Ah, yes, the hermeneutic of suspicion
"It's a TRAP!"
Posted on 09/27/2014 11:05:41 AM PDT by Gamecock
Then one has to decide what the truth is. So what is the determining factor in separating truth from lies?
It has to be more than *Whatever supports my theology is truth and whatever doesn't is false* and yet that's what it seems to boil down to.
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?
It's not the laity who makes those decisions so no, I do not think it was done out of stupidity or ignorance.
But, yes, I can see if someone has an agenda that they could and would do that. Intentionally.
Nor can you assume that it didn't, so why are you so vociferously arguing that it didn't? Even if I accept your claim that the Bible doesn't teach it, it's a theolegoumenon, so Christians aught to be individually free to believe it or not. Why does "Christian liberty" go out the window with you guys whenever something sounds "too Catholic"? Can you answer that?
(In point of fact, I don't think the Bible is silent on it at all, and Revelation 12 is why.)
Catholics = Mormons when it comes to making up Goddess worship.
The bible does not claim that all things that are true are written in the bible.
Ah, yes, the hermeneutic of suspicion
"It's a TRAP!"
When you have 1700 years of dogma, rules, and regulations, I can imagine things can get pretty confusing and contradictory.
1950, huh?
Well, then it’s not so old that it cannot be undone and it needs to be undone!
Here is an interesting factoid for you:
Just like Pope Frankie, Luther is not infallible.
Plus Luther is not our “Pope.”
Scriptural, so yes.
That Enoch “walked with God”?
Scriptural, so yes.
Then why don’t you believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary could have been assumed into heaven?
It appears nowhere in scripture. If you want to conjecture that Mary jumped on a surplus WWII German flying saucer and was whisked away to a subterranean base beneath the polar icecap, that would have just as much Biblical support.
There's plenty of history in this world that is not recorded in Scripture. But in dealing with issues concerning Christianity, it is THE standard by which truth claims are to be measured.
And to demand that something be taken as dogma or doctrine, as a truth that must believed by the faithful else they risk their salvation, there must be more substantiation than hearsay.
Surely if the Holy Spirit thought that the doctrine was necessary for us to know pertaining to salvation, then He would have seen fit to put it in there Himself.
But He didn't, so I don't see where anyone else, no matter who they claim to be, has any authority to make it binding on believers for salvation.
Therefore the doctrine of sinless assumption cannot be correct.
When any church or denomination teaches something as truth or doctrine which can be shown to be contrary to clear Biblical teaching or cannot be shown to be clearly supported by Scripture, then that is not a disputable matter.
There's nothing in the context of Revelation 12 that suggests that it's Mary although I can see that if someone comes up with a doctrine and wants to support it, they can and will find something somewhere in Scripture that seems to do the job.
The way that can be shown to be the case is when something is lifted out of context to support the doctrine and very loose interpretations and much rationalization is used to make it say what the person wants.
According to you its not just Mary’s assumption but the Eucharist etc. So go join the ranks of Rev. Moon, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Billy Graham and every other variety of mushroom sects that either have withered and died or are withering away. Strange isn’t it that the early Church Fathers who through scholarly research and the received oral tradition sorted out the various books, rejected some and included others, that we call the Bible is now denied the authority to use these very same means of theological inquiry to proclaim the Assumption.
And of course all the material in support of the Assumption dating back to the practices of the surviving Apostles are now brushed aside by simplistic interpretations that appeal to corner street Foursquare Church “theologians”
I think the difference here is that Luther not only did not claim to be infallible, he did not claim to know for certain how Mary travelled to her present existence, whether it be by assumption or by physical death. I will leave it to the other Protestants to argue that it could not have happened, accept Luther's suggestion that the issue is adiaphora, and leave it at that. I don't have to either accept or reject the Assumption to stand with Catholics in the propagation of the Gospel, or in all those doctrines of which the Catholic and Lutheran churches are in agreement, which include all the doctrines necessary for salvation.
Another day, another anti-Catholic screed filled with cut-n-paste part truthes mixed in with blatant falsehoods. All allowed here. As the stench grows so does the feeling that the Catholic conservative is no longer welcome here.
Your thoughts?
The Assumption affirms not sex but love. St. Thomas in his inquiry into the effects of love mentions ecstasy as one of them. In ecstasy one is “lifted out of his body”, an experience that poets and authors and orators have felt in a mild form when, in common parlance, “they were carried away by their subject.”…- See more at: http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2013/08/14/the-feast-of-the-assumption-and-fulton-sheen/#sthash.swNCCb5z.dpuf
If God exerts a gravitational pull on all souls, given the intense love of Our Lord for His Blessed Mother that descended and the intense love of Mary for her Lord that ascended, there is created a suspicion that love at this stage would be so great as “to pull the body with it.” Given further an immunity from Original Sin, there would not be in the body of Our Lady the dichotomy, tension, and opposition that exist in us between body and soul. If the distant moon moves all the surging tides of earth, then the love of Mary for Jesus and the love of Jesus for Mary should result in such an ecstasy as “to lift her out of this world”.
Love in its nature is an ascension in Christ and an assumption in Mary. (Sheen, 133, 134)
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
a suspicion that should result..........
No evidence just an little inkling that it SHOULD have....even if it didn’t.
Pretty flimsy stuff on which doctrine is made.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.