THE PINGPosted on 08/15/2005 9:01:28 AM PDT by Salvation
Well naturally He would make His mother a Goddess wouldn't He. It's very easy and obvious and very natural to argue that He would.
THE PINGAssumption means immediate resurrection of the body.
By this do you must mean that all Christians who died prior to the early 16th century, as well as Catholics and Lutherans since then (and a great many Calvinists and Methodists) are burning in Hell. Do you actually believe that from the time of Apostle's deaths onward that it was over 15 centuries before another soul entered Heaven?
And what of all of those who (and presumably this will include all of us) who die prior to Christ's Return?
What if you, Biblewonk, are the one who is wrong? Will you be given the opportunity to repent?
Persistence of sundry Protestant beliefs points to a deeper reason than dissatisfaction with the Borgias, etc. Protestantism fulfills the disordered need, prevalent in modern times, to desacralize human existence. It is achieved by confusing religion with book-study and viewing man as a robot in a state of disrepair.
Careful, it does not mean resurrection (this is the body returning to life, as happened with Lazarus and Jesus). The Assumption was when at the moment of her death, Mary was assumed (brought) into Heaven both body and soul; and this was done through no power of her own.
Well, as the Creed says, "we believe in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting". That which awaits us is where Mary is. What am I missing?
"When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee." St. Jude 1:9
This quote is from the book The Assumption of Moses, one of the Apocrypha. Jude plainly states that St. Michael contended with the Devil for the body of Moses; obviously it was he, and not the devil, who won:
And after six days Jesus taketh unto him Peter and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart: And he was transfigured before them. And his face did shine as the sun: and his garments became white as snow. And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with him. (St. Matthew 17:1-3)
I agree with you. What I was trying to point out was the fact that Luther's break with the Church had nothing to do with Protestantism as it exists today. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Luther and Calvin would have no problem with traditional Catholicism (as opposed to what we find all to often in the United States) today. I do not think we should discount all of their points of contention, as many of them were later acknowledged and corrected by the Church.
I was pointing out (for the benefit of others) that Mary was not resurrected in the sense that Jesus was, nor did she ascend into Heaven as He did. And most importantly, the Assumption was an act of the Lord, it was not done through any powers of Mary's.
Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself. (Gregorian Sacramentary)God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb. (Byzantine Menaion)
But where do get the unBiblical idea that all Christian doctrine must be found in the Bible? Jesus founded a Church on real living people; he did not write a book of doctrine. The Bible is a product of that Church. Take away the authority of the living Church and the authority of the canonical books of the Bible becomes no greater than that of the Gnostic scriptures.
That mission was to be his mother (a relationship that continues today), not just to give him birth (an act which took place and was accomplished in the past).
No, this blithely minimizes other contentions, beside Marian devotion, that Luther and Calvin had. Luther developed the heretical (as well as patently absurd) notion of co-substantiation in lieu of Transsubstantiation and the Real Presence. Calvin simply denied the Real Presence. There was also Zwingli who, ignorantly, taught that because Hebrew makes no use of "to be" as an auxiliary, "this is My body" doesn't mean the same thing in Hebrew (or something along these lines; this must be where Clinton got his meaning of "is" stratagem). Both Luther (defrocked and married, another impossibility for a Catholic) and Calvin had a warped view on the priesthood, although that perhaps is a reflection of the corruption in the Church.
The theme of self-study of the Bible outside of the teaching authority of the Church, and as a substitute for participation in the Sacraments is common throughout Protestantism, and is very un-Catholic.
I would agree, perhaps, that if Luther visited an utterly desacralized evengelical church today, he would run to the nearest confessional, but not Calvin -- he'd be right at home.
Though not a well written statement, it does answer my question.
True, but Assumption is not denied, as far as I know. Belief int he assumption of Mary is considered a permitted form of piety (forgot the Greek word).
It's very easy -- circular reasoning. The Church is always right, and we know that because the Church says so.
*eye roll*
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.