YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT CATHOLICISM

[Major1]

Right, but holding it is neither a sin, nor an article of faith. Hence Adiaphora.

I understand. I would only say that when we accept something that is NOT in the Bible as "Bible" doctrine, it opens the door to other teachings which would lead younger believers into areas where truth is elusive.

In other words, when we as Christians accept something that is NOT the truth from God's Word, we throw open the door to then accept more and more false teachings.

Adiaphora IMO is really not the answer. IT may very well be an excuse but certainly not the answer.

 

[Major1]

What in life is safe from that happening? Or can guarantee that it won't?


But now we've moved off from my point which was just to say that the doctrines themselves are definite and do not hint at other possible beliefs. Immaculate Conception--conceived without Original Sin. Assumption--body taken to heaven.

What in life is safe from that happening?.............ME winning the Mr. Universe contest.

 

[Major1]

Thank you for your clarification. I agree that the dogmas were intended to clarify the doctrines. Unfortunately they were not so precise as to prevent some individuals reading into them aspects which were probably not intended. Thus we have the on-going turmoil within the Marian branch of Roman Catholicism regarding the co-redemptrix status of Mary and the issue regarding her death (or lack thereof).

And instead of clarification......could it then be said that they opened the door to the thoughts and opinions of men which were traditions and are now Doctrines.

Does any one see a problem with that???

 

[Major1]

I figured you would have to tell me why you think I'm wrong. No surprise there.

No sir. What you believe is completely up to you.

 

[bbbbbbb]

What in life is safe from that happening? Or can guarantee that it won't?


But now we've moved off from my point which was just to say that the doctrines themselves are definite and do not hint at other possible beliefs. Immaculate Conception--conceived without Original Sin. Assumption--body taken to heaven.

Quite correct. And as Major1 has pointed out, both are doctrines based on Tradition alone.

 

[Major1]

I'd be interested in someone presenting the evidence from the Church's documents, then. Nothing much is established when someone says that they feel that there is some sort of hint built into the definition that was announced.

To me, that sort of talk is similar to other people saying that Justification by Faith suggests "you can go on sinning all you like because you've got a safe conduct pass to heaven."

The Catholic Church teaches as dogma that the Virgin Mary "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory".[4] This doctrine was dogmatically defined by Pope Pius XII on 1 November 1950, in the apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus by exercising papal infallibility.[5]
Assumption of Mary - Wikipedia

That information is available for sure.

The Assumption of Mary in History

There never has been a single relic of Mary’s body? As revered as Mary was, this would be very strange, except for the fact of the assumption of her body.

On the historical front, Fr. Michael O’Carroll, in his book, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, writes:

"We have known for some time that there were widespread “Transitus Stories” that date from the sixth century that teach Mary’s glorious Assumption. It was the promulgation of the dogma of the Assumption by Pope Pius XII that rekindled interest in these stories of the end of Mary’s life. In 1955, Fr. A.A. Wenger published L’Assomption (p. 59).

Again, the point is that when MANS opinions are accepted as TRADITION, we have stepped away from the truth of God's Word.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Actually, Mary's girdle is venerated as a holy relic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Girdle#:~:text=The%20Holy%20Girdle%2C%20also%20known%20as%20the%20Girdle,is%20also%20translated%20as%20%22belt%22%2C%20%22sash%22%20or%20%22girdle%22.

Although it is not actually a physical part of the body, it is probably as intimate as one can find.

In a similar vein, in Loreto, Italy there is a house now enshrined within a large church building. The house is venerated as the actual house which Jesus Christ grew up in. Angels decided to remove the house from Palestine and fly it over to Loreto. Basilica della Santa Casa - Wikipedia

 

[Albion]

I understand. I would only say that when we accept something that is NOT in the Bible as "Bible" doctrine, it opens the door to other teachings which would lead younger believers into areas where truth is elusive.

That could be. However, my post which started this off--and that was quite a few posts ago--was little more than a footnote to something another member had posted, a clarification of one aspect only of what someone else had written.

It was not a profession of my own beliefs or a defense of the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption or anything like that.

Adiaphora IMO is really not the answer. IT may very well be an excuse but certainly not the answer.

I don't recall saying anything about any issue of adiaphora involved with this.

 

[Albion]

The Catholic Church teaches as dogma that the Virgin Mary "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory".[4]

Yes. Exactly as I have been saying.

The Assumption of Mary in History

There never has been a single relic of Mary’s body? As revered as Mary was, this would be very strange, except for the fact of the assumption of her body.

Now really. For one thing, no one knows where she was buried. Claims are made for places from the Middle East to Britain, and none has ever been proven to be the right one.

And then, even if we did know, the only thing that might indicate an Assumption is an empty tomb. It was said that when one of these tombs was opened, it was found to be empty, leading to the start of the legend.

But even if there were for sure the right tomb, it could have been empty because of grave robbers or because the body was moved to another resting place.

On the historical front, Fr. Michael O’Carroll, in his book, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, writes:

"We have known for some time that there were widespread “Transitus Stories” that date from the sixth century that teach Mary’s glorious Assumption. It was the promulgation of the dogma of the Assumption by Pope Pius XII that rekindled interest in these stories of the end of Mary’s life. In 1955, Fr. A.A. Wenger published L’Assomption (p. 59).

Again, the point is that when MANS opinions are accepted as TRADITION, we have stepped away from the truth of God's Word.

Agreed!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I understand. I would only say that when we accept something that is NOT in the Bible as "Bible" doctrine, it opens the door to other teachings which would lead younger believers into areas where truth is elusive.

In other words, when we as Christians accept something that is NOT the truth from God's Word, we throw open the door to then accept more and more false teachings.

Adiaphora IMO is really not the answer. IT may very well be an excuse but certainly not the answer.

Except, for us, it is not "doctrine or dogma", it is "pious opinion" In the Catholic Church, it is Doctrine and Dogma. We are neither compelled to hold it or to reject it.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don't recall saying anything about any issue of adiaphora involved with this.

That would have been me. LOL.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Excerpt from a Lutheran sermon for The Festival of St. Mary, Mother of our Lord:

As to whether or not Mary was bodily taken to heaven, we have to confess our ignorance. We don’t know. Scripture doesn’t tell us. Might be – we grant that that would be rather like her Son to do such a thing. But if He wanted us to know about raising his Mother from the dead, He’d have seen fit to have His apostles write it for us in the Sacred Scriptures. Alas, not a word. So as Lutherans, we’re content to confess: He has taken her to be with Him and that is all we need to know. That’s how Dr. Luther wisely dispatched that question. Not our business.
​

Weedon's Blog: Homily for St. Mary, Mother of Our Lord (2010)

 

[Major1]

Except, for us, it is not "doctrine or dogma", it is "pious opinion" In the Catholic Church, it is Doctrine and Dogma. We are neither compelled to hold it or to reject it.

Outstanding! I do hope that you reject it because it is not Biblical.

That is the one and only factor that I try to bring to any forum conversation.

If we are going to claim to be a Christian then IMHO we must base what we belive on what is found in the written Word of God, else it becomes a religion of MEN and not God.

 

[Major1]

Yes. Exactly as I have been saying.


Now really. For one thing, no one knows where she was buried. Claims are made for places from the Middle East to Britain, and none has ever been proven to be the right one.

And then, even if we did know, the only thing that might indicate an Assumption is an empty tomb. It was said that when one of these tombs was opened, it was found to be empty, leading to the start of the legend.

But even if there were for sure the right tomb, it could have been empty because of grave robbers or because the body was moved to another resting place.





Agreed!

It seems to me that we are saying the same thing.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Pious opinion can be relatively harmless. However, when the lines between pious opinion and dogma become blurred it is all to easy to subsume actual dogma to pious opinion.

 

[Albion]

It seems to me that we are saying the same thing.

Right. I was just adding some more information for the benefit of any reader who might care.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Outstanding! I do hope that you reject it because it is not Biblical.

That is the one and only factor that I try to bring to any forum conversation.

If we are going to claim to be a Christian then IMHO we must base what we belive on what is found in the written Word of God, else it becomes a religion of MEN and not God.

Good Christian attitude there son!

 

[Major1]

Good Christian attitude there son!

How so brother?

If we are going to claim to be a Christian, don't you think that we must then follow or try to adhere to the "manufacturers handbook"?

You see, everyone who claims to be a Christian is not a Christian. "Claims" mean nothing.

Allow me to ask you a question. If I said to you today that I am a born again Christian and I believe that I will lie to the IRS and then use the tax refund to
start a religious holiday called....."FESTIVUS".

I am going to make up my rules and give them out at our 1st meeting.

AM I a Christian Believer or a Make Believer?

Matt. 7:21-23......
"Not everyone who says to me, 'LORD, LORD,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'LORD, LORD, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

 

[Major1]

Right. I was just adding some more information for the benefit of any reader who might care.

Thanks brother!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

How so brother?

If we are going to claim to be a Christian, don't you think that we must then follow or try to adhere to the "manufacturers handbook"?

You see, everyone who claims to be a Christian is not a Christian. "Claims" mean nothing.

Allow me to ask you a question. If I said to you today that I am a born again Christian and I believe that I will lie to the IRS and then use the tax refund to
start a religious holiday called....."FESTIVUS".

I am going to make up my rules and give them out at our 1st meeting.

AM I a Christian Believer or a Make Believer?

Matt. 7:21-23......
"Not everyone who says to me, 'LORD, LORD,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'LORD, LORD, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Be mindful that the idea of shunning any sort of tradition is a new and novel one, and in doing so, you are not only denigrating churches that have retained these traditions, but the Early Church Fathers and even the Apostles who's practice was steeped in the traditions handed down for many, many generations.

The Bible says nothing about porcelain toilets; does that mean that if our Church has them that we are "apostate". Does your Church have them? That is not supported by the Bible.

I am used to certain reformed protestants throwing the baby out with the bath water.

BTW, did you know that there are instances in "your" Bible where the Apocrypha is quoted? Better get the scissors out since you are shunning traditions.

It seems that the writers of Scripture are apostate as well for using "extra biblical" references in your Bible. Mine is OK btw because it contains some of those "extra" books. LOL.