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

christiantruth.com ^ | William Webster

[Elsie]

Absurd. This is infantile stuff.

Hey!

narses is one of YOUR guys!

[Elsie]

I have seen no proof they did not teach it.

Two popes; in the 5th century...

[Elsie]

Appear?

---

 

" The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success

unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly -

- it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."

[NYer]

If anyone saw the 1968 release of the film "The Thomas Crown Affair" , you may recall the song ... Windmills of your Mind.

Round, like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel.
Never ending or beginning,
On an ever spinning reel.

This topic of Peter as the Rock, surfaces from time to time. On each occasion, the protestants posit their defense of the Greek terminology and catholics step in to clarify this misinterpretation of scripture. Like that song, we go around like a wheel within a wheel.

Metmom, this is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that you point to the petra vs petros argument. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you in the past (and will continue into the future), Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place. We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels.

In Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form). And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.

Dear Metmom, please save this piece of information and the next time you are tempted to post a discourse on petra vs petros, remember that Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, not Greek. Simon was renamed Kepha - Rock.

[Elsie]

And the bible does NOT say which is which.

EXACTLY what I claimed.

"Only in RCC teaching is there gradation of sin."

John made NO distinction here:

1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

[Elsie]

There are those, if they didn't have Mary to lead them, would never know of her Son.

"Mighty bold talk for a one-eyed fatman."
--Ned Pepper

[Elsie]

You gonna paddle or jump on Bridge Day?

[Elsie]

It doesn’t say WOMAN!!!!

—Desperate FR Catholic(Hail Mary!!!)

[FourtySeven]

The difference between the list you posted here and the people Steelfish cited is that the Popes you listed didn’t teach a different doctrine than other “good” Popes. The people Steelfish pointed out do have different interpretations of Scripture and hence different doctrines.

I guess there’s a choice here: be associated with a Church that has taught the same thing but has had evil Popes or associate with people who are (at least) outwardly “good” but teach different things about Scripture. I’d rather have the doctrinal consistency speaking for myself.

(And yeah I get the irony of posting that on the same thread that claims to prove Popes taught differently re Mary before.)

The OP is false, as has already been demonstrated in the first 200 posts of this thread. Now this thread is just another typical FR anti-Catholic pile-on. I’m just posting this for Steelfish’s benefit (and the benefit of any other reasonable lurker). I don’t expect to change your mind or the mind of any other anti-Catholic here.

[CynicalBear]

>>while at the same time denying the work of the Holy Spirit that guided the early Church Fathers<<

> I don't deny the work of the Holy Spirit through them. I give God all the glory for having done that. But as I've said before. God has also used Judas, Balaam's donkey, and many others to further His cause. God gets the glory, not man. Saying that men listened at one point doesn't assure that they did on everything. That's why God gave us His written word with individual guidance by the Holy Spirit. Jesus didn't say "join this particular group and you will be saved".

[ronnietherocket3]

Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.

Peter was a ma; it would be very odd to refer to him using a feminine name.

[ronnietherocket3]

Problem is, being human, He could not remove her sin nature from her. Then she wouldn't have been fully human. The only prophecy that needed to be fulfilled was that the mother of the messiah be a virgin. It says NOTHING about the need for her to be sinless.

Are denying that something is beyond the power of God? Was Jesus born with the stain of sin? If he was not then he was not fully human according to your logic.

And if God protected her from sin by having her born sinless, why doesn't or didn't He do that for ALL believers? If He could have done it for her, He could easily have done it for ANY human being.

You sound like the people who claim that God does not exist (or at least the Christian God) on the grounds that there is suffering in this world.

NO ONE whoever they claim to be, has the right to make binding on anyone something that is not clearly spelled out in Scripture.Do you have unambiguous Chapter and Verse on this?

[metmom]

The belief is that she was saved from Original Sin at the moment of her conception by God.

Misplaced clause?

I thought only Jesus was conceived by God.

[ronnietherocket3]

OK, so why did the early popes declare the assumption of Mary to be heresy and now the later popes not only believe it, but make it dogma?

Where do any Popes state that it is heresy to believe the Assumption? Keep in mind this must be a condemnation specifically of the Assumption. If it is a condemnation of a group, that would mean the Church can't teach that Christ was crucified, as the Arians believed this (their problem was in denying the divinity of Christ).

[ronnietherocket3]

the same Scripture that Jesus quoted at the Pharisees to condemn them and their traditions,

Please point to the Scripture where Jesus condemns all the Pharisaic tradition, not just one or two traditions.

[ronnietherocket3]

1950!....that’s a long-long-long time to decide that the apostles, and the Holy Spirit forgot to mention something important about mary.

One explanation is that her humility led her to ask God to not write about her.

[caww]

As mentioned before..

...they have to layer everything with more verbage, lines upon lines of definitions and goobly-goop ...until the obvious understanding of the text gets ‘snuffed out’ so they can feel the intelligence fuzzy strokes across their backs.

...and no wonder they can't ‘apply’ what it says and their behavior is what it is.......they've ‘smothered’ the meaning of the text and it's purpose....

[CynicalBear]

>>This belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves.<<

This entire thread I have been asking Catholics to show infallible evidence that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary. Not one time has anyone done that. Then you come and make a statement like that and expect people to blindly accept it? By the admition of the Catholic Church a dogma required to be believed to attain salvation is based on conjecture and supposition. You give this nice "feel good" story that has no base in fact. They call that fiction. I for one will not trust my eternal future to fiction.

[metmom]

I guess there’s a choice here: be associated with a Church that has taught the same thing but has had evil Popes or associate with people who are (at least) outwardly “good” but teach different things about Scripture. I’d rather have the doctrinal consistency speaking for myself.

(And yeah I get the irony of posting that on the same thread that claims to prove Popes taught differently re Mary before.)

That's good.

The OP is false, as has already been demonstrated in the first 200 posts of this thread.

Which ones, because I found lots of posts maligning non-Catholics, attempting to smear non-Catholics through guilt by association, defending tradition, posting inane images, but precious few who even attempted to discuss the topic of the article, much less demonstrate it to be false.

I'll reread any you provide to support your contention to see what I missed.

[caww]

...”One explanation is that her humility led her to ask God to not write about her”....

You giver her way, way too much credit in the imagination of your mind, and you present God Almighty as a mere dot on your theological landscape.

God is not “small” God you present both directly and indirectly..........He is the Alpha and Omega...the Beginning and the end,... He’s Master, Savior and coming King of all Kings....He’s the Creator of the World and the one yet to come...the Universe and all it’s Glory... and his pulse is on your very next breath before you breath it....or not!