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

christiantruth.com ^ | William Webster

[Steelfish]

This is not about Ascension but Assumption. Just goes to show when street theologians try their hand on scriptural interpretation.

This belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves. What was clear from the beginning was that there were no relics of Mary to be venerated, and that an empty tomb stood on the edge of Jerusalem near the site of her death. That location also soon became a place of pilgrimage. (Today, the Benedictine Abbey of the Dormition of Mary stands on the spot.)

We know that after the Crucifixion Mary was cared for by the apostle John (John 19:26-27). Early Christian writings say John went to live at Ephesus and that Mary accompanied him. There is some dispute about where she ended her life; perhaps there, perhaps back at Jerusalem. Neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim and people knew it.

Remember, in the early Christian centuries relics of saints were jealously guarded, highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Colosseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved; there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith. Yet here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven.”

In the eighth century, St. John Damascene was known for giving sermons at the holy places in Jerusalem. At the Tomb of Mary, he expressed the belief of the Church on the meaning of the feast: “Although the body was duly buried, it did not remain in the state of death, neither was it dissolved by decay. . . . You were transferred to your heavenly home, O Lady, Queen and Mother of God in truth.”

[caww]

...” throwing up blockades to Mary, is throwing up death to some”....

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.

[Syncro]

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.

Amen!

[caww]

...”an Alinsky tactic and thus unbecoming”....

Easily identifiable, it has a slithering affect about it, and generally backfires.

[mlizzy]

Genesis 315 is a person’s handle, not a reference to any verse. This is his quote on the subject. Read the commentary and click into the link.

[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.

Many people find Jesus through Mary because she is tender, like a sinless mother would be. Christ is Lord, and he will judge. So yes, for a grievous sinner, they might fear him. So why cut off paths to Christ?

[mlizzy]

There is no sin so grave that Jesus can't deal with it without the need for Mary to be the middle man. Sad to see people directed to Mary instead of Jesus.

I think some people never had tender mothers, so they don't see the positive side of a perfect one. No one loves Christ more than Mary, and no one loves Mary more than Christ. This is the perfect mother-Son relationship. Why slice off the female half? There's no point to it.

[caww]

<<<<<...."Yes, its scripture, scripture, scripture......... scripture, scripture, scripture".....>>>>>>

Here let me help..in a nutshell

[Syncro]

No thanks.

That text is heading in the wrong direction, I don't need to go further down that rabbit trail.

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

And concentrate on this:

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.

Turn you eyes upon Jesus, the author and the finisher of your faith.

Remember it is said about Mary:

Grant that we may always experience the goodness of your motherly heart, and that through the flame of your heart we may be converted.

That is a another roadblock to Jesus and salvation, because the “flame of Mary's heart” can not convert anyone but just lead then astray long enough to miss having a relationship with Jesus, which is what Christianity is all about.

Not Mary, blessed though she is.

[BlueDragon]

Those bears should be thankful that David (the shepherd, psalmist, and king) does not encounter them.

Would he have taught them to ride unicycles?

See how that question didn't work? That's why I asked it.

It didn't work just like bringing texts which spoke of David to comic relief sort of commentary that was not based on texts which included David ---but was more along lines of Thus Spoke Zarathustra Garp (the 'word' according to a ball-turret gunner).

Different texts, my FRiend. (ok, so I dragged a third into the mix just for grins. so sue me...)

As for yourself having dragged David into this;
I knew David, I used to work with David, David was a friend of mine.

You sir, are no David.

What all this has to do with unicycle riding bears is difficult for me to determine any further, we would need ask Irving since he was the one that brought it up in the first place. [investigate the links -- to assist it all to fall into place]

I did notice though, that the circus performers seemed the least troubled, pragmatically coping with a World they were passing through, staying briefly only here and there, in the end despite all their strangeness and strange ways, saner for not being of this world, happy & grateful they all had one another to share with, to look after, to care for and be cared for.

and now of course (being as I'm such the self-appointed dj around here) Strauss's tone poem used by Kubrick.

As for the movie -- it was a trip.

Uber-monkey, (escaping the technology he long relied upon) grows strangely suddenly old, watches himself watching himself die.

What would Ratzinger possibly beginning around p.162 to the end of that preview, after walking along with Rahner part-way before growing uncomfortable with "nearness", have to say about the salvation-historical himself, Rahner, and others seemed to wrestle creating outline for and about -- if the frame was shifted into light of a lost-in-space loser who not under his own power becomes drawn in (into light itself) to be reborn as star-child? Just a thought, hey. ;^')

After Kubrick got through slapping him around, playing a deadly serious sly cosmic joke on all of us (even himself?) there's not enough left of Nietzsche to "save" perhaps...not by our present-day historical salvation philosophy of religious technology. The man was just too proud and vain -- and that just plain 'ol never worked. Just ask Nimrod.

But for Nietzsche today...if someone puts flowers on that one's grave -- what are they remembering? Could nihilism ever be overcome & transcended using that same wandering (which began in darkness) through thoughts then become beginning of "light"?

Who does he thing he is, anyway?

Apparently, there have been many efforts, often including heroic attempts to be an Übermensch in the wider historical-salvation Ratzinger and Rahner wrote of, though each of those two writing about all from perspective of Christ as "over-man" of course, there acknowledging mankind really does require help from above, it being apparent enough(?) that despite pasts heroic -- if lacking this additional component can never quite muster enough uumph to get'r over the hump.

That Jesus person did it. He was even polite enough to fold the, uh, bed-cloths before making His Way to the door.

Still, caught up in the rapturous idea of following this Christ, being more like Him (through our own efforts???) apparently (laugh or cry, dealers choice but you cut the cards) paradoxically the results have been for many both promising --- and looking around and in mirrors also --- a falling still far short of all that which could be desired. Leaving us needing to be grateful for the small cups, water & wine we are allowed -- but better those provided then filled -- by Him and not ourselves for only then and not before can they then be made to overflow -- with here myself speaking of the truly mystical, of God.

I feel another song coming on you knew that was going to happen, right? this one one of those I try to bring here at least once a year...

How many days has it been
Since I was born
How many days until I die
Do I know any ways
That I can make you laugh
Or do I only know how to make you cry

When the baby looks around him
It's such a sight to see
He shares a simple secret
With the wise man

He's a stranger in a strange land
Just a stranger in a strange land
Tell me why
He's a stranger in a strange land
Just a stranger in a strange land

How many miles will it take
To see the sun
And how many years until it's done
Kiss my confusion away in the night
Lay by side when the morning comes

And the baby looks around him
And shares his bed of hay
With the burro in the palace of the king

He's a stranger in a strange land
Tell me why
He's a stranger in a strange land
Just a stranger in a strange land

Well, I don't exactly know
What's going on in the world today
Don't know what there is to say
About the way the people are treating
Each other, not like brothers

Leaders take us far away from ecology
With mythology and astrology
Has got some words to say
About the way we live today
Why can't we learn to love each other
It's time to turn a new face
To the whole world wide human race

Stop the money chase
Lay back, relax
Get back on the human track
Stop racing toward oblivion
Oh, such a sad, sad state we're in
And that's a thing

Do you recognize the bells of truth
When you hear them ring
Won't you stop and listen
To the children sing
Won't you come on and sing it children

He's a stranger in a strange land
Just a stranger in a strange land

[caww]

You wrote.......”O Lady, Queen and Mother of God in truth.”......

But Jesus said I AM the way the TRUTH and the life...no one can come to the father but by me

[metmom]

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.

And yet here we see it, in black and white.

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.

Not even that if they don't request it officially.

I never did so I have no doubt that when RC's brag on 1.2 billion strong, it includes me, and thousands of other former Catholics who have found new life in Christ.

[metmom]

Problem is, Peter (petros) is not the Rock (petra) on which the church is built.

In 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, Paul clearly and in no uncertain terms, identifies who *petra* is, and it's NOT Peter.

Peter himself also states that the Rock,*Petra*, is Jesus.

Peter – rock

Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm

Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.

Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).

“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).

4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.

4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).

It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.

There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.

Also, here, Paul identifies who petra is, and that is Christ. This link takes you to the Greek.

http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm

1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm

Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

http://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm

1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,

“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”

and

“A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

All occurrences of *petra* in the Greek.

http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_4073.htm

[metmom]

The belief is that she was saved from Original Sin at the moment of her conception by God.

I know what the belief is and it is foolishness.

God saved her from sin which she never committed?

If she had never sinned but rather had led a perfect life, then Jesus didn't need to die because she could have and she didn't need a savior.

And if God protected her from sin by having her born sinless, why doesn't or didn't He do that for ALL believers? If He could have done it for her, He could easily have done it for ANY human being.

Imagine what grief that would have spared the world.

Problem is, being human, He could not remove her sin nature from her. Then she wouldn't have been fully human. The only prophecy that needed to be fulfilled was that the mother of the messiah be a virgin. It says NOTHING about the need for her to be sinless.

That is going beyond what is written and demanding that it be believed, making it binding on the believer, is inexcusable.

SP stated it beautifully here on another thread.

As a matter of principle, I am unwilling to make binding, on either myself or others, any gray areas that are not clearly spelled out by the text of Scripture. It's way above my pay grade. Sure I'll try to think what's in those missing words. But I won't make up rules that God didn't make plain and lay them as burdens on others.

It's way above ANYONE's pay grade, no matter what they claim about themselves and being infallible.

NO ONE whoever they claim to be, has the right to make binding on anyone something that is not clearly spelled out in Scripture.

[metmom]

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.

OK, so why did the early popes declare the assumption of Mary to be heresy and now the later popes not only believe it, but make it dogma?

[metmom]

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.

That would be the same Scripture that Jesus quoted at Satan when He was tempted in the wilderness,

the same Scripture that Jesus quoted at the Pharisees to condemn them and their traditions,

the same Scripture that Jesus used to validate Himself and His ministry,

the same Scripture that Catholics and the Catholic church take credit for, claiming that they gave it to the world,

the same Scripture that the CCC quotes from to validate itself.

Yes, it's Scripture, Scripture, Scripture.

Because God's word is forever settled in heaven and is TRUTH.

[metmom]

If it all was just a matter of personal choice whether to believe the teaching or not, it wouldn't be an issue and there probably wouldn't be a thread on it - though I think it is an interesting point that two prior popes called heretical the ONLY writing that could have been a historical source for the belief. Without that, there IS nothing to base the dogma on other than wishful thinking of some people centuries afterward.

Bears repeating.......

[metmom]

There are those, if they didn't have Mary to lead them, would never know of her Son. That's why throwing up blockades to Mary, is throwing up death to some.

THAT is deifying her.

It's the HOLY SPIRIT who leads men to Christ. HE is the one who convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

[caww]

....”people find Jesus through Mary because she is tender”...

And Jesus isn’t????

Seeing the people,’ He felt compassion’ for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd...Matt 9:36

The LORD longs ‘to be gracious’ to you, And therefore He waits on high ‘to have compassion’ on you’...Isaiah 30:18

“Therefore, behold, I will allure her, Bring her into the wilderness And ‘speak kindly to her’...hosea 2:14

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt ‘compassion for him’, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.....Luke 15

When He went ashore, He saw a large crowd, and felt compassion for them..Matt14:14

Moved with compassion, Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him...Mark1:41

Because of ‘the tender’ mercy of our God, With which the Sunrise from on high will visit us...Luke 1:78

[metmom]

Many people find Jesus through Mary because she is tender, like a sinless mother would be. Christ is Lord, and he will judge.

No, He doesn't.

He came into the world to save the world not to judge it.

God the Father is the judge of unbelievers.

Jesus only judgment mentioned is for the works of believers to determine if they are worthy or not. It is NOT a judgment for or of salvation.