Posted on 01/30/2014 2:50:42 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
If that is true would you please, please show where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary? They are the earliest church fathers are they not? And Paul did say if someone taught something they didn’t it was to be considered accursed.
Ah, and I just re-read his comment. He mentions the "margins of the Church". The margins are the non-Catholics. See, he includes them as part of "the Church". Just as I thought.
You’re getting quite absurd. The assembly is visible. It is part of a whole, with leaders who have authority.
There is an invisible Church, but it is the visible Church, as Paul wrote to with authority, that is lacking in your ecclesiology.
I’m absurd. The Catholic Church teaches the assumption of Mary contrary to what Paul said we were to believe since the apostles didn’t teach it and I’m the one that’s absurd? LOL
Nice explanation, though I would be hard pressed to call the Seventh-Day Adventists Christians because of their denial of the Trinity.
FWIW Conservative Presbyterian/Reformed denomination accept the Roman Catholic baptism as valid since it follows the Trinitarian formula.
Thanks. I go almost every day, and usually attend the TLM on Sundays.
Those disciples/priests who were taught by the Apostles were known as “Apostolic Fathers”, and survived the Apostles after the martyrdom and death of the Apostles, and continued in the faith as they were taught.
The era of the Early Church Fathers (and their writings) then followed the era of the Apostolic Fathers, who died or were martyred.
The era of the Early Fathers ended in the year 636 A.D. in the East, with the death of Saint Isidore of Seville, and in 749 A.D. in the West, with the death of Saint John Domascene.
These present the faithful adherence to earliest teachings and practices to the Church Jesus proclaimed.
You just have to get this 3 volume set. It will blow your mind. Each “volume” is a real page turner, approximately only 250 pages per volume, plus notes, index. It is a history of the Early Church beliefs and practices of the time of Jesus forward. THE FAITH OF THE EARLY CHURCH, William Jurgens.
About $18.00 dollars per volume.
Yes, Mary’s Assumption is easy to find and is discussed, worthy of Revelations 12 own tribute to her, and her clear prescence in Heaven. Remember Enoch was also assumed, taken up, into Heaven.
Who knows this stuff but seminarians, protestant and Catholic alike? That is why teaching the Early Fathers at seminaries has netted protestant conversions, when they understand John in scripture reminding his reader that not all is contained in the Bible, but that so much Jesus taught and did could not be contained, would fill the world, or something like that.
I meant to ping you also, to #127. :) Rita
That is true about Seventh Day Adventists.
I drew a blank to name from memory exactly which denominations performed baptisms to already baptised new comers, so appreciated the chapter and verse, myself. Non-denominationals frequently will re-baptize, still.
I think this comes from thinking even a valid baptism is more the work of the individual and his feelings, rather than the work of God alone, who has no need to repeat His work based on our subsequent emotional feelings, or academic understanding at a later time.
The People of God, the Hebrews, circumcised (the circumcision of God) on the eighth day to bring the newborn into the fold, by obedience, not by infant understanding, and also the “foreigners” in their camp.
I read these threads and come to the same conclusion every time.
About as many Catholics are getting into heaven as protestants, meaning not very many.
Being protestant won’t get me into heaven and neither will being catholic. That is not the “test”. Hint, “go away, I never _____________ you”, which have to be the scariest words ever said and the ones I don’t want to hear..........
Work out your salvation with fear and trembling. Head knowledge doesn’t get us in. Works doesn’t get us in. Doctrine doesn’t get us in. Particular verses don’t get us in.
Do you seriously think I haven’t already done my research on this? Let’s see where this got started.
"The first Church author to speak of the bodily assumption of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209-210).
But in 459 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree that officially condemned and rejected the Transitus along with several other heretical writings. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this decree in the sixth century. [Webster, W; Marian Dogmas in The Church of Rome at the Bar of History; Banner of Truth Trust, 1995; pp. 81-85.]
“The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite” (Catholic Encyclopaedia).
“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 was first taught in the 3rd or 4th century as part of the Gnostic legend of St. Mary’s death, and it was regarded by the church as a Gnostic and Collyridian fable down to the end of the 5th century. It was brought into the church in the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries, partly by a series of successful forgeries, partly by the adoption of the Gnostic legend on part of the accredited teachers, writers, and liturgists. And a festival in commemoration of the event, thus came to be believed, was instituted in the East at the beginning of the 7th, in the West at the beginning of the 9th century (A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, William Smith and Samuel Cheetham, Ed., (Hartford: J.B. Burr, 1880), pp. 1142-1143).
The entire concept is built around speculation, spurious documents, and myth. I’ll follow the Holy Spirit’s admonition as He inspired Paul to write.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9
I see. The idea of Doubting Thomas may apply here.
One must stick his own finger in the cold empty coffin of Mary to believe;be present when she was assumed;disbelieve those who were present. That was pretty much Thomas alright, with Jesus’ own Resurrection.
What we call Tradition, many do prefer to call myth at all cost, regardless of Revelations 12, which calls for dancing on the head of a pin to deny the clear and the obvious image of Mary in both battle and present in Heaven.
Paul writes truth to the Galations in chapter 1:8-9. There is no other Gospel, but what the Apostles passed on. Paul just does not say or imply to the Galations that all they “received” was in writing, or would be only be in writing. The Apostles were traveling preachers teaching orally. Jesus did not say, “Go, and build my book”.
Paul did not say the Bible forms the Church; that all that Jesus said and did and taught is contained therein, or that all the Apostles taught was in letter writing. John speaks to that question, that all the world could not contain what Jesus taught and did, what the Apostles “heard” and saw.
The Letters were inspired by God to encourage the fledgling Church communities;to admonish (to beat back heresy), for teaching and correction, as scripture itself describes. The Gospel accounts do not claim to contain all that was received or taught.
In Revelation 12 the woman is the nation of Israel. Not Mary. If it referenced Mary she would have to come down out of heaven during the tribulation.
>>Paul just does not say or imply to the Galations that all they “received” was in writing, or would be only be in writing.
How cute! The problem is that even the RCC admits that there is nothing indicating the apostles taught the assumption of Mary or anything to do with her end.
>>Paul did not say the Bible forms the Church; that all that Jesus said and did and taught is contained therein<<
Paul did say however that if they didn’t teach it that it should be considered accursed. It is therefore incumbent on the RCC to prove that the apostles did in fact teach the assumption of Mary.
>>The Letters were inspired by God to encourage the fledgling Church communities;to admonish (to beat back heresy), for teaching and correction, as scripture itself describes.<<
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9
Did the apostles teach the assumption of Mary?
The Apostles did not include in their Gospel accounts nor in their written letters an obituary of Mary, that is certain. But, you realize that in those days there was much known that did not have to be “taught”. The absence of Mary from her tomb was surely news that was no secret, locally and beyond.
Israel is portrayed as the People of God, not the singular tribe of Judah, nor the singular tribe of Levi, nor in the New Testament, singularly of Mary. Protestants must reject Mary and her role in salvation history because it’s not in the Gospel account of Jesus and his works.
Mary is the daughter of the Father, mother of Jesus, spouse of the Holy Spirit. The family portrayed by God informs human reason that Mary would not be left in the dirt, so to speak, given over to corruption, for His holy ones are not given unto corruption.
I could ask your sources to provide for me her earthly remains, as well as you ask mine to produce for you a visual of her blessed Assumption, or an Apostle’s written account of her assumption.
We are hindered by your limited resources based on that which is written alone, and no other proofs. God did two things here;He inspired the Apostolic writings of the Gospel accounts, after He also first commanded all Twelve to go and teach.
We are solidly separated by your Bible-only instruction, and my Bible-Plus Church history, salvation history, and Jewish history/roots of Jesus and the Eucharist.
Too bad, but it is what it is. Less is not more.
Thx, bear,
Rita
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9<<
You can dance around the issue all you want. You can make up carnal suppositions and theories till time ends but you can’t prove that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary. Paul clearly states that if they didn’t teach it that it was to be considered accursed. Now, either you have to produce some evidence that the apostles did indeed teach the assumption of Mary or it must be considered accursed teaching.
Why do you imagine I missed that point? Of course Paul was addressing REAL believers in REAL assemblies that altogether make up the REAL body of Christ. Do you miss the point that sacred Scripture was written for all of us even two thousand years later and that those who are IN Christ are spiritual stones being built up into that same spiritual house?
Usually when Roman Catholics use the term "Holy Mother Church" it's pretty much a foregone conclusion they are talking about the Roman Catholic Church. Plus, I don't think that when "we people" use the word "church" to describe the universal body of Christ that it was what y'all mean as well. At least that's not the experience here.
Not all the Church ever deserved to be so condemned for the corruption of many in high places locally.
I agree...especially since you are now referring to that universal body of Christ which included all those Reformers that strove to restore the "church" to the doctrines believed at that start and get rid of those "developed" over the centuries which contradicted Scripture. They wanted to REALLY teach what was always, everywhere and by all believed.
By the Grace of God the Holy Spirit was true to the Church and the scale of corrupt practices was brought to halt. Thanks to the reformers, much was corrected and ground was then turned for the counter-reformation. By then the reformers were stiff necked in their own understanding. The divisiveness was not blessed but continues, directed away from the early Church understanding and early church practices, as attested to by the writings of the Early Fathers of the Church.
You thank the Reformers in one breath and condemn them in the next. How very papist of you! The "counter-reformation" hardly corrected all the errors, abuses and depredations of the hierarchy. Many still remain. Do you need a list? The Holy Spirit is ALWAYS faithful and He certainly did preserve a remnant that stayed true to God's revealed word. They/we continue to teach the same thing the Apostles did as they attested to in Scripture.
Is it a refusal to admit or are eyes so blinded that they can’t understand what the body of Christ really is?
No, no, the Apostles did not write on all givens. No one was “there”, for example, when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, but because this great miracle is written in the Bible you are able to believe this great, particular work of God. You may squeak about the details, but you likely have to believe it I would think. The Apostles believed this work, but were not “there”.
My point is that reason tells us that the God of the Church is not confined by the written word. John says as much in scripture. To the effect “The whole world can not contain all that Jesus said and did”.
To sustain your argument, one must contain God and confine God to the written word of sacred scripture. That limits discussion, because I love scripture and want to learn meanings, and contexts, and the times and the Jewish roots of all things Jesus. Lovers of the Early Church Fathers have much to tell of these early things. Despisers of the Church have much to hide, or to deny, or to confuse. God has permitted this.
Modernism has been given its rein.
When God says something through Paul it’s not “confining God”. What part of “if the apostles didn’t teach it it’s to be considered accursed” is so hard to understand? Making stuff up because you think God could do it isn’t “God’s word”.
>> because I love scripture and want to learn meanings, and contexts, and the times and the Jewish roots of all things Jesus.<<
Pardon me if I doubt that very much. Or the indoctrination of RCC teaching has blinded you to what the Holy Spirit through Paul as made very clear. You can not, with the teaching of the RCC in the background understand either scripture or the Jewish roots of Jesus. That’s not a slam on you. I couldn’t either with the teachings of the Protestant beliefs I was raised under.
Here’s a start. First of all, we all believe that scripture is the inspired word of God given to writers through the Holy Spirit. No other source is Holy Spirit inspired. Therefore, all other sources need to be compatible with scripture. If they disagree or can’t be found compatible with scripture it can’t be relied on.
Here’s the bottom line that all who truly hope for salvation need to hold. When asked “what must I do to be saved” by the jailor Paul answered “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved and your house”. When Jesus was asked “what are the works of God” Jesus answer was “that ye believe on him whom He hath sent”. That was the bottom line, Neither one added any other conditions, there answers were succinct.
When reading scripture any understanding that adds to those words or takes away from those words is to be questioned. Neither the Holy Spirit through Paul or Jesus Himself added any conditions to “what must I do to be saved”.
Given that we should agree that we know that scripture is infallible we can begin a discussion. Any other source is suspect.
Do we agree that scripture is infallible?
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.