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

christiantruth.com ^ | William Webster

[Syncro]

I am not actually calling you thinskinned, just noticing it.

The symptoms are complaining and not engaging in reasoned debate.

No it's not a cover word, what you see is what you get.

What do you think I would want to say that I would cover up with noticing thinskinned behavior?

I haven't a clue.

I'm just a poster at FR and have no power.

l did climb on to the titanic and go to the bow and yell “I am the King of The World” but I don't think that gives me any power here.

VP sounds good though, could you put in a word for me???

I'm quite involved in activism, through Free Republic and other venues.

Of course I realize what is going on in the world, I know there are some of your colleagues who say we only are here to cause problems for Catholics and don't get involved in other threads, but that is not true.

Couldn't be further from the truth, but lots of straw men are thrown up, especially on long threads like this one.

some of the adjectives used to describe Jesus and Our Lady, and the Catholic Church on this forum, are not good.No born again Christians on Free Republic would every use bad adjectives to describe Jesus. Can you link me to some examples or else state that that statement isn't true?

As far as "Our Lady" well if Mary, who gave birth to Jesus, is lifted up higher that Jesus created her to be, yes you will find some will dispute that "veneration" as un Biblical.

The Catholic dogma/beliefs are disputed by those that disagree with them. Nothing wrong with that.

If you have seen some unseemly really bad adjectives directed pointedly to Mary or Catholicism, please link them.

. I do not disrespect other Christian faiths; I feel Catholicism is a more complete

Interesting. Catholicism COMPLETELY disrespects ALL other denominations by simply stating that only Catholicism is the One True Church, and anyone that doesn't follow it and the dictates of the pope can not have salvation.

Quite in complete contradiction to what Jesus and the Bible says.

So is that the "more complete" faith you adore so much?? To deny there are other Christians outside the Catholic denomination.

As far as this post, I know of no other dogma...regarding the Assumption than the one declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950.

Well my goodness mlizzy read the text of the thread!

Your last two sentences are absurd. Stop taking this to such a personal level, that's thinskinned...

[CynicalBear]

>>by hundreds of theologians<<

Wide is the way. There's Millon's of Muslims too.

>>Having denied Petrine authority they cannot now account<<

Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

>>They deny the dogma of the Assumption<<

Apostles didn't teach thus those who do are considered by God to be accursed. Follow them at your own risk.

>>But there are also many other things which Jesus did;<<

The Holy Spirit saw fit to not include them. He did say through Paul that what we have is sufficient. We take Him at His word.

>>Thus the early Church fathers<<

Did not believe in the assumption of Mary. The Apostles didn't teach it.

>>So why question Petrine authority now?<<

It wasn't true while the apostles were alive and it's still not true

>>In summary: neophyte readers of Scripture<<

Scripture says we have the I dwelling of the Holy Spirit as our teacher. That makes your statement false.

[GeronL]

Interpretation of what? If it is not in scripture there is nothing to interpret.

[CynicalBear]

We may not reach the Catholic defenders that post here but God knows who lurks.

[ronnietherocket3]

I've been here longer than that and I agree that the same arguments keep getting recycled.

Ultimately these threads come down to the question of Sola Scriptura vs. Catholicism. The question of whether the Assumption can be required is ultimately a question of whether the Catholic Church can define dogma. The question of whether one can believe Mary was assumed is ultimately a question of whether one needs proof (as opposed to evidence) of something prior to believing it. Americans are a little obsessed with the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt.

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?

To Catholics the OT Deuterocanon is Scripture. To us, Martin Luther was the person who got people to stop regarding them as Scripture. I do know that he did not throw them in the garbage.

Something that other Catholics have done on this thread is whine about how they are treated. I do not believe Jesus died on the Cross so people in the 21st century could whine and run to mommy about how they are treated on the internet.

I suppose I should state that I do not have an opinion on whether their complaint is right or wrong.

[Steelfish]

Yes, its scripture, scripture, scripture…according to “your” interpretation! Go ask the David Koresh’s; the Jim Jones’; the Joel Osteens; the Billy Grahams; the Rev. Moons; and the Rev. Sharptons; and Mormons; what “they” think of the same scripture, scripture, scripture…..you cite.

[daniel1212]

At best this means that one cannot require belief in the Assumption; it fails to establish the Assumption is false.

Indeed, Mary could have parted the Red Sea, but such speculation has no place as a doctrine, especially in the light of the fact that the Holy Spirit characteristically mentions exceptions to the norm among notable persons, from great age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), strength (Samson), devotion (Anna), diet (John the Baptist), to the supernatural transport of Phillip, the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, and the surpassing labor and suffering of Paul, etc., etc. to John the Baptist "being" Elijah, and Christ being sinless and the prophesied Messiah and Divine.

But Mary is nowhere presented as being a sinless perpetual virgin and highest created being in virtue, titled the mother of God and bodily assumed into Heaven and crowned as its Queen, with authority over angels, and hearing virtually infinite amounts of prayer from earth addressed to her, etc. .

Meanwhile, it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

But the weight of Scriptural substantiation is not the basis for the veracity of RC doctrine, lest they be as evangelicals, but assurance of Truth for an RC is based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.

Under which Scripture, history and tradition only assuredly consist of and mean what she says they do. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

[Steelfish]

Absurd. This is infantile stuff. The Bible did not fall from the skies. The books in scripture were put together by the early Church fathers and Jn.21:25 says not all that was said by Christ was written down. Much of it was handed down by the oral tradition, interpreted as one cohesive truth based on Petrine authority. Not “your” interpretation nor mine nor David Koresh.

[Heart-Rest]

"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."

------------------------------------------------------------

Like I told you in post 616, that "Mind Serpent" web site you were digging around in to find and post those two pictures you posted, is dedicated to the late "Neville Goddard", who taught "New Thought" ideas based in large part on his extensive study of the "Kabbalah" (as the web site tells us).

That's where you got those two pictures you posted, so you used his web site, and must have been aware of its contents.

[Syncro]

Your posts don’t speak to me in the least.

Please remove me from your ping list.

Thank you.

[caww]

...”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”....

I could not agree more....

satan’s attacks have always been the most fierce against people reading or using God’s word....though he is ok with them paying it lip service or mingling it with other venues.

But when an individual begins to seek “truth” , and or bring darkness to the light of scripture...you can be guaranteed there will be opposition at some point.

I recall an individual in a cultish type religion, though quick to say it was an “all inclusive” religion where you practice as you want and all are welcomed.... But as they spoke about their new discovery I questioned them about what Jesus had to say ‘using His words’.......but they needed to hear ‘the truth’ up against the lies they were told.

My point is I had no Bible before me......the scriptures that came were those His Spirit were bringing to my mind throughout the conversation as His spirit chose to use them...which I could not have used had I not read them or heard them myself.

God’s word is Powerful for a reason....

[ronnietherocket3]

You keep asking questions but denying the scripture I give in favor of conjecture.

I deny your interpretation of it.

Bottom line; the teachers of “dogma” that the apostles didn’t teach are considered accursed by God. Follow them at your own risk.

I have seen no proof they did not teach it. I will give you that there is no line in Scripture that states "Mary's body was assumed into Heaven." However, this does not constitute proof they did not teach it, either indirectly (as we claim concerning Rev. 12) or directly through Sacred Tradition, which we believe comes from the Apostles. The other possibility is that they did not teach it, but it can be established on the basis of other dogma; this would be the Sacred Magisterium. This leaves open the question of whether this is another Gospel. From our perspective it is not, since the Assumption is ultimately dependent on Christ Crucified, Resurrected, and Ascended.

[CynicalBear]

Catholics, Mormons and Muslims add to scripture. Not sure what you disagree with Graham on. The rest just corrupted it and wanted the glory like the Catholic Church does. I’ll stay with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as I was promised.

[CynicalBear]

Well said!

[boatbums]

Now that’s just sad. Jesus is the Good Shepherd who gave His life for His sheep. He is FAR from frightening. He is our mediator. For the unbeliever, though, that’s a whole ‘nother story!

[CynicalBear]

Why are Catholics so obsessed with where something came from rather than the truth of what was presented? It appears like an Alinsky tactic and thus unbecoming.

[ronnietherocket3]

Meanwhile, it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

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.

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[daniel1212]

First of all, do you have faith enough in God's power to believe that if God willed that Mary be able to hear all those prayers, God has enough power to enable her to hear them?

You do not make doctrines based upon what God could do, which would be endless, and the Holy Spirit provides absolutely zero prayers by anyone (but pagans) addressed to anyone to Heaven but the Lord out the approx 200 in Scripture.

In addition, the ability to hear virtually endless incessant prayers addressed to them in Heaven is an attribute only God is shown having.

Nor is anyone crowned in Heaven until the Lord's return.

Thus based upon RC principle, it could be taught that Mary created new worlds, and engages in time travel.

[mlizzy]

Interesting. Catholicism COMPLETELY disrespects ALL other denominations by simply stating that only Catholicism is the One True Church, and anyone that doesn't follow it and the dictates of the pope can not have salvation.

"All things are possible with G-d."