The death of the Virgin in RCC imagery

laconicstudent said:

"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκο&#962, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, “The Word was made flesh”] let him be anathema."

--First Anathema against Nestorius, Third Ecumenical Council, 431 A.D.

Click to expand...

And what bearing does this have? Is it compliant with God's Word? Mary is not the Mother of God. God does not have a mother. He has no beginning and no end. He is Alpha and Omega. He has always been and He will always be. Mary, on the other hand, was an finite human, born with original sin, just like every other human being, with the exception of Jesus Himself (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). Jesus was God incarnate, He was in His essence “immune” from sin. Although Scripture says she was highly favored by the Lord, she was only a human vessel for Jesus to become a man. I would think that if she had more significance, she would be mentioned again and again in the Bible. However, she is not mentioned after the 1st chapter of the Book of Acts.

LittleLambofJesus said:

That depends on :

http://www.christianforums.com/t7231588-65/#post46866118
"Holy Tradition"--Who has the correct interpretation of the Traditions?

Tradition is the method that the Catholic churches, East or West, rely upon. They reject the reliance upon Scripture alone, as most of us know. But these Tradition-oriented churches do not agree on what Tradition is, what doctrines are derived from it, or what the information that constitutes Tradition is.

Which church is right?

How do we know it is the correct one...using Tradition to determine that?

Click to expand...

Thank you for the link, LLOJ. It is too bad the thread is closed.

That would be an interesting topic to discuss.

Don't Catholics disagree about the Assumption of Mary?

DiligentlySeekingGod said:

Well said, LLOJ. Don't Catholics disagree about the Assumption of Mary?

Click to expand...

How so?

JacktheCatholic said:

How so?

Click to expand...

I think there is something about that posted earlier in this thread. I'm not sure, that's why I asked.

DiligentlySeekingGod said:

And what bearing does this have? Is it compliant with God's Word? Mary is not the Mother of God. God does not have a mother. He has no beginning and no end. He is Alpha and Omega. He has always been and He will always be. Mary, on the other hand, was an finite human, born with original sin, just like every other human being, with the exception of Jesus Himself (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). Jesus was God incarnate, He was in His essence “immune” from sin. Although Scripture says she was highly favored by the Lord, she was only a human vessel for Jesus to become a man. I would think that if she had more significance, she would be mentioned again and again in the Bible. However, she is not mentioned after the 1st chapter of the Book of Acts.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm going to believe the traditional interpretation of Scripture, according to God's Holy Church, versus the one that was condemned as heresy and discarded for thousands of years and only recently revived.

laconicstudent said:

Sorry, I'm going to believe the traditional interpretation of Scripture,

Click to expand...

Which is AND is it compliant with God's Word? If it is praying to Mary or to someone else who is Heaven, then no, it is not compliant with God's Word. If any tradition is contrary to the Word of God, then I will reject it.

laconicstudent said:

according to God's Holy Church, versus the one that was condemned as heresy and discarded for thousands of years and only recently revived.

Click to expand...

Well, that is your choice. However, I choose to stand on the Word of God, which has absolutely no mention of the papacy, worship or adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. On Christ the solid Rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand. The Church is the true believers in Christ Jesus, who are committed to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the true proclamation of God’s Word - and their beliefs and traditions are not contrary to the Word of God.

RND said:

What proof is there that Mary, mother of Jesus, was bodily assumed?

Click to expand...

I am curious about this as well. I mean, I know we have paintings of empty tombs that were created centuries after Mary would have died, but why are all the 1st century writings silent on her death?

Are there ANY spurious gospels or writings from the time of the New Testament that would give a clue as to how this tradition started?

Slaol121 said:

I am curious about this as well. I mean, I know we have paintings of empty tombs that were created centuries after Mary would have died, but why are all the 1st century writings silent on her death?

Are there ANY spurious gospels or writings from the time of the New Testament that would give a clue as to how this tradition started?

Click to expand...

Around 400 ad there is a document that has survived that tells of Mary's Assumption.

Link: CHURCH FATHERS: Assumption of Mary

There are more writings but this is written about Mary and her assumption much more pointedly and is quite old.

JacktheCatholic said:

Around 400 ad there is a document that has survived that tells of Mary's Assumption.

Link: CHURCH FATHERS: Assumption of Mary

There are more writings but this is written about Mary and her assumption much more pointedly and is quite old.

Click to expand...

I wonder if there is any credible evidence outside of the Catholic (Orthodox) realm. I stand on God's Word, which has no mention of the assumption of Mary. As I said before, I do not have a problem with church traditions as long as the traditions are in full harmony with the Scriptures. We are commanded in Scripture to "test all things and hold fast what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). In Acts 17:11-13, the Berean Christians searched the Scriptures every day to see if what the Apostle Paul said was true. 2 Timothy 2:15 says, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." So, to be honest, I take whatever is documented about matters of faith through the lens of Catholicism, with all its traditions and dogmas, with a grain of salt.

DiligentlySeekingGod said:

I wonder if there is any credible evidence outside of the Catholic (Orthodox) realm. I stand on God's Word, which has no mention of the assumption of Mary. As I said before, I do not have a problem with church traditions as long as the traditions are in full harmony with the Scriptures. We are commanded in Scripture to "test all things and hold fast what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). In Acts 17:11-13, the Berean Christians searched the Scriptures every day to see if what the Apostle Paul said was true. 2 Timothy 2:15 says, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." So, to be honest, I take whatever is documented about matters of faith through the lens of Catholicism, with all its traditions and dogmas, with a grain of salt.

Click to expand...

Such as the traditions that we use for deciding which letters/books we use for devotion and understanding of God (scripture)?

Slaol121 said:

I am curious about this as well. I mean, I know we have paintings of empty tombs that were created centuries after Mary would have died, but why are all the 1st century writings silent on her death?

Are there ANY spurious gospels or writings from the time of the New Testament that would give a clue as to how this tradition started?

Click to expand...

Good questions.

DiligentlySeekingGod said:

I wonder if there is any credible evidence outside of the Catholic (Orthodox) realm. I stand on God's Word, which has no mention of the assumption of Mary. As I said before, I do not have a problem with church traditions as long as the traditions are in full harmony with the Scriptures. We are commanded in Scripture to "test all things and hold fast what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). In Acts 17:11-13, the Berean Christians searched the Scriptures every day to see if what the Apostle Paul said was true. 2 Timothy 2:15 says, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." So, to be honest, I take whatever is documented about matters of faith through the lens of Catholicism, with all its traditions and dogmas, with a grain of salt.

Click to expand...

I always find it ironic when Protestants cite the Bereans, considering in Thessalonica we find the first Protestants arguing with Paul about the meaning of Scriptures. A "great many were persuaded" in Thessalonica after Paul "reasoned" (read: argued) with them. Compare that to Berea where they received the word with eagerness.

Sola Scriptura is fallacious. It's nowhere to be found in the Bible, and it depends on that which it rejects. It's the height of logical paradox, to say the least.

DiligentlySeekingGod said:

Which is AND is it compliant with God's Word? If it is praying to Mary or to someone else who is Heaven, then no, it is not compliant with God's Word. If any tradition is contrary to the Word of God, then I will reject it.



Well, that is your choice. However, I choose to stand on the Word of God, which has absolutely no mention of the papacy, worship or adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. On Christ the solid Rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand. The Church is the true believers in Christ Jesus, who are committed to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the true proclamation of God’s Word - and their beliefs and traditions are not contrary to the Word of God.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you, your subjective interpretation of Scripture is not necessarily correct.

The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible either, but the concept of the Godhead: Father, Son, Holy Spirit certainly is in the Bible. What you, as well as other Catholics, fail to recognize is the crucially important issue of Sola Scriptura, which is I, as well as other Protestants who hold to it, believe without a shadow of a doubt, that the Bible is the Word of God. Scripture itself verifies it in 2 Timothy 2:16, where it says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Whether someone chooses to believe it or not, the truth of the matter is this: God DOES NOT change His mind or contradict Himself.

God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He is the One I trust. I do not trust the words of fallible men concerning any matter of the Christian faith which cannot be backed up with Scripture. I believe the Bible is true and the only authority for the Christian faith and practice. I will not place any particular church doctrine, dogma or tradition above what is taught in the Word of God. I take God at His Word when He says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." I will outright reject any doctrine, dogma or tradition concerning faith, salvation, or other matters of the Christian faith that contradict the Word of God.

As I said in my previous post, I choose to stand on the Word of God, which has absolutely no mention of the papacy, worship or adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture.

The Bible is more than just the written Word, it is the Living Word: "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account" (Hebrews 4:12-13). And it is what I choose to believe. I trust God and His Word.

DiligentlySeekingGod said:

What you, as well as other Catholics, fail to recognize is the crucially important issue of Sola Scriptura, which is I, as well as other Protestants who hold to it, believe without a shadow of a doubt, that the Bible is the Word of God.

Click to expand...

Jesus is the Word of God. The Bible is the word of God. Let's also not forget that Sola Scriptura didn't show up until the 16th century.

Scripture itself verifies it in 2 Timothy 2:16, where it says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure how you translate "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training" to "supreme matters of faith and morals and there is no other source of faith or morals." There is absolutely no indication of Sola Scriptura in that verse. Just because the Bible is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness does not mean it is the only source of Christian doctrine, much less the supreme authority on it.

Whether Catholic believe it to be true or not, God DOES NOT change His mind or contradict Himself. I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Bible, which I believe to be he Word God, is true, authoritative, and reliable.

Click to expand...

Just because the Bible is "true, authoritative, and reliable" does not in any way mean it is the only thing that's true, authoritative, and reliable.

The same cannot be said of Catholic traditions. Traditions, such as prayer to saints and Mary, the immaculate conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary, indulgences, and papal authority (to name a few), which are clearly not taught in the Bible, are not true, authoritative, or reliable.

Click to expand...

And you base this on what? Your own personal opinion? Sola Scriptura has to be believed entirely on faith. There is zero historical evidence for it in early Christianity. Something akin to it shows up in various heretical gnostic sects throughout the centuries (that should tell you something, shouldn't it?), but the only time it shows up as an accepted belief is the 16th century and beyond.

On the other hand, there is far more evidence for an authoritative, visible institution (the episcopate) in early Christianity. I mean, the canonization of the New Testament alone completely destroys Sola Scriptura unless you start jumping through logical hoops, inventing revisionist history, or piling on more theology that also has no basis in history.

DiligentlySeekingGod said:

The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible either, but the concept of the Godhead: Father, Son, Holy Spirit certainly is in the Bible. What you, as well as other Catholics, fail to recognize is the crucially important issue of Sola Scriptura, which is I, as well as other Protestants who hold to it, believe without a shadow of a doubt, that the Bible is the Word of God. Scripture itself verifies it in 2 Timothy 2:16, where it says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Whether someone chooses to believe it or not, the truth of the matter is this: God DOES NOT change His mind or contradict Himself. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He is the One I trust.

I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Bible is the Word God. I believe the Bible is true and authoritative above any particular church doctrine, dogma or tradition. I take God at His Word when He says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." I will reject any doctrine, dogma or tradition concerning faith, salvation, or other matters of the Christian faith that clearly contradict the Word of God.

As I said in my previous post, I choose to stand on the Word of God, which has absolutely no mention of the papacy, worship or adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture.

Click to expand...

Pardon me for butting in, but I felt compelled to answer your post with regards to believing the Word of God and the Bible and only that.

The problem I have with this is that I have not met or talked to anyone IRL or in this forum or elsewhere on the net who truly is 100% follower of the Bible. Because they either ignore, omit, or change the Scriptures to what they believe it to say. So, really, these people who call themselves "Bible-believing Christians," is not completely accurate. What these people seem to believe is in their own man-made traditions on how read the Bible and interpret it and how to go about, if at all, doing whatever they want to about the sacraments. IMO, this is the example of the man-made traditions warned about in the very Bible they say they totally 100% follow. I would hope people would know that we can't live by a book (especially the way it is used by some as some type of manual). The Christian life is to be experienced, lived through encountering God in worship, the sacraments, prayer, and yes, reading the Holy Scriptures and other edifying material (but not just the Bible without any of the others I mentioned). What is surprising to many because they are taught to think anything that looks Catholic is man-made tradition and therefore wrong, but truly it isn't. As far as we Orthodox (the Catholics can answer as they have) are concerned, we follow everything in the Bible plus what the Apostles taught orally. So, we follow orally and written just as St. Paul told us to.

Truly, Christ commanded baptism and the eucharist. This is not an option but a command from Him.

Christianity is based on Christ, but also Holy Tradition, which is a four-legged stool. One cannot have one leg of the stool and expect to have it stand on its own.

It seems I edited my post while you were replying to it. Well, I added a few thoughts to that post about why I believe as I do... including how I trust God alone. I also stated that I do not trust the words of fallible men concerning any matter of the Christian faith which cannot be backed up with Scripture. And because I believe the Bible is true and the only authority for the Christian faith and practice - I will not place any particular church doctrine, dogma or tradition above what is taught in the Word of God. I take God at His Word when He says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." I will reject any doctrine, dogma or tradition concerning faith, salvation, or other matters of the Christian faith that contradicts the Word of God. I'm saying all this again, just in case these specific points on the basis of my faith are viewed as too irrelevant to include in a rebuttal.

godisreal36 said:

What have Christan's out side the Vatican done to offend its flowerer's?

We should all just love one another and not force teaching on each other outside of what we can all agree on, and not assume that any of us are false unless we deny the Lord, if we could just argue over the books found in the KJV only and those translations as well, we would all get along better and serve His purpose better at the same time.

I don't threaten any one, i just speak the words in the Bible, although I'm not as loving about it as i should be.

Click to expand...

this thread was not made by "Vatican Christians" but by someone calling the Vaticans beliefs false
I do not use the KJV bible because it was translated by someone outside my Church and has foot notes by theologians who are also outside my Church, since you are not part of my Church i have no argument for you not using the KJV
It is great that you preach the Bible, my favorite are Psalms and Job and Song of Songs and Ecclesiasties and Tobit and the Gospel according to Luke and the Gospel according to John
I have not read all the Bible yet, I am working though the Prophets now, Ezechiel is really good but I am not done with it yet so I can not say if it will be my favorite

I should be more loving too... your humility is touching
God bless you my brother

laconicstudent said:

We read history books to see which Church it is that is most consistent over the millenia. And there's only 3 that can make a reasonable claim to go back that far anyways. The EO, RCC, and OO.

Click to expand...

If you want to be charitable you could add the Anglicans... I do not add them to the short list but someone could make an argument for it

Dark_Lite said:

Sola Scriptura is fallacious. It's nowhere to be found in the Bible, and it depends on that which it rejects. It's the height of logical paradox, to say the least.

Click to expand...

While I agree with you that the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is not specifically found in the Bible, the accepted scriptures do say to test everything against the Word of God.

This brings me to the assumption of Mary - a doctrine that the Catholic Encyclopedia admits does not appear in early Christian writings until a sixth century theologian wrote about it almost 300 years after the last book of the New Testament canon was written.

To me, this is reason enough to question this doctrine's authenticity. If the assumption of Mary is so important today that we have an entire feast to celebrate it, why didn't the early Christians write about it? Had they at least written something, then Protestants would be more likely to accept it as fact.


YouTube - breathtaking Hail Holy Queen by Danielle Rose

Dark_Lite said:

I always find it ironic when Protestants cite the Bereans, considering in Thessalonica we find the first Protestants arguing with Paul about the meaning of Scriptures. A "great many were persuaded" in Thessalonica after Paul "reasoned" (read: argued) with them. Compare that to Berea where they received the word with eagerness.

Sola Scriptura is fallacious. It's nowhere to be found in the Bible, and it depends on that which it rejects. It's the height of logical paradox, to say the least.

Click to expand...

I didn't know there were Protestants back then, only the RCC