Posted on 08/15/2005 9:01:28 AM PDT by Salvation
If you believe that she is in charge of handing out gifts from heaven and that you need to pray to her, then you are giving her divine attributes. You may not call her divine, but she is certainly treated as such.
I am still quite convinced that Mary needed a Savior to wash away her sins just like all others. A recognition that Mary needed the Grace of God reinforces my point. You are correct in stating that I believe Mary was subject to the taint of original sin.
Most convincing would have been a more prominent description of Mary's role in the Holy Spirit preserved Book of Acts and New Testament epistles. The Holy Spirit would not have neglected to give the appropriate weight to one with such a significant role in our spiritual lives.
Don't you ask people to pray for you?
Yep. You could call the doctrine of assumption nothing more than an assumption. Heh.
No clear reference to the assumption of Mary exists before the 6th century, and only then from highly dubious sources. The idea apparently originated with a sect of Egyptian Christians who had been highly influenced by Gnostic traditions. In fact, the earliest reference to the end of Mary's life is from Epiphanius in 377 A.D. He writes that no one knows what happened to Mary:
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).Here's a good summary on the doctrine:This dogma has no serious connection with the Bible at all, and its defenders scarcely pretend that it has. It cannot honestly be said to have any solid ground in patristic theology either, because it is frist known among Catholic Christians in even its crudest form only at the beginning of the fifth century, and then among Copts in Egypt whose associations with Gnostic heresy are suspiciously strong; indeed it can be shown to be a doctrine which manifestly had its origin among Gnostic heretics. The only argument by which it is defended is that if the Church has at any time believed it and does now believe it, then it must be orthodox, whatever its origins, because the final standard of orthodoxy is what the Church believes. The fact that this belief is presumably supposed to have some basis on historical fact analogous to the belief of all Christians in the resurrection of our Lord makes its registration as a dogma de fide more bewilderingly incomprehensible, for it is wholly devoid of any historical evidence to support it. In short, the latest example of the Roman Catholic theory of doctrinal development appears to be a reductio ad absurdum expressly designed to discredit the whole structure (R.P.C. Hanson, The Bible as a Norm of Faith (University of Durham, 1963), Inaugral Lecture of the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity delivered in the Appleby Lecture Theatre on 12 March, 1963, p. 14).In short, any "doctrine" concerning what happened to Mary is nothing more than sheer speculation.
Very informative post. I try to be very respectful these days, though, and not allow myself to develop an attitude of derision toward someone with whom I disagree. It has been a difficult transition, but I believe I'm improving. It's hard to persuade someone to see that a belief/thought is incorrect if one's attitude in presenting the rebuttal is not healthy. Thank you.
Read the post.... for me, but not to me.
Well, for one thing, it is under the Evangelical Christian sidebar forum/topic, so it isn't like someone went searching it out - but rather it was put on their plate. Which is something that I have a hard time understanding - why so many of the Catholic threads are listed in the Evangelical Christian topics/forum. Although my observation is that it is just a few people that do that, but sometimes there are more Catholic threads listed than Evagelical ones. I have asked why on a few occasions but I have never received an answer.
Thank you for the beautiful post about one of the greatest saints in scripture. Her deeds speak volumes about how we too can be the Bride of Christ. Her faithfulness to God is an example of one who has remained pure in areas of her life that make her usable by God.
I have taught my daughters that their purity can be like Mary's in that some failings we do as youth can make us ineligible for something God may have wanted to do in our lives. Because Mary was sexually pure, she was still eligible to usher the Savior into the world. Holiness which led to Blessedness is Mary's great instruction to the Body of Christ. History would be hard pressed to find a person more Blessed than Mary.
Honoring her is easy when you consider the passage you wrote.
The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church given by Jesus to the Apostles which has been handed down and continues today with the bishops in communion with the Pope.
We don't disagree with this. I don't care to fight about it, but I have never understood how anyone could believe that Mary was divine
We don't think that she was divine. The comparison is that God is the sun to her moon.
No wonder I didn't know what it was since that whole statement is hogwash.
bondserv was correct. Excellent post on Mary. I hope others see that veneration of Mary is not a "requirement", but something that we do out of love of someone so close to Christ. It should seem natural to people who consider God as love (1 John) - and we are commanded to do the same.
Brother in Christ
You quoted Epiphanius
"...But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).
It is too bad you didn't include what you omit with your ellipses, as it would have brought an interesting point up that the early Church already believed.
"For you would find in Scriptures hardly any news about this holy and blessed womean, of whom nothing is said concerning her death. Simeon says of her: "and a sword shall pierce your soul, so that thoughts out of many hearts may be laid bare" But elsewhere, in the Apocalypse of John, we read that the dragon hurled himself at the woman who had given birth to a male child; but the wings of an eagle were given to the woman, and she felw into the desert, where the dragon could not reach her" This could have happened in Mary's case".
The identification of the woman of Apocalypse with the Virgin Mary is interesting, don't you think?
I also like to point out that Mary's Dormition was already being celebrated in the East during this time, a Liturgical Feast honoring the Most Blessed Virgin's passing from this world.
The latter comments of your post totally ignore the fact that there is no such thing as Sola Scriptura in Christian practice during this time, so it is a logical fallacy to demand that Mary's death and/or Assumption be fully documented in the Scriptures. The Scriptures are not CNN that report everything that happened the first 100 years of Christianity. The Bible itself makes this clear when it commands the guardianship of oral traditions, as well as stating its own shortcomings on listing Christ's work (twice in John's Gospel).
The premise that "it must be in Scripture before we believe it" is false and anachronistic to the Christians of 1900, 1500, 1000 and 500 years ago. It is only Martin Luther's attempt to do away with the Most Holy Church Father's witness to Luther's innovations and the "tickling of the ears" of those who would hear him. His claim erases the Apostolic Tradition because the Tradition that was guarded and protected (as commanded by Scriptures) proved him wrong.
Regards
It was a pious and noble remeberance of the Sweet Mother of Jesus,you posted and I have no doubt,it is written in Jesus' heart as well as Mary's in Heaven and they will not forget you!
Hurray for "Salvation" HAil Mary!
It is too bad you didn't include what you omit with your ellipses, as it would have brought an interesting point up that the early Church already believed.
"For you would find in Scriptures hardly any news about this holy and blessed womean, of whom nothing is said concerning her death. Simeon says of her: "and a sword shall pierce your soul, so that thoughts out of many hearts may be laid bare" But elsewhere, in the Apocalypse of John, we read that the dragon hurled himself at the woman who had given birth to a male child; but the wings of an eagle were given to the woman, and she felw into the desert, where the dragon could not reach her" This could have happened in Mary's case".
The identification of the woman of Apocalypse with the Virgin Mary is interesting, don't you think?
I omitted what was in the ellipses because they didn't concern what I was talking about. If you'll read closely what you wrote, you'll find that Epiphanius did not identify Mary with the woman in Revelation; he merely said what happened to the woman in Revelation "could have happened in Mary's case."
It is only Martin Luther's attempt to do away with the Most Holy Church Father's witness...
Like the selling of indulgences? The church in Luther's day allowed people to buy their way out of purgatory. The scriptures call practices like this Simony. Of course, the ever-changing doctrine of purgatory isn't supported by scripture in the first place. The scriptures tell us clearly that Jesus Christ fully paid for our sins -- both yours and mine -- on the cross. Trying to pay for our sins through work or money is an insult to Jesus' work. Read the book of Galatians and you'll find that Paul used even stronger terms for those who disdained Christ's gift and tried to work themselves into heaven.The premise that "it must be in Scripture before we believe it" is false and anachronistic to the Christians of 1900, 1500, 1000 and 500 years ago.
It's false today, too. You don't understand the meaning of sola scriptura, the main tenet of which is that doctrines must not contradict scripture. That's a big, big difference.
You should research more closely the early belief of the church -- you'll find that the earlier you go, the more you find that scripture was accepted as the final arbiter of controversy. When you talk about tradition, you have to ask "whose tradition?" The eastern church, the Roman church, the Copts, the Gnostics? Tradition is fine but it must not contradict scripture. Scripture is the interpreter of tradition. Did the early Fathers accept tradition? Sure, they did. Witness what Irenaus had to say about tradition:
"Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition" (Prescription against the Heretics,28).Remember that Irenaeus knew Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, who was a disciple of Jesus. What does he say about those who have traditions that conflicted with scripture?"1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?Note that Iranaeus is addressing people who believed that they had a more correct version of tradition and important truths that scriptures had not addressed. If the apostles left us writings concerning a matter, then those writings must be used to interpret traditions and, if necessary, to refute the traditions.2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, 4, 1-2)
"When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Ch 2, 1-2).
"The church in Luther's day allowed people to buy their way out of purgatory."
I believe you are incorrect. The Church never allowed anyone to "buy" their way out of purgatory. This comes from a misunderstanding of the sacrament of Confession. After a person confesses his sins, he is given a penance to demonstrate his contrition and is then absolved of his sins. The penance does not "purchase" forgiveness from God, it is only to show our sincerity of contrition. The Abuse over indulgences that you refer to is when a rich person decided to give a portion of his wealth to the Church as an alternative to performing a work of mercy. Priests allowing this abused the sacrament - true. But the Church didn't "teach" this.
"Simony"
...is the practice of purchasing an ecclesiastical office, a practice the Church never endorsed.
"Christ fully paid for our sins -- both yours and mine -- on the cross."
Of course. But Catholics consider two types of redemption. Objective Redemption, which is Christ's work. The other is Subjective Redemption, which is applying His work to ourself. God desires all men to be saved, but Jesus discusses the reality of hell - mentioning that even some who followed Him might end up there. We know all men will NOT be saved...Thus, we must somehow utilize Christ's work for our own self - beginning with Baptism. The Sacrament of Reconcilliation was established by Christ AFTER His resurrection for the express purpose of the forgiveness of sins after Baptism - applying His work to creating a holy person.
"It's false today, too. You don't understand the meaning of sola scriptura, the main tenet of which is that doctrines must not contradict scripture. That's a big, big difference."
I would like to discuss this further with you, as the word itself means "solely in Scripture" not "must not disagree with Scripture". My understanding of the concept is that all doctrines of Christianity must come from Scripture alone. If that is not what Sola Scriptura means, please let me know, as I don't want to misrepresent other Christians. When I read about the Reformation, I don't see your interpretation of the Reformers - as they discarded elements of Tradition that were not clearly in the Scriptures, not ones that were against the Scriptures.
"Tradition is fine but it must not contradict scripture. Scripture is the interpreter of tradition."
I agree. Since Apostolic Tradition and Scripture are the Word of God, they cannot contradict.
Irenaus is a good example of how we as Christians should view Tradition and Scripture. He had a very strong opinion of both working in tandem to refute Gnostics. Note, he refers to the Traditions coming from Rome as being significant for the rest of the Church - written about 180 AD.
"Of course, the ever-changing doctrine of purgatory isn't supported by scripture in the first place."
Too bad you said this, as I had almost believed you agreed with what you were writing. The majority of your letter discusses the value of tradition that is NOT AGAINST the Scripture. Then you refer back to MY understanding of Sola Scriptura? Seems like the ever-changing definition of Sola Scriptura is what you should be more worried about, as it is a pillar of Protestantism.
There is a difference between AGAINST Scripture and NOT SPECIFICALLY IN Scripture. There is nothing in the Catholic faith that is against Scripture. All of it can be reconciled. I will gladly discuss it with you, if you care to have an open mind.
By the way, I am duly impressed with your listing of quotes from OUR (yours and mine) Church Fathers.
Regards
Most believe that Enoch and Elijah will be the two witnesses that return during the Great Tribulation to stand as witnesses against what is taking place during that time. They will be killed, lay three days in the streets, then be resurrected and taken up into heaven. Unless something changes and three witnesses are needed, I don't see Mary being in the crowd that was "translated", not "assumed". The Bible states that it is appointed unto man, man being mankind, of which Mary was a part, once to die, then the judgment. It is apparent that Catholics do not believe in "sola scriptura", or the scriptures alone, although that in itself is biblically wrong. Jesus never acknowledged Mary in any other way than as His earthly mother. At one point when He was ministering to people and his mother and brothers were trying to get in to see Him, he told those around that all of the people there were his family, not giving any special consideration to His own earthly family. Of course that goes against any Marian tradition as well doesn't it? For her to have had any other children. I believe Catholic "tradition" holds that she remained perpetually a virgin, although that is also against biblical and historical evidence.
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.