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

christiantruth.com ^ | William Webster

[ronnietherocket3]

Have you ever seen proof that aliens didn’t land in area 51?

If you want to believe that, go ahead.

[Syncro]

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

I did read the article

You posted this earlier on the thread:

I know of no other dogma...regarding the Assumption than the one declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950.

That is what this thread is about.

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

So here is the dilemma:

Catholicism has more than one view on the assumption of Mary.

Which popes are wrong, or is it blaspheme to declare a pope's (or two popes) dogma wrong?

It can't be both ways.

I believe in the Assumption

Of course. All Catholics must. Just as before 1950 they could not, as per TWO Catholic popes.

I was wondering when Mary became the center of the Catholic belief system, now I see it was 1950.

Although before that more than one pope declared that salvation could be received from Mary.

Besides the "fire of Mary's heart" converting souls.

[Gamecock]

Therefore, it did?

Lot’s of fallacies in your assertion.

[ronnietherocket3]

No it didn't.

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
Isaiah 8:20

Cordially,

It does not say written.

[ronnietherocket3]

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

From metmom:
Misplaced clause? I thought only Jesus was conceived by God.

I will rewrite my statement as:
The belief is that God saved her from Original Sin at the moment of her conception.

[ronnietherocket3]

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

Please provide the specific quote where the Popes denounced the belief in the Assumption of Mary as heresy. Denouncing a book or group as heretical is insufficient as the Arians are heretical, but they believe that Christ was crucified.

[CynicalBear]

>>The problem is that we must get behind the Greek to the Aramaic.<<

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Don't trust what God did. Second guess Him and change it to what He must have meant. Don't trust God's promise to preserve His word for "all generations" but make it read what we think it should. Ever heard the "wisdom of the wise" quote in scripture?

>>Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic<<

You and Michael Rood need to get together and decide. Was it Hebrew or Aramàic? No documents of either Aramaic or Hebrew predate the Greek we have. I trust God knew what He was doing. You should also.

>>In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek.<<

You don't say. Go figure.

>>What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on thiskepha I will build my Church.<<

> Not in the documents God chose to preserve. So that must only be in made up by man documents.

>>Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures.<<

Let's get this straight so the readers of these threads understand. God preserved what He wanted for us in the Greek NOT in Aramaic. I trust He preserved the words He did for a reason. Change His words if you want but don't claim they are the word of God. Build your religion on whatever man made wisdom you want but don't call it Christian.

[caww]

..."How would the modern day Bishops and Cardinals respond to John wandering the desert, wearing rough clothes of hair, eating locusts and honey while preaching repentance?".....

They would surely say "better he then me"...who would never give up all the perks of their "positions", nor their seat at the banquet table.

They strut their evil before you...

[CynicalBear]

>>To date I have yet to see someone explain how it is not Mary.<<

Then you chose not to read it or didn't believe what was posted.

[CynicalBear]

>>I have not seen anyone disprove the Assumption.<<

We'll, at least you have something in common with another group. They haven't proven aliens did not land at area 51 either.

[Gamecock]

They haven't proven aliens did not land at area 51 either.

[mlizzy]

I did post a link, but you didn’t want to click into it. That’s the only information I saw online. About the book on the Assumption! If you were interested in an answer (instead of working to discredit the Church, and I’m not mind-reading, it’s obvious), I’d ask my brother-in-law, an orthodox (saintly) priest, but I’m not going to bother him in this regard. He’d only suggest you go to adoration.

[mlizzy]

Is He simply not enough for you?.... IS he unable to meet “all” your needs ‘through Him” as he has said he would?...are His hands, that were pierced for you too weak to meet everything that concerns your life all around?....

Mary, the angels, saints, holy water, crucifixes, blessed salt, saint medals, rosaries, scapulars, etc. and so on, are all reminders (in one way or another) of Christ, so they bring a wandering mind back to Jesus, where it belongs. If your mind never wanders, that's perfect! However, respect should be shown to the Mother of God, simply because of her position.

[Religion Moderator]

"This particular kerfluffle began with one or more of the fang and claw protestants hitting the abuse button over something I said."

There have been no abuse reports about your posts on this thread.

Stick to the issues.

Posts such as this one of yours, filled with false information and claims, can cause flame wars.

[editor-surveyor]

“David Koresh” was a believer, and that is why he is dead.

Or do you buy the MSM version?

[MamaB]

Mary was not without sin. The Bible says, “all have sinned .....” No where is she left out of that statement. She even says she needs a Savior.

[editor-surveyor]

No part of God’s word was originally written in any language but Hebrew (Daniel ch 4 excepted).

The Greek MS themselves prove that they are clumsy translations.

Proof of this fact has been posted here many times.

[daniel1212]

As I pointed out earlier, these discussions are repeated on multiple threads, over and over again.

Yes, and the linguistical one continues as if nothing was said that counters is, and does not settle it, but in the light of the rest of the NT it remains that the argument for Peter being the Rock as the infallible supreme head of the churches remains untenable.

Again, nowhere is Peter referred as the rock of the church, and in fact if Mt. 16:18 did not exist there would be no debate. The only place the would come close is that of calling all the apostles and prophets foundational, (Eph. 2:20) however Christ alone is affirmed to the the rock and stone upon which the church is built, and abundantly so. That alone is enough to disallow it as to not do so would be contrary to the characteristic of the Holy Spirit to affirm such an important attributes as a title, as well as what that entails.

Instead, Peter is manifest as the street-level leader among the 11, and the first church and the first to use the keys to the kingdom (the gospel by which souls are placed therein: Col. 1:13) for both Jews and Gentiles, and thus the first to give counsel in Acts 15, but also the first and only one to be publicly exposed thrice for declension, and is not set forth in Scripture as a Roman pope to whom the churches looked to as its exalted supreme infallible head. Nor is submission to him in particular by the churches ever enjoined, even as a solution to its problems, or commended or faulted, in any church epistles or the Lord's critique of the 7 churches in Rv. 2+3.

In addition, the Holy Spirit nowhere shows or teaches successors to the foundational apostles, with the only one being for Judas in order to maintain the foundational number (cf. Rv. 21:14) - that being 12, and only 12, contra Rome, and which was by the non-political OT method of casting lots, (Acts 1:15ff) which Rome has never used.

And it is clear that Rome's apostles fail of both the qualifications for a successor and their manner of attestation. (2Cor. 6:1-10)

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church.

There is no downplaying, as the exaltation that papists promote is absent. Peter is told that he was blessed because God revealed to him who Christ was, and this confession was only because God revealed it to him.

Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured.

Indeed, "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar–jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 16:17)

What here is the subject of primary importance, Peter or the profession of Christ that it is in response to and its Source? Next,

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)

As in v. 17 Peter is mentioned first but it flows from the profession of Christ and which "this" refers to, and which irt can only mean as only Christ is elsewhere said to be that rock.

Moreover, it is faith in this Son of God that Peter confessed that the believer overcomes by, not faith in Peter as the rock. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? (1 John 5:5)

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,

>And where is Isaiah 22:21-25 infallibly interpreted? Regardless, Paul quoted the Philistines (1Sam. 4:9) in 1Co 16:13, while Isaiah 22:20-25 most easily pertains to Christ, except for v. 25, which nukes Peter as well:

And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.

For what is evident as concerns perpetuation is that to Christ it is promised that His kingdom will never cease, (Lk. 1:32,33), who shall be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that being their holy Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah, out of which our Lord sprang and made a new covenant with. (Heb. 7:14; 8:8 ) And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house”, for “in Jesus Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9) And who “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) Thus this what best corresponds to the prophecy of Isaiah.

In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the Lord hath spoken it. (Isaiah 22:25)

[mlizzy]

Well then; WHY is there SO much about HER in Catholicism?

Because she's the Mother of God.

[metmom]

One explanation is that her humility led her to ask God to not write about her.

Oh my goodness.

Do you guys REALLY believe all that speculation about Mary?

Catholics have to be about the most gullible group of people going to swallow all the nonsense put forth about Mary based on nothing more than hearsay or wishful thinking.

ANYTHING to justify their unwarranted fawning over her.