Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Catholics Believe in the Assumption of Mary
Catholic Exchange.com ^ | 08-15-05 | Heidi Hess Saxton

Posted on 08/15/2005 9:01:28 AM PDT by Salvation

by Heidi Hess Saxton

Other Articles by Heidi Hess Saxton
Why Catholics Believe in the Assumption of Mary
08/15/05


My friend Margie, who teaches two- to three-year-olds in our parish religious education program, says that the secret to teaching this age group is a healthy prayer life. The week she taught her class about the Assumption of Mary, Margie spent a long time on her knees.

She was stumped. “How is it possible to explain this to a two-year-old?”

Fortunately, our Lord always answers the prayers of those who want to honor His Mother. “As I prayed, the idea came to me — a helium balloon! I tied a string on the balloon and taped a picture of Jesus to the front. I let one of the children release the string in class to illustrate how Jesus was taken into heaven. Then I tied a picture of Mary to the end of the string and released the balloon a second time to show how Jesus ‘pulled’ His Mother up to heaven to be with Him. It was a simple thing — but it worked!”

This simple truth, that Mary was taken body and soul into heaven, is difficult for some Christians to grasp. Why is this dogma an important part of the Catholic faith?

The Assumption of Mary is one of four dogmas to be infallibly defined by the Magisterium. In 1950, Pope Pius XII promulgated this dogma in a letter entitled Munificentissimus Deus:

Immaculate in her conception, a spotless virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble companion of the divine Redeemer Who won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, she finally obtained as the crowning glory of her privileges to be preserved from the corruption of the tomb and like her Son before her, to conquer death and to be raised body and soul to the glory of heaven, to shine refulgent as Queen at the right hand of the Son, the immortal King of ages [cf. 1 Tm 1:17].
Although this was the first time the doctrine was formally defined, it should be noted that belief in the Assumption of Mary has long been a part of our faith tradition. There are three strong arguments for this tradition: Scripture, the devotional practices of the early Church, and the writings of the Church Fathers.

The concept of the Assumption is not unprecedented in Scripture. The Bible gives three examples of people who did not experience death the normal way: Enoch (Gn 5:25), Elijah (2 Kgs 2:9-11), and Moses (Dt 34:5-7, Jude 1:9). Both Moses and Elijah are visible at Christ’s Transfiguration (see Mk 9:4-5; Mt 17:3).

Even so, the Assumption of Mary has a unique place in the redemption story: Her purity and dignity as the Mother of God has accorded her a unique place in heaven, in anticipation of the heavenly glory that we will one day receive ourselves: “In teaching her doctrine about the human person’s destination after death, the Church excludes any explanation that would deprive the assumption of the Virgin Mary of its unique meaning, namely the fact that the bodily glorification of the virgin is an anticipation of the glorification that is the destiny of all the other elect.”

It is from this heavenly place of glory that she intercedes for us, as the “woman clothed with the sun” whose descendents are “all those who obey God’s commandments and are faithful to the truth revealed by Jesus” (Rv 12:17).

Why would Mary receive such special graces from God? In the Revelation of John, we find one clue. In Revelation 11:19, John reports seeing “the ark of his covenant within his temple,” just before he sees “a woman clothed with the sun” (Rv 12:1). The proximity of these two images suggested to some Church Fathers that the two are actually one — that is, that Mary is herself the Ark of the New Covenant.

As you may recall, the Ark of the Covenant was a sacred box that contained three reminders of God’s presence among His people Israel: a jar of the manna God fed His people in the desert; the flowering rod of Aaron, a sign of his priestly office; and the tablets of stone containing the Law, which Moses received from God. The Ark was kept in the Holy of Holies, where the high priest entered once a year to offer sacrifices on behalf of the people.

As the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary held within her the Bread of Life, the great High Priest, and the one who came “not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it” (Mt 5:17). And so, just as the first Ark remained within the Holy of Holies, where the priest offered God sacrifices on behalf of the people, so the Ark of the New Covenant has a cherished place in heaven, near the one Who offers up the perfect offering (Heb 12:22-24).

There is no explicit statement in Scripture about Mary’s death, any more than it gives us details about the end of Joseph’s life or the deaths of most of the Apostles. These things have been preserved for us through Church Tradition, and particularly through her liturgical and devotional practices.

For example, the Church has always preserved and revered the relics of her saints — that is, the bodies and personal effects of those who have gone before us to heaven. However, no relics of Jesus’s mother exist, or are even mentioned in the writings of the early Church. Had Mary’s body remained in the tomb, her relics would certainly have been given the highest place of honor — like the bits of the Apostles’ relics that are cherished in altars of Catholic churches all over the world.

We need not be alarmed at Scripture’s silence. Much of the New Testament was likely written within Mary’s lifetime. It is also likely that the full implications of Mary’s unique role in the salvation story took some time to develop. This is true in many areas of Catholic teaching.

How can this be? While the full revelation of the Gospel was completely transmitted by the Apostles, the implications of this revelation have fully developed over the course of centuries. This is why the Holy Spirit was sent, to guide us “to all truth” (Jn 16:13). And this is why we draw from Tradition, the Magisterium, and the Scriptures for our storehouse of spiritual truth.

Since Mary was kept from the stain of original sin, and remained holy throughout her life (CCC 966), Mary may not have experienced physical death. For this reason, the Eastern Church Fathers speak of the “dormition” or “falling asleep” of Mary. As St. John of Damascus observed: “The earth could not bear her divine body and dissolve it, as with other mortals. Nay, though necessary that it be delivered to death, three days thereafter, her relics were delivered incorruptible into angelic hands. She becomes incorruptible, rises, and is translated to heaven. There she stands before her Son and God in a living body.”

The Roman Catholic Church affirms only that Mary was taken into heavenly glory “when the course of her earthly life was finished...” (CCC 966). Some sources suggest that all Apostles except Thomas (even those who had already died) were present at Mary’s bedside, and carried her to her tomb where three days later her body disappeared, leaving only a few grave clothes and the strong aroma of roses in her wake.

In his apostolic letter Redemptoris Mater, Pope John Paul II reminds us of the most important aspect of Mary’s Assumption — she is our roadmap to that blessed state of grace, the string that guides us ever heavenward: “It can be said that ‘in the Most Holy Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle.’ Hence, as Christians raise their eyes with faith to Mary in the course of their earthly pilgrimage, they "strive to increase in holiness." Mary, the exalted Daughter of Sion, helps all her children, wherever they may be and whatever their condition, to find in Christ the path to the Father's house.


Raised in the Evangelical Protestant tradition, Heidi Saxton was confirmed Catholic in 1993. She is the author of
With Mary in Prayer (Loyola) and is a graduate student (theology) at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Michigan. You may contact Heidi at hsaxton@christianword.com.



TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Current Events; Eastern Religions; Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian; General Discusssion; History; Islam; Judaism; Mainline Protestant; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues; Orthodox Christian; Other Christian; Other non-Christian; Prayer; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Religion & Science; Skeptics/Seekers; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: assumption; blessed; mary; virginmarry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-225 next last
To: Pyro7480

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.


201 posted on 08/16/2005 3:45:11 PM PDT by XSive Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

Comment #202 Removed by Moderator

To: seamole
Very interesting discussion of the topic. I am glad you have taken the time to express your reasoning.

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.

203 posted on 08/16/2005 4:07:17 PM PDT by bondserv (Creation sings a song of praise, Declaring the wonders of Your ways †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: XSive Rider
that you need to pray to her

Don't you ask people to pray for you?

204 posted on 08/16/2005 6:42:41 PM PDT by Pyro7480 ("All my own perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded upon Our Lady." - Tolkien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
Where did this assumption of Mary come from? Man's doctrine?

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.

205 posted on 08/16/2005 9:34:17 PM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike

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.


206 posted on 08/17/2005 4:35:18 AM PDT by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin (Freedom is the freedom to discipline yourself so others don't have to do it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Read the post.... for me, but not to me.


207 posted on 08/17/2005 6:41:17 AM PDT by XSive Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: defconw
I have a hard time understanding what a non-Roman Catholic would be doing on this thread,

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.

208 posted on 08/17/2005 8:30:17 AM PDT by lupie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Comment #209 Removed by Moderator

To: seamole

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.


210 posted on 08/17/2005 10:47:30 AM PDT by bondserv (Creation sings a song of praise, Declaring the wonders of Your ways †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
Chapter 9 of Romans needs to be read in context of the entire Letter to the Romans. As I have argued in another thread (THE MESSAGE OF ROMANS) Protestants have misunderstood St. Paul's message, not recognizing that he is dealing specifically with the freedom from the need to follow the Mosaic Law.
211 posted on 08/17/2005 11:05:43 AM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
Sola scriptura (Scripture alone) is the Protestant idea that the Bible is the only authority.

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.

212 posted on 08/17/2005 11:12:37 AM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: XSive Rider
Jesus Christ was stated to be the mediator of the New Testament, not Mary.

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.

213 posted on 08/17/2005 11:14:22 AM PDT by RobbyS (chirho)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
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.

No wonder I didn't know what it was since that whole statement is hogwash.

214 posted on 08/17/2005 11:18:56 AM PDT by biblewonk (A house of cards built on Matt 16:18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: seamole

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


215 posted on 08/17/2005 12:36:37 PM PDT by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike

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


216 posted on 08/17/2005 12:58:34 PM PDT by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

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!


217 posted on 08/17/2005 4:50:46 PM PDT by Rosary (Pray the rosary daily,wear the Brown scapular)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jo kus

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?

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).

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.

218 posted on 08/17/2005 8:24:18 PM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike

"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



219 posted on 08/17/2005 8:59:37 PM PDT by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

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.


220 posted on 08/30/2005 11:06:39 AM PDT by XSive Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-225 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson