PilgrimToChrist
Well-Known Member
Because that was what was being asserted -- that everything that is not explicitly in the Bible is necessarily false.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Umm..why does it matter
Because that was what was being asserted -- that everything that is not explicitly in the Bible is necessarily false.
I still don't see a relation between the RC's version of the PV/Assumption of Mary and the Trinity
http://www.christianforums.com/t7400512/
Did Jesus have brothers and sisters born of Mary
You wouldn't know that from many threads on here. How many Baptists do you know have a love and devotion to Our Lady?
You clearly don't understand the Catholic teaching and practice.
Again, you clearly don't understand.
You'd think the Apostles would have listed the canon of the New Testament too, but they didn't. Silence on Mary's death one way or the other is not puzzling if you understand that the Church's doctrine can develop. It's faulty to impose the unbiblical doctrine that every facet of God's revelation is revealed explicitly in Scripture. So I don't think this "they would have said something" rule of yours is applicable.
(Even so, I would argue that Mary's assumption is implicit once you wrap your mind around the typology of Mary as Ark of the Covenant, etc... but I digress)
It would require a great deal of warping to get my mind around the typology of Mary as Ark of the Covenant, etc., but you digress.
Still, my point has been made multiple times by others here at CF that a truly amazing miracle of the Assumption should have had some historical reference, either in scripture or in other sources, but it does not. What does seem peculiar is that the New Testament does record many post-Ascension miracles such as the healing of the paralytic at the Temple, but does not even allude to the much more amazing miracle of the Assumption.
Well, Mary did not labor under the effects of Original Sin, so she did not die as part of that. But she could have simply died, not as punishment, but merely to show the power and promise of God (as with the blind man regarding whom the Jews asked, "Who sinned that this man be born blind?").
St. John of Damascus (Damascene) says:
I think he is alluding to what the Apostle says about the Resurrection:
St. Francis de Sales writes:
If the martyrs went to their death singing praises of the Divine Love and were overjoyed to unite themselves with Christ's Passion and Death, how much more did His Mother unite herself to His Passion and Death and thus she suffered spiritually and physically throughout her life, died and was raised from the dead -- in union with her Son.
If Paul can say this, how much more can Mary, of whom Simeon said:
Mary suffered throughout her whole life, especially at the Crucifixion, as St. John says:
Mary was in pain to deliver not Christ as an infant but the infant Church born from His side:
Christ bore the Church from His side while dead just Adam bore Eve from his side after God put him into a deep sleep.
So Mary's sufferings throughout her life did indeed involve our redemption. Indeed, all our sufferings involve our redemption. Redemption is just more complex than you want to make it out to be.
Not really, Elijah and Enoch were taken to Heaven without first dying and they had Original Sin (and probably actual sins).
Christ died and He did not contract Original Sin. Therefore death is a punishment for Original Sin but it does not follow that everyone who dies is suffering the effects of Original Sin -- since neither Christ nor His Mother suffered those effects.
We have been "chewing" on these for more than 1500 years. These are not new discussions.
Good point. Given it's a dogma for some, you'd think they'd have mentioned it.
Wouldn't say "false", but rather, not necessary for salvation. Sure wouldn't be foolish enough to build a dogma w/out scripture.
The basis of my accusations are still related to the topic at hand. How in the world does the RCC come up with some made up, false doctrine that the virgin Mary was resurrected and ascended to heaven. There is no basis to this whatsoever. What is the RCC going to come up with next? Santa Claus and the Easter bunny are actually real?
it is not necessary for salvation,
1983 CIC #750-751 said:Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
What law? And how do you know my church?
It has no basis or requisite. Loving Mary has nothing to do with loving Christ other than the love which we should have for each and every soul placed on this earth for his or her intended purpose.
You find a person to be outside a state of grace, yet in your church; and the congregation and the priests walk out justified.
Back on track here, as far as "inspired" writing is concerned; I do not find nor acknowledge any divine inspiration other than that spoken of in the Holy Bible...the rest is dust. Therefore, all this false doctrine about Mary's resurrection is make-believe and has no truth in it.
Thanks for your ruminations. Yes, I agree that this is hardly a new discussion. However, there are aspects of the discussion which do remain unresolved, not in Christendom in general, but in Catholicism in particular. As has been posted here, there are Catholics who disagree with the view that Mary died at all. Their theology of the Assumption differs significantly from your own.
Thanks again.
I also agree. If this was so incredibly important to our faith and salvation, then you would think God would have mentioned something about it in His Word... if it were that important. However, Mary is not mentioned after the 1st chapter of Acts.
Your church is lying to you.
It's not part of the official dogma. But the idea that she never died wasn't known until the 17th century and has always been an assertion by a very small number of people. I would say that her Dormition has been believed "always, everywhere and by all" (which is the definition of Catholicity by St. Vincent of Lerins) and therefore can't really be contested.
One might also say that Feeneyism -- the denial of the efficacy of baptism of desire and baptism of blood -- is not unorthodox since Fr. Feeney was reconciled without recanting and the monastery he founded is in full communion. But Feeneyism is held by only a tiny minority of Catholics and the immemorial practice and the Doctors of the Church are against them. Therefore, their position can be dismissed fairly easily.
-snip-
It is necessary to hold everything the Church teaches. It was defined dogmatically not to combat any particular heresy (as most dogmas had been prior to this) but rather to inspire greater Marian devotion.-snip-
Yes, it's quite serious if it's a Dogma! We don't have the assumption of the Theotokos as a dogma because it isn't necessary to believe this for our salvation. We are free to believe this or not (we all mostly believe it, but it's not vital for our souls).Good point. Given it's a dogma for some, you'd think they'd have mentioned it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?