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

christiantruth.com ^ | William Webster

[CynicalBear]

Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

[narses]

In the Religion forum, on a thread titled THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries,

Karl Spooner wrote:

Catholicism has never been liked here.

'The synagogue of Satan has never been liked here' would be more appropriate.

There ya go, Catholic FReepers are members of the "synagogue of Satan!"

Your thoughts?

[CynicalBear]

>>I fail to understand why folks find it necessary to undermine others’ beliefs.<<

You mean like the Catholic Church claiming a person needs to be in agreement with that church to be saved?

[trisham]

It’s pointless to bother with someone like that.

[xzins]

Which means that we don’t need to know.

There's a lot of people in the Bible who we don't hear about after their appearance or their book. That doesn't mean they aren't important.

And, just to be honest, it has become very important to discover names, dates, and locations. Archeology has helped to stifle the attacks of the atheist enemies of the gospel.

[narses]

[narses]

[Steelfish]

These snippets of Scripture are of no use. This discussion must begin and end with authority. The Petrine authority has been examined for several centuries by theologians from Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, Benedict XVI (the “theological Einstein” of our times) as well as some of the most preeminent theologians in the Protestant and Episcopalian worlds who have converted to Catholicism. The very authority by which the early Church fathers selected which books to ignore, and those to be included in the Bible using historical sources and oral tradition nearly 60-80 years after the death of Christ is the same authority by which the dogma of the Assumption is founded. Biblical anarchy is the result of every street corner preacher from David Koresh to Billy Graham to TD Jakes and Rev. Moon and the Mormons all claiming to “authoritatively” interpret Scripture.

[narses]

Indeed. But to those who are blind, that means nothing.

[AppyPappy]

“Then why don’t you believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary could have been assumed into heaven?”

What leads you to believe that it happened?

[Karl Spooner]

Ad brought to you by the Pagan Channel.

[CynicalBear]

Seriously! You can’t dispute the teachings of any of those men with scripture? Catholics only follow one fallible source rather than one of those men.

[ronnietherocket3]

All Catholics need to do is show from an infallible source that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary.

When we do show you things like "So faith by itself, if it has not works, is dead." (Jas 2:17), you persist in believing in faith only salvation. Jesus extols the virtue of perpetual virginity and Paul wishes that others could be like him in that regard. But Protestants insist on believing it is not so. When shown things like Jesus renaming Simon to Peter, like God renaming Avram to Abraham or Jacob to Israel, you reject any specialness of Peter. So why should we believe that you will believe the Assumption if we find a passage that supports it.

[Steelfish]

Yes, seriously. The teaching authority by Christ was not extended to any Tom, Dick, and Harry. It was granted to Peter and his successors with absolute authority and with comprehensive binding mandate. The most perfect and purest of all God’s creation in heaven and earth and born without original sin, was not to rot in the ground. She was the vessel of the Son of Man and Son of God. From her flesh and her body came the body and blood of Christ.

Besides, if you take the time and trouble to read with care there is convincing authority for this dogma, one accepted by theologians over centuries and a dogma examined by theological departments across the world as well as accepted by leading Protestants and Episcopalians in the non-Catholic world of Christians.

Mary is referred to prophetically as “woman” in Gen. 3:15, Jer. 31:22, and by Jesus as the same in John 2:4 and 19:26. Especially considering the same apostle, John, wrote the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation, it is no stretch to say St. John would have had Mary in mind when he used the familiar term “the woman” as the descriptor of the Lady of the Apocalypse.

There are four main characters in the chapter: “the woman,” the devil, Jesus, and the Archangel Michael. No one denies that the other three mentioned are real persons. It fits the context exegetically to interpret “the woman” as a person (Mary) as well.

How do we know Mary is bodily in heaven?

Some may concede Mary to be the woman of Revelation 12, but the next logical question is: “How does this mean she is in heaven bodily? There are lots of souls in heaven, but they don’t have their bodies.”

It seems clear that “the woman” is depicted as having “the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown” (vs. 1). Elsewhere in Rev. and in other parts of Scripture, saints in heaven are referred to as the “souls of those who had been slain” (Rev. 6:9) or “the spirits of just men made perfect” (Heb. 12:23). Why? Because they do not have bodies! They are disembodied “souls” or “spirits.”

But the “woman” of Rev. 12 is portrayed as having a body with a head and feet.
But perhaps even more important than this is the fact that “the Ark of the Covenant” is revealed as being in heaven in Rev. 11:19. This is just one verse prior to the unveiling of “the woman” of Rev. 12:1.

[ronnietherocket3]

In the above, Epiphanius' Panarion is cited. This is a work that lists large numbers of heresies. Concerning Heresy 26 (Gnostics) in Paragraph 7.5, he refers to Jesus born of the ever-virgin Mary. Had Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations, she would not be ever-virgin, only Virgin. This is also repeated in Heresy 29 (Nazareans) paragraph 6.7. In his section on Antidicomarians, he comments that the Antidicomarians disbelieve in the perpetual Virginity of Mary and then proceeds to explain how the Lord had brothers even though his mother was a perpetual Virgin. In addition he also connects Mary with Eve. He also comments that he who honors the Lord also honors his Vessel and continues with "Leave Mary the holy vessel, the holy Virgin, alone! "

The next heresy he goes after is the Collyridian heresy. Some of my summary has to do with the modern heresy of attempting to ordain women.

This sect is interesting as they actually practiced Mary Worship. This sect offered bread to Mary through the use of priestesses. Epiphanius states that if any female should be priest, it would be Mary because "She was counted worthy to bear the king of all in her own womb". Interestingly he comments John the Baptist practiced baptism for the remission of sins. His baptisms took place using water. Proceeding, even though there are prophetesses, they are not priestesses. So he appears to oppose female ordination not because he has a problem with it, but because he can find no basis for it. He does comment that there are deaconesses who exist to preserve the modesty of women.

He proceeds to mention that there are deacons who help administer, but not celebrate, any mysteries. Interesting to note, Epiphanius has no problem citing the Protoevangelium of James. He proceeds to say that Mary should be honored but not worshipped (which is the Catholic statement). He concludes that since it is not appropriate to offer the Eucharist to men (only to God), it is inappropriate to offer it to women. He then states that not even angels have this glory.

[CynicalBear]

Faith by itself without works is dead. When one is saved by faith the indwelling of the Holy Spirit will produce works. The works part is the Holy Spirit working through us. It remains that it was the faith that saved.

Jesus and Paul indeed extolled the virtue of clelebacy. They did not however require it. Paul, in fact, gave instructions that leadership need first prove fit by having successfully raised a family.

God indeed renaimed each of those men. Jesus also said that none of them was the leader of the others. In fact the Catholic Church itself admits that it was Jesus being the son of God upon which the church is built.

Now, about the apostles teaching the assumption of Mary.

[reefdiver]

The bible is silent on everyone that Jesus visited with after his death, but I have to go with the crowd that says he visited his mother. Who wouldn’t visit mom? She was at the foot of his cross.