Replies

“No Biblical proof ey?”

Regarding her perpetual virginity? It’s not explicitly stated in the bible.

“Making it up as you go? The early Church did not teach what the Church teaches today concerning Mary. In fact they denounced it as heretical.”

According to the Protoevangelium of James (written around A.D. 120), Mary was a consecrated virgin. The Church has pretty much always taught that she was a perpetual Virgin, and the belief is well attested by the early Church Fathers.

“It originated in the fifth century with the heretics Pelagius and Celestius and was universally rejected by both Fathers and popes of the early church”

Quite false.

“Thomas Aquinas”.

Complete and utter rubbish.

“In his monumental Summa Theologiae St. Thomas Aquinas gives three reasons for Mary’s perpetual virginity: First, Jesus is the Only-Begotten of the Father, so it was becoming that he should be the only-begotten of his Mother. Second, Mary’s virginal womb is the shrine of the Holy Spirit, wherein he had formed the flesh of Christ; wherefore it was unbecoming that intercourse with man should desecrate it. Third, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God’s Mother: For she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son.”

You don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

I’m not using my words to prove a point. Study your own Church history and find what heresies the Church has embraced. I have given the source of all quotes.

>>“It originated in the fifth century with the heretics Pelagius and Celestius and was universally rejected by both Fathers and popes of the early church”<<

The first Father to promote the teaching of her assumption was Gregory of Tours in A.D. 590, and he based his teaching on an apocryphal gospel found in the Transitus literature. The assumption doctrine actually originated with this literature { This fact is affirmed by the Roman Catholic historian and Mariologist Juniper Carol (Mariology, 1:149) in these comments: 'The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus beatae Mariae of Pseudo-Melito.'} sometime in the fourth or fifth centuries and this specific teaching — the Transitus assumption of Mary was officially rejected as heretical. It was placed in the same category with such heretics as Arius, Pelagius, and Marcion and was condemned by two popes in the late fifth and early sixth centuries — Gelasius and Hormisdas. These popes place this doctrine, its authors and the contents of their writings, as well as all who follow their teachings, under an eternal anathema. { In his decree, Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocrypha, which was later affirmed by Pope Hormisdas, Gelasius lists the Transitus teaching by the following title: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae under the following condemnation: 'These and writings similar to these, which....all the heresiarchs and their disciples, or the schismatics have taught or written....we confess have not only been rejected but also banished from the whole Roman and Apostolic Church and with their authors and followers of their authors have been condemned forever under the indissoluble bond of anathema' (St. Gelasius I, Epistle 42; taken from Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma [London: Herder, 1954], 69-70). Cf. Migne P.L., vol. 59, col. 162, 164.}

There is no Scriptural proof for it, and even the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:

“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).

In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject. Even Roman Catholic historians readily admit this fact:”

“In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts...Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).”

You said >>“You don’t have a clue what you are talking about.<<

Yet I site the writings of your own Church fathers and historians.

I will leave you with this verse.

1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"