THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries

christiantruth.com ^ | William Webster

[RichInOC]

[savoring a joke in my mind, because it’s of questionable propriety for the RF]

[metmom]

You are missing point. David Koresh interprets Scriputure as did Jim Jones, as does Al Sharpton, Rev. Moon, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Billy Graham, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

And so does the Catholic magisterium.

That must mean that the Catholic magisterium contains the likes of David Koresh, Jim Jones, Al Sharpton, Rev. Moon, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Billy Graham, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

I also notice that you keep including Billy Graham in with the likes of Wright and Moon.

Well, if you're going to go after church leaders for not being perfect examples of what you believe, are these guys then, since they are your popes?

Top 10 Most Wicked Popes

http://listverse.com/2007/08/17/top-10-most-wicked-popes/

1. Liberius, reigned 352-66 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
2. Honorius I, reigned 625-638 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
3. Stephen VI, reigned 896-89 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
4. John XII, reigned 955-964 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
5. Benedict IX, reigned 1032-1048 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
6. Boniface VIII, reigned 1294-1303 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
7. Urban VI, reigned 1378-1389 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
8. Alexander VI, reigned 1492-1503 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
9. Leo X, reigned 1513-1521 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
10. Clement VII, reigned 1523-1524 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

Top 10 Worst Popes in History

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php

1. Pope Alexander VI (1431 – 1503)
2. Pope John XII (c. 937 – 964)
3. Pope Benedict IX (c. 1012 – 1065/85)
4. Pope Sergius III (? – 911)
5. Pope Stephen VI (? – 897)
6. Pope Julius III (1487 – 1555)
7. Pope Urban II (ca. 1035 – 1099)
8. Pope Clement VI (1291 – 1352)
9. Pope Leo X (1475 – 1521)
10. Pope Boniface VIII (c. 1235 – 1303)

[dsc]

“What you probably mean is that you don’t like that Catholicism is freely disputed here by other Freepers who aren’t Catholic.”

No, what I actually mean is that the management is hostile toward Catholicism.

You don’t “freely dispute” Catholicism; you malign it with the constant repetition of “inaccuracies.”

Unreason, malice, dishonesty, all are protected here so long as they are directed at Catholics—personally—and Catholicism.

[ronnietherocket3]

Please show where I have ever cited Jerome. Otherwise stop with the generalizing assumptions.

Perhaps not you; however, other Protestants here have, repeatedly.

Other then that your post contains no infallible source that shows the apostles taught the assumption of Mary. If Mary was resurrected after Jesus ascention how many ressurections are there? What did Jesus say the first resurrection was? Did He forget about the ressurection of Mary?

This gets into the question of whether the Assumption is a resurrection of the type in Rev 20 or not. I can provide an argument from Jewish tradition on this, would you like it? As for an infallible source, Comment 77 cites Rev. 12.

[ronnietherocket3]

I came to that conclusion on the basis of Luke 2 in an argument with a Protestant here.

[BeadCounter]

Luke 1:48, ‘all generations will call me blessed.’

If Catholics go to far, this is one thing you never hear Fundamentalists say.

[BeadCounter]

Right, the Eastern Church calls this the “Dormition of Mary” I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormition_of_the_Mother_of_God

I haven’t read into this in a few years, maybe She had a house near Ephesus or something, Greece?

[CynicalBear]

>>This gets into the question of whether the Assumption is a resurrection of the type in Rev 20 or not.<<

Would you please provide scripture references for different "types" of ressurections after the ascension of Jesus.

>>I can provide an argument from Jewish tradition<<

Again from tradition? And Jewish tradition at that? I'm as pro Isreal as anyone can get but you may want to refresh on what Jesus had to say about Jewish tradition. Also you may want to check scripture for the blindness of the Jews till the "fullness of the Gentiles comes in".

>>As for an infallible source, Comment 77 cites Rev. 12.<<

The woman in Revelation is Isreal.

[BeadCounter]

Luke 1:48, “all generations shall call me blessed”. One verse we don’t hear ever it seems. Depravity? Really?

I don’t see how the sins of Adam and Eve would mean a sinless person afterwards would not need a savior. Does a baby born stillborn need a savior? They don’t sin.

[ronnietherocket3]

Are you perfect? Neither were they. Y’all seem to put your trust in men instead of Jesus. I trust His Word, not men

Keep in mind the Church is female. I also trust Jesus to send us a helper, a guide, and not to cast his sheep into darkness. He said he would found a Church (not Churches) not write a book. Certain priests may be sinners; popes may be wicked, but the trust is in the Holy Spirit to guide us through the Church (which Jesus said he was going to build).

[ronnietherocket3]

Again from tradition? And Jewish tradition at that? I'm as pro Isreal as anyone can get but you may want to refresh on what Jesus had to say about Jewish tradition. Also you may want to check scripture for the blindness of the Jews till the "fullness of the Gentiles comes in".

Which scripture would you like to cite on this matter?

The woman in Revelation is Isreal.

Is there anything that precludes the interpretation of Mary? Next, can this woman only refer to one person or can it refer to two? However, the description of this woman is that she gave birth to a male child destined to rule all nations (this would be Jesus). A woman who gave birth to Jesus is Mary. Another part of the description is the Devil pursued the woman but did not inflict injury on her. This would appear to preclude Israel (see Hosea for example) and support the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

[JPX2011]

A Christian would not have done those things just like Jim Jones/Manson. They tried to be Jesus to their followers and drugs were used to keep them in line.

I always find it interesting that a protestant will declare someone is a Christian...until they are not. Which is dependent upon hindsight and a retroactive application of personal repudiation of another's sins. Usually followed by some form of democratic consensus within a particular ecclesial community. In this instance we have individuals engaged in the sin of pride and gluttony (drug use) which supposedly has put them outside the Body of Christ and separated them from the community of Christians; according to the protestant who has declared one, "not a Christian." If that is the case then I don't see how one can legitimately claim OSAS or any other doctrine of perseverance. Further complicating the issue is the inherently juridical act of declaring one a non-Christian. It certainly has the feel of a governing body with supposed magisterial authority.

[fatima]

She lived in St John’s house with a few Holy women.If she took a few steps up the hill she saw the river.St Paul came to visit Her with a few of Our Lords Apostles and then went to the heathen temple and said Jesus Christ is Lord and they beat him up.

[verga]

<>IU>Your thoughts?

The anti-Catholic rhetoric is supported by the powers that be. If it wasn't we would not see the lies about "Catholic believe Mary is divine" or "Catholics are pagans that worship statues", repeated on virtually every thread.

Two sets of rules.

[boatbums]

What is for "simplistic" minds is believing the error that the Roman Catholic church alone has the only authority regarding what is or is not to be believed by all Christians. You want to place that confidence in men who have and will continue to make mistakes, invent dogmas unheard of by the Apostles and the first century Christians and contradict the word of God - which is the ONLY infallible resource we have from God? Well, then go ahead.

You have swallowed a lie if you believe the Roman Catholic church decided which books made up the Scriptures. The truth is that the early church RECEIVED the books of the Old Testament as well as those written under the leadership of the Apostles as their authority - NOT the other way around. It is the SAME Scripture we have today and, as the inerrant Word of God, we can know truth from error because the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to our hearts. We were NEVER told by God to be complacent about the truth or swallow everything a religious leader says, but to test the spirits to see if they are from God, to study the Scriptures God gave us and be able to discern truth from error.

What a silly, little straw man you toss out here to imply there are 35,000 different interpretations of the Gospel! I'd be surprised if you actually think that kind of argument works. We have the teachings of Jesus and that of the Apostles and the prophets to know what is true. IT is the standard, not a monolithic, monopolistic religious hierarchy that asserts it OWNS the Christian faith and everyone must obey it or be damned. You want that kind of religion? Take it. I'll take Jesus at His word and rely upon the Holy Spirit, who will open my heart to understand the deep things of God. I trust Jesus over man.

[verga]

That was hard to read but Mary’s assumption never happened. It is not mentioned anywhere in God’ Word.

Mary never changed baby Jesus's diapers. The only meal that Jesus ever ate was the last supper. None of the Apostles ever had a bowel movement. They were never mentioned in the Bible.

Please keep talking.

[Gamecock]

Such a stretch to think that a mundane task like diaper changing not being mentioned proves/validates a major doctrinal position.

Do you really want to base your eternal salvation on this logic?

[boatbums]

Oh, but they really LIKE rabbit holes! ;o)