Replies

LOTS of things

have been
--INFERRED,
--EXTRAPOLATED,
--FANTASIZED,
--INVENTED

using very, very, very tenuous, tangential, wispy words and phrases from Scripture to springboard thereto.

Of course, most rational folks grounded in Holy Spirit and the current time/space dimension can more easily recognize such as being a custom, habit, reflex of the ALICE-IN-WONDERLAND SCHOOL OF RUBBER THEOLOGY phenomenon and file such things accordingly.

But, hey, it's a still a slightly free country . . . adding some more layers of rubber to the skyscrapers built on toothpicks seems to be a favorite recreation of some RC's.

At least Prottys can offer popcorn.

First, I wasn't insulting Mary. And you don't need to quote scripture to me, I already know what verse you will quote. Yes, she was "blessed" in the sense that God found favor with her and she agreed to bear the Messiah. This is wonderful, and I have no doubt the Lord's mother was a wonderful and girl and woman and did the Lord's will in bearing and raising her son. I can't imagine her pain, at the cross. I am not attacking or insulting the Lord's mother, but I am arguing that the Catholic notion of Mary is far beyond what and who Mary really was, and that most of Catholic doctrine about her is a later invention. (And virtually no modern translation translates Gabriel's words to her as "full of grace", either.)

But after Mary's death there is nothing in scripture (the words of the apostles or their followers), or early church tradition, or the writings of the earliest church fathers to indicate in any way that she was "assumed" into heaven, or that she was granted some special place in heaven or special status (co-redemptrix, queen of heaven, distributor of "graces", etc). Now, I am not opposed to these notions completely, if there were some basis for any of it, but in my own search I find no basis for any of it.

Luther's "Here I Stand" defense was based upon his conscience, reason, and scripture, and for myself it comes down to the same three things. Scripture and the early church father's writings make no case for the Catholic claims about Mary, reason tells me that this is because there was no special status (apart from being honored as the Lord's mother - there's a big gap between honoring or venerating her for her cooperation with the Lord, and praying to her). In good conscience, then, I could not join the Catholic Church and accept their doctrines which I believe to be invented. That's not an insult, but if you take it that way, then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that.

From the Munificentissimus Deus of Pius XII

It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Translated from Jesus Christ tongue:

(NIV) As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you." He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."

(Youngs) And it came to pass, in his saying these things, a certain woman having lifted up the voice out of the multitude, said to him, `Happy the womb that carried thee, and the paps that thou didst suck!' And he said, `Yea, rather, happy those hearing the word of God, and keeping it!'

(Catholic Bible) And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee and the paps that gave thee suck. But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it.

So are you saying Christians are cursed and will face the wrath of God and Apostles if they question or have assumptions about the assumption? Kind of flies in the face of what Jesus Christ said. This is why "Protestants" scratch their heads about Papal authority.

Keep in mind this was officially "declared" 1900 years or so after the "assumed" event. Of course the assumption of the assumption was around awhile and gained steam by the EO (They have a different take) and the Roman Church grabbed on after. Why did the assumption take 1500 years to reach a consensus and ensue dogmatic stature worthy of a possible damnation or possible label of heretic if you even question it? What kind of wrath will God and the apostles rain down on those who question the assumption? Will it be hell for all-time or just a slap on the wrist? Will the person be "anathematized"? Inquiry minds want to know if you are blessed for adhering the word of God or damned for not following Rome's speculation?

Mary was certainly blessed and full of grace (As were many throughout all of scripture) but God/Jesus/Holy Spirit did all the important "leg work" and only deserve our time (And certainly not damned for doing so and IGNORING all those other "traditional trappings" so to speak).

Spin away, but from a Christian perspective, someone who says they will "...incur the wrath of Almighty God..." 1900 years after the fact, for not following an "assumption" is being rather elitist and hypocritical towards the very own words of the Father, through Jesus Christ Himself.

Venerate Mary if you will (Not "one of those" who call you damned for doing so) but don't call people in danger of being damned who don't or have assumptions of what happened to Mary.

It's ALL about God/Jesus/Holy Spirit with me, not the human players although many were certainly blessed and had an abundant amount of grace while living on earth.

God Bless you and everyone who speaks in His name.