Posted on 01/18/2015 8:33:58 AM PST by ADSUM
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary CUF
Issue: What does the Church teach concerning the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
Response: The teaching is aptly summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 974:
The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up [“assumed”] body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she already shares in the glory of her Son’s Resurrection, anticipating the resurrection of all members of His Body.
(Excerpt) Read more at cuf.org ...
Please prove that what the RCC today calls tradition that the apostles taught is actually what the apostles taught.
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written”(Douay-Rheims Bible)
Ah yes....the catholic carte blanche verse.
If this is allowed we have to accept the Mormon belief that Jesus took a detour to North America before ascending to Heaven. They claim a lot of links to this so why is this rejected? (I am not a Mormon nor advocating their position. It's just an example of using this verse to advance an unsound Biblical position.)
The Bible doesn't record what Jesus did when he was 14 years old on Tuesday either.
It also doesn't tell us if He brushed His teeth....or ate apples.
It doesn't tell us if He wrestled His brothers on Thursday either.
The catholic mis-use of this verse allows for a lot of incorrect theology that sadly has influenced many down a dark road.
Please show where I said I "hated" Mary. I only hate the caricature that the Catholic Church has made of her. You injection of the words "hate Mary" seems rather nefarious. And I love the ekklesia that Christ established. The Catholic Church has nothing to do with that.
Never ceases to amaze me that Biblical teaching is somehow equated with hate.
Surprised you haven't called for the thread to be pulled.
Did Christ teach you had to believe in the Assumption of His Mother to get to heaven? Rome does.
Did Christ teach that the leader of the Catholic church in Rome would be infallible when speaking in certain circumstances and that believing this was necessary in order to attain salvation? Rome does.
Did Christ or the Holy Spirit through the Apostle John teach the myriad dogmatic positions of the Roman Catholic Church and require them to believe to attain eternal life? Rome does.
He could've. Pretty big deal, seems you would be able to find some scriptural evidence. As important a doctrine upon which salvation for Catholics hinges would have been taught by John where things 'have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.' You are adding to the requirements of salvation.
What hatred has CB shown to Mary?
And what hatred has he shown to the body of Christ, the true church?
Just read your comments on post 28.
There is nothing in your post 27 but your opinion or false statements about the teachings of the Catholic Church.
So your authority or opinion is greater than anyone else’s authority, especially the Catholic Church that was delegated by Christ to spread the word and baptize in the name of Jesus?
I realize that you only believe in sola scripture, so you are missing out on the Sacred traditions and the oral teachings that were passed down by the early Catholics and the teachings of the Catholic Church on current issues.
From: http://www.cuf.org/2005/02/that-they-may-all-be-one-the-difference-the-church-makes/
God understood that simply communicating His truth—whether in written or oral fashion—would not be sufficient to safeguard truth and associated unity among His people. Given our fallen human nature, self-righteous anarchy is bound to occur in the absence of clearly established, God-given authority. So He appointed visible leaders throughout salvation history to protect His people when truth and unity were threatened.
These men of the Old Testament and the Protestant Reformers made similar mistakes. Both rebellions denied that God had appointed human leaders to govern and intercede for His people. Consequently, both invoked the equality of all believers as a means to reject divinely established human leaders of God’s people. Both sought communion with God without the “encumbrance” of God’s governance through His chosen human instruments. The rebellion of both disrupted communion with God and caused disunity among believers.
The historical record illustrates that the Early Church, including the Fathers and ecumenical councils, understood and accepted papal primacy as the authoritative means that God established to combat heresy and maintain unity.
Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.
Not at all. The Bible was assembled under Petrine authority and that God-given authority is to one Church, that He shall be with the Church until the consummation of the world, This authority is not to be extended to every Tom, Dick, and Harry’s interpretation.
Thus during the early years of Christianity a raging debate ensued whether Christ was not only fully God but also fully man. It was the Church fathers who gathered in Nicea that settled the question. Church doctrine is one credo, for all times and for all ages.
Not the Billy Grahams, Joel Osteens. Moons, nor the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses or for any of the other heretical brands and not for every corner street Foursquare church pastor who thinks he can crack open the pages of the Bible and offer up “his” or “her” own interpretation.
This debate begins and ends with Petrine authority. Either you accept it, as have scores of eminent Protestant scholars and pastors who have converted to Catholicism or you don’t.
Your question: “Did Christ teach you had to believe in the Assumption of His Mother to get to heaven?”
Yes He did through His Church - the Catholic Church.
http://www.cuf.org/2005/02/that-they-may-all-be-one-the-difference-the-church-makes/
Sorry.
co in LATIN means with.
Calling the MOTHER of GOD a SINNER......that and using the term “PAGAN” leaves no doubt about HATRED....or maybe that’s just LOVE from the Protestants....don’t know, don’t care anymore. This site has so many anti-Catholics anymore it’s not funny or fun. Bye.
Your statement: “The teachings of the rcc have been shown time and time again to be in error when compared to Scripture. Yet the catholic refuses to recognize such.”
Again another biased statement with no substance.
Wouldn’t you just like to know!
I find it interesting catholics always say convert to catholicism......and not Christianity. The difference is telling.
The OT existed before the "Christian Church" existed.
The writings which together, collectively are the NT were imposed upon the early Church by the (original) Apostolic writers.
The "Church" as that came to be known (other than the original Apostolic witnesses themselves) -- first received those writings as Word of the Church. It was known from the time those writings first circulated -- what the sources in fact were...
What should be included was determined to be the same as that which had been Apostolically imposed upon the Church. The decades of sorting were to sort out the later arising writings as not equal to that of the most primary witnesses.
It was simply a question of comparing notes widely -- as to what was Apostolic and what was not, with that process being employed to weed out later arising apocrypha & pseudepigrapha.
Or else can there be anything much at all which can be attributed to actual Apostolic writer -- which was rejected? If so -- what would those writings be? Be specific.
What other texts would be recommended? The writings of "Early Church Fathers" do not in all ways agree with one another, as to particular details of the "life of Christ" as you put it.
One writer speaks of Jesus as having been fairly old, many years beyond the fairly widely accepted 33 years of age -- at the time of His crucifixion.
Yet still, the plethora of early witnesses from outside of NT scripture itself, does to this day bear witness generally and widely to the veracity of NT texts. From the earliest centuries writers -- if there were not biblical texts themselves at all -- a great deal of the NT could be pieced together through a careful and painstaking assembling and comparison of the various citations from the texts -- the four Gospels, and most of Paul's epistles, perhaps most specifically.
Only if 4th and 5th century writings can be looked upon as "early times".
Can you show anything from yet earlier, which was not regarded as "Gnostic" (thus untrustworthy) source by the same majority opinion of the Church which are you are seemingly here relying upon?
That could be said to varying degree for quite a lot of Biblical figures. Yet as the Apostle Peter is attributed to having said; Acts 4:12
You said;
Taberacles --- were tents. Mary was not a tent. She is mother of His earthly Incarnation.
Perhaps, but perhaps not.
A decent link for rather neutral & brief discussion as to what was believed in the earlier 4th & 5th centuries
and then later how beliefs concerning this assumed Assumption of Mary began to grow -- not from Apostolic source, but from fanciful conjecturing, and Gnosticism.
Yet if Mary did die upon this earth -- what difference would that make?
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”
5 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Oh good grief. The catholic claim to Petrine authority has been shown to be wrong so many times on this board it is sad catholics continue to cling to this....and I mean cling to it.
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.