Skip to comments.
THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries
christiantruth.com ^
| William Webster
Posted on 09/27/2014 11:05:41 AM PDT by Gamecock
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800, 801-820, 821-840 ... 1,721-1,732 next last
To: Steelfish; narses
Absurd. This is infantile stuff. Hey!
narses is one of YOUR guys!
801
posted on
09/29/2014 4:28:08 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
To: ronnietherocket3
I have seen no proof they did not teach it.Two popes; in the 5th century...
802
posted on
09/29/2014 4:29:27 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
To: CynicalBear
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."
803
posted on
09/29/2014 4:30:42 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
To: metmom; Steelfish
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 Pauls epistlesfour times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthianswe have the Aramaic form of Simons new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isnt Greek. Thats 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 doesnt 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.
804
posted on
09/29/2014 4:37:53 AM PDT
by
NYer
("You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears." James 4:14)
To: Heart-Rest
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.
805
posted on
09/29/2014 4:39:33 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
To: mlizzy
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
806
posted on
09/29/2014 4:41:47 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
To: WVKayaker
You gonna paddle or jump on Bridge Day?
807
posted on
09/29/2014 4:42:35 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
To: editor-surveyor
It doesn’t say WOMAN!!!!
—Desperate FR Catholic(Hail Mary!!!)
808
posted on
09/29/2014 4:43:43 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
To: Elsie; Steelfish
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.
To: Steelfish
>>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".
810
posted on
09/29/2014 5:12:52 AM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: metmom
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.
811
posted on
09/29/2014 5:13:54 AM PDT
by
ronnietherocket3
(Mary is understood by the heart, not study of scripture.)
To: metmom
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?
812
posted on
09/29/2014 5:20:17 AM PDT
by
ronnietherocket3
(Mary is understood by the heart, not study of scripture.)
To: ronnietherocket3
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.
813
posted on
09/29/2014 5:20:17 AM PDT
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: metmom
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).
814
posted on
09/29/2014 5:23:31 AM PDT
by
ronnietherocket3
(Mary is understood by the heart, not study of scripture.)
To: metmom
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.
815
posted on
09/29/2014 5:24:31 AM PDT
by
ronnietherocket3
(Mary is understood by the heart, not study of scripture.)
To: caww
1950!....thats 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.
816
posted on
09/29/2014 5:25:45 AM PDT
by
ronnietherocket3
(Mary is understood by the heart, not study of scripture.)
To: ronnietherocket3
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....
817
posted on
09/29/2014 5:27:25 AM PDT
by
caww
To: Steelfish
>>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.
818
posted on
09/29/2014 5:33:57 AM PDT
by
CynicalBear
(For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
To: FourtySeven; Gamecock
I guess theres 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. Id 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.
819
posted on
09/29/2014 5:35:23 AM PDT
by
metmom
(...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
To: ronnietherocket3
...”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!
820
posted on
09/29/2014 5:35:58 AM PDT
by
caww
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800, 801-820, 821-840 ... 1,721-1,732 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson