelled to record these two translations, that any trip to Heaven by someone in the New Testament would be faithfully recorded as well, especially if it was the mother of Jesus.

Now we turn our attention to the New Testament, specifically the books attributed to Luke. No other writer was so meticulous, recording every detail - names, places, dates, events, many of which seemingly had no relevance to the narrative - they all do have a divine purpose. Based on the details recorded in Luke about the Nativity, one would assume he had interviewed Mary, had extensive Holy Spirit assistance, and/or eyewitness testimony. If Mary was in any special way translated into Heaven, he would have mentioned it. Had she had an elevated position in the Early Church, this would have been made clear in Acts. This is not the case at all. Her last appearance, Acts 1:14, she is merely listed along with the other women and the disciples who were waiting on the Holy Spirit in prayer. After this mention, she disappears from the New Testament. It is highly likely she would have died (or the assumption occurred) within the lifetime of EVERY NT writer. But not a single writer was inspired to provide one shred of evidence to her elevated status, role in worship, or assumption.

In the Pauline Epistles, where the revelation of the Church is fully explained, made up of neither Jews or Gentiles with Jesus as the HEAD of the Body of Christ, she is nowhere to be found. In Hebrews, written by someone well acquainted with the Old Testament and the Law, who carefully proves the superiority of of the New Covenant with Jesus as the Savior and Eternal High Priest, the mother of Jesus gets no mention whatsoever. Same story from Peter, James, Jude, John, all contemporaries, not a mention of Mary, or any supernatural trip to Heaven. And if not for the most extreme religious contortions, attempting to “discover” Mary in Revelation 12, ignoring almost 4,000 years of religious types and prophecies concerning God’s chosen people Israel, she makes no appearance in the last book in the Bible either.

And if all that was not sufficient, consider Hebrews 11 - the faith heroes of the Bible. If there was ever a time to recognize Mary, the sinless eternal virgin who flew to Heaven, THIS would be the place. In this wonderful chapter listing how men and women through faith in God were mightily used, Mary is ignored. There is Sarah, and the birth of Isaac, and even Rahab the harlot of Jericho, but no mother of Jesus. In his closing remarks the writer makes it clear the focus should always remain on the Living Word, Jesus.

Hebrews 12:1-2 (AMP)
1 THEREFORE THEN, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses [who have borne testimony to the Truth], let us strip off and throw aside every encumbrance (unnecessary weight) and that sin which so readily (deftly and cleverly) clings to and entangles us, and let us run with patient endurance and steady and active persistence the appointed course of the race that is set before us,
2 Looking away [from all that will distract] to Jesus, Who is the Leader and the Source of our faith [giving the first incentive for our belief] and is also its Finisher [bringing it to maturity and perfection]. He, for the joy [of obtaining the prize] that was set before Him, endured the cross, despising and ignoring the shame, and is now seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

If this “assumption” was so critical to Christianity, why did the Holy Spirit neglect to record it in scripture? You cannot look to man, myth, legends, or a denomination for an answer. You must rely on God’s Word - The Truth. If He neglected to record it in His Word, it did not happen, or is not relevant for Believers. It is most likely the reasoning of men or religious fabrication, and should be dismissed. And you certainly don’t build a religious tradition around a legend, and then attempt to force scripture to confirm it.

The entire scope of God’s Word, from Genesis to Revelation, is revealing Jesus to the world. He is the Incorruptible Seed, He is the Living Word. He is the Head (and only Head) of the Body. He is the Last Adam. He is the Alpha and the Omega. He is Savior and Lord. Jesus is ALL you need. Let these words settle in your heart and renew your mind. The Truth makes you free.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 (KJV)
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

John 5:37-47 (AMP)
37 And the Father Who sent Me has Himself testified concerning Me. Not one of you has ever given ear to His voice or seen His form (His face—what He is like). [You have always been deaf to His voice and blind to the vision of Him.]
38 And you have not His word (His thought) living in your hearts, because you do not believe and adhere to and trust in and rely on Him Whom He has sent. [That is why you do not keep His message living in you, because you do not believe in the Messenger Whom He has sent.]
39 You search and investigate and pore over the Scriptures diligently, because you suppose and trust that you have eternal life through them. And these [very Scriptures] testify about Me!
40 And still you are not willing [but refuse] to come to Me, so that you might have life.
41 I receive not glory from men [I crave no human honor, I look for no mortal fame],
42 But I know you and recognize and understand that you have not the love of God in you.
43 I have come in My Father’s name and with His power, and you do not receive Me [your hearts are not open to Me, you give Me no welcome]; but if another comes in his own name and his own power and with no other authority but himself, you will receive him and give him your approval.
44 How is it possible for you to believe [how can you learn to believe], you who [are content to seek and] receive praise and honor and glory from one another, and yet do not seek the praise and honor and glory which come from Him Who alone is God?
45 Put out of your minds the thought and do not suppose [as some of you are supposing] that I will accuse you before the Father. There is one who accuses you—it is Moses, the very one on whom you have built your hopes [in whom you trust].
46 For if you believed and relied on Moses, you would believe and rely on Me, for he wrote about Me [personally].
47 But if you do not believe and trust his writings, how then will you believe and trust My teachings? [How shall you cleave to and rely on My words?]

[mlizzy]

Read the article of this thread so you may see what you missed.

I did read the article, then I asked some questions [of Catholics in my family]. Then I looked on the Net, and that's what I found. I didn't seek it out any further, because I was confident the scholarly Catholics on Free Republic (they keep answering questions in this forum; it's nothing short of miraculous!) would come up with the answers.

[mlizzy]

Using Mary to throwup blockades to Jesus will certainly lead to death for many who may have been “lead by His Spirit” otherwise to Him.

Sometimes hardened souls (those with thick skins would apply) cannot see her, because she is so tender ("full of grace,") they won't let her through.

[CynicalBear]

>>In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18.<<

Thus the reason the Holy Spirit had the text written in Greek. He knew the difference. As daniel1212 stated, the Holy Spirit could have also used the same Greek word in each instance BUT HE DIDN'T. If you want to change the words the Holy Spirit had written go for it. But don't call it Christianity built on God's word because it isn't.

[MamaB]

Mary does not have anything to do with salvation.

[mlizzy]

Mary does not have anything to do with salvation.

If you do not make the effort to learn about Mary's role in our salvation (during your lifetime), there's purgatory, which awaits most all of us who escape h*ll.

The “singer of Mary,” St. Bernard of Clairvaux, along with many of the Latin West, echoes the previous voice of the Eastern Church, when St. Bernard evokes the Assumption thus: “Our Queen has preceded us; she has preceded us and has been received very festively, so that with confidence the servants can follow their Lady saying: Take us with you, we run in the odor of your perfumes (Ct 1,3). Our pilgrim humanity sent its Advocate ahead that, being Mother of the Judge and Mother of mercy, can treat with devotion and efficacy the cause of our salvation. Our earth has sent today to heaven a precious gift so that, giving and receiving, they join the human and the divine in a happy exchange of friendship, the earthly to the heavenly, the lowest to the highest [...] She is the Queen of Heaven, she is merciful, she is the Mother of the Only-begotten Son of God” (In assumptione B.M.V., Sermo I: PL 183,415).

http://vultus.stblogs.org/index.php/2010/12/follow-the-via-pulchritudinis/

[MamaB]

There is nothing in the Bible saying she has anything to do with our salvation. Nada, zip, zero. I do not care what man says. I find it very telling that anyone would trust man over Biblical teaching. Read the Bible and quit putting your trust in man.

[CynicalBear]

>>[F]ull of grace" [Luke 1:28], however, will place you on the right path...........to her Son.<<

That is another corruption of God's word by the Catholic Church. The Greek text does NOT say "full of grace". The Greek text says " highly favored". The Greek word for full or filled is pléroó and is in no way used in the address to Mary. The Catholic Church is lying to you.

[caww]

....”I believe that has happened to many of us...And after it’s over, all you (I) can say is, Wow!!!”.....

Oh absolutely Wow!....and it’s very humbling...at least for me...

..and people question how we can “Know” all we say.....because we just Know!...How do you explain something like that except YOU know who was operating, and that without question.

God is good!

[CynicalBear]

It’s amazing to me that even with the proof that has been shown of no support from scripture and no support from even their own early church fathers their are still those who think posting fables and fiction is somehow going to get us to think Mariology is Christian. Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims all have writings that have no base in scripture as their “go to” source for their beliefs.

[caww]

....”RCs trying to defend a tradition of men which has a special psychological content”.....

Yes, and generally speaking the more they try to defend it so the more the ball of thread tightens.

[NYer]

Thus the reason the Holy Spirit had the text written in Greek. He knew the difference. As daniel1212 stated, the Holy Spirit could have also used the same Greek word in each instance BUT HE DIDN'T.

Lol ... whatever it takes to help you justify YOPIOS.

[CynicalBear]

So show us the original Aramaic text if you think I’m wrong. These Catholic personal attacks rather then defending with facts gets really weak.