The death of the Virgin in RCC imagery

Dorothea said:

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).

Click to expand...

Why do you think RC made it a dogma for their group?

Standing Up said:

Why do you think RC made it a dogma for their group?

Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't know why. I'm sure a member of the RCC could probably answer the question better than I could.

bbbbbbb said:

I don't think that it is really fair to equate Feeneyism with the belief that Mary did not taste death. In my understanding, such a comparison is like comparing the Ku Klux Klan with the Democratic Party.

Click to expand...

Huh? Why are Feeneyites like the KKK? I mean, I think their denial of the efficacy of baptism of desire and baptism of blood are incorrect and contrary to the teaching of the Church since Augustine and the immemorial practices of the Church (such as that catechumens who die prior to baptism are counted the same as those who have been baptized and accorded a Catholic funeral and burial). Feeneyism is a hypercorrection against the false ecumenism that Fr. Feeney was rightly worried about. But how in the world did you go from that to the KKK?

Most KKK members have traditionally been Democrats, so is that the comparison? I'm lost.

I do agree, however, that the historicity of the belief in the physical death of Mary is unassailable. The opposing view, as you have correctly stated, cannot be traced prior to the seventeenth century and depends in large part upon a view of divine revelation.

Click to expand...

So then the original topic of this thread, that Mary died prior to her resurrection and translation into Heaven, is no surprise to anyone -- it is, by far, the prevailing belief.

Such a view is hardly unknown within the Catholic Church as evidenced by various evolutions of doctrines which have little or no traceable history to the Apostolic era.

Click to expand...

It is not necessary to prove each and every one of the Church's teachings to have been written about by an Apostle. It is enough to prove that the apparent Catholic Church is the true Catholic Church and then to adhere to what She teaches as the Word of God.

Catholic dogma is not based on private revelations. Private revelations -- even if they do not conflict with the faith an appear to be pious or even have miraculous approbation -- are, by their very nature, private and not intended for the Church as a whole. We adhere to the teachings of the Apostles, which are vetted by Scripture and reason. The various stories of the Dormition, although they give us context and fill out what we know (like the Acts of Peter and Paul), are not the final basis for our belief or the dogmatic definition.

Why are written accounts so necessary? One thread insisted that a teaching had to be included in some writing prior to AD 70 -- 37 years after Pentecost. Some scholars don't even say that all the books of the New Testament were written by then. There are no actual copies of any of the writings which actually date back that far, it's a textual thing, there aren't copies even of the Gospels that date back before AD 200 (and these were only discovered in the 20th c., prior to that, no one had any that they could date back before the 4th or 5th c.). So it's not as though we have everything that has ever been written and we can just flip through a library and see when things start being written about. We have scattered and fragmentary evidence.

One of St. Augustine's arguments for the existence of Original Sin is that the Church baptizes infants. Now, nowhere that I know of, is there evidence of any sort of arguments on the question of baptizing infants, whenever it is written about, it is just something that is done. Epiphanius, as discussed earlier, says that there are varied accounts and he may be right but we certainly know what was the prevailing account.

If we were talking about any secular, non-miraculous event, would there be any doubt that these records were true? Of course not, we have multiple variations on the story that exist, which are not the basis for but rather the evidence of this event being part of the teachings of the Apostles.

The Bible was not written as a manifesto for a religion, it is wrong to look at it that way. It was Authored by God, yes, but that doesn't make it definitive -- it doesn't mean that the Apostles never taught things that they didn't also write about. St. Paul even says so explicitly:

2Th 2:14 said:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Click to expand...

St. John ends his Gospel by saying:

Jn 21:25 said:

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.

Click to expand...

St. Luke, who was not an Apostle, opens his by saying:

Lk 1:1-4 said:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us; according as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: it seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.

Click to expand...

There was a body of teaching which existed outside and apart from the New Testament. We can deduce some of the teachings of the Church based on what is written about in the New Testament, and indeed these words are Divinely inspired, but it is still to the teachings given to the Church which are the real substance of the faith. I said in another thread that we do not build our Church on what the New Testament says, but rather the New Testament was based on our Church. It is wrong to look at the New Testament as a blueprint for building a man-made church, but rather it is written about the faith of the Church founded by Christ on the Apostles, the Church which still exists today.

The vast majority of the Christian world accepts that Mary was died, raised from the dead and taken, body and soul, into Heaven. This is what the Church teaches and there has been no corruption in Her teachings -- this we must accept by faith, based on the evidence presented to us. It is part of an integrated system -- you cannot take one teaching away without the rest falling apart.

Standing Up said:

Why do you think that they believe that it is important to inspirre greater Marian devotion? Why do they think greater Marian devotion is a positive or necessary thing? Who benefits?

Click to expand...

God ultimately, of course, but us as well by saving more souls and building the kingdom of heaven on earth -- that is, the Church Militant.

IOW, the dogma wasn't declared for the first 1800 years, why now?

Click to expand...

It was nearly 1900 years actually after the Dormition. But if you want to know why, read the document: Pope Pius XII -- Munificentissimus Deus

There was a popular effort to have the Assumption declared as dogma, just as the Fifth Marian Dogma efforts have been going on for the past several decades. So then the Holy See made a survey of bishops, asking them what they thought and what those in their diocese thought. The only people who objected were a small number who were concerned that declaring it to be a dogma of the faith might effect reunification efforts with the Eastern Orthodox (this is also a concern for the Fifth Marian Dogma).

The universality of this teaching is such that:

Munificentissimus Deus said:

Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven -- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned -- is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church.

Click to expand...

St. Vincent of Lerins, who I referred to earlier, defined Catholic teaching as:

St. Vincent of Lerins (+445) said:

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

Click to expand...

Thus because the belief in Mary's Assumption has been believed "everywhere, always, by all" (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus), we can be certain that it is part of the Catholic faith. What Pope Pius XII did in 1950 was elevate the Assumption from the level of dogma by reason of the universal and ordinary Magisterium (which is that "everywhere, always, by all") to the level of the extraordinary Magisterium (the level of which dogmas are defined formally by Ecumenical Councils or, in at least two cases, by the pope) and give it a formal definition.

Why do this? Why does the Queen of England have so many titles? For example, Queen Elizabeth II was:

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem.

Why? Because it accords her more honor. The more honor we accord Mary, the more honor we accord the One who formed and fashioned her as the crowning glory of His Creation. The more honor and praise we give to God, the more graces He gives to us (through the hands of Mary). That is why it is important. That is also why the Fifth Marian Dogma is important -- because the Church desperately needs the maternal love and guidance of Our Blessed Mother in order to restore her and to save souls.

bbbbbbb said:

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.

Click to expand...

they are resolved for us. you are the guys with issues

Michael Collum said:

Your church that tolerates or supports the teaching you are espousing on this thread . you treat the scriptures as though they were the old testament law .

Click to expand...

Does it? Have you been to my church?

I treat Scripture as it should be treated, as the divinely inspired texts of God.

PilgrimToChrist said:

Do you have evidence or just baseless assertions?

Click to expand...

So many different places to start I don't know where to begin first. Let's start with your Eucharist being literal blood and flesh. There's no evidence of this and if we pump your stomach afterward we are only going to find your DNA in there.

There is no evidence of Mary's resurrection nor ascension, but you believe it happened...why? Your church says so. If your church told you to drink the red koolaid...would you?


CATHOLIC TRADITION - Call priests father, e.g., Father McKinley.

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Forbidding the priesthood to marry.

1 Timothy
4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary remained a perpetual virgin.

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary is the queen of heaven.

Jeremiah
7:17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
7:19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Saved, in part, by good works.

Do we even need to go there?

CATHOLIC TRADITION - The church is founded on Peter.

1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Confessing sins to a priest. Petitioning saints and Mary.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus [not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope];

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm

bbbbbbb said:

Contrary to what many of our Catholic brethren (and sisters, too, I might add) now believe, the teaching of the Catholic Church was, for centuries, that Mary died.

The primary question is, if the Assumption of Mary is dogmatic Truth for all time and has always been believed by the (Catholic) Church, why is the evidence clearly opposed to this belief?

Click to expand...

The RCC does not teach what you think it does. The assumption of Our Lady follows her dormition, aka her death to this world.

98cwitr said:

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.

Click to expand...

That language is not really what the RCC says. Our Lady died, the apostles gathered to grieve her loss, and at some point afterwards her body was assumed into heaven. This is NOT the same thing as an earthly resurrection. As far as anyone here on earth knew, she died and then her body disappeared. She was not seen again, eating and drinking after her death, as the Lord was.

Just as Our Lord lives in heaven in his human body, just as he did on earth, so his mother is beside him, also still in her human form. There is precedent for this in the OT. Enoch also was assumed into heaven, and so was Elijah. For a description of how this happens, take a look at 2 Kings 2 11-12. Elisha could see the angels and therefore is able to describe to us what happens. We do not have the same description in Acts because the dormition happened long after it was written, and Luke is focussing on Paul's ministry. We also don't have the death of Peter and Paul, or of James and John, but we know that they happened, and we know how. The early church revered there memory, and kept it alive.

For most of us, the angels take our souls to God, and our bodies are left until the Resurrection of the Dead; St Cuthbert describes seeing the soul of St Aiden being taken this way, when he was a shepherd on a hillside. For some very few souls, the body is also taken into heaven, but we can see from the OT that there is a precedent for this. Elijah was not resurrected; he was assumed into heaven. The same is true of Our Lady.

Therefore the language of resurrection is not appropriate, and is not anything to do with Catholic teaching. If you are going to rail against Catholic teaching, the least you could do is to find out what that teaching actually entails.

So why is this amazing feat not included in any of the Bible? You think, if it we so amazingly true and that the apostles were there to witness this, it would have been recorded in canon.

AveMaria_45 said:

Yes. and i am taking a study course too. everyone here should try it its free.

Click to expand...

Many thanks for the link, AM. That looks a really good site!

98cwitr said:

That's some brain washing stuff right there...let's discredit the Bible and then suggest that our writings and way of thinking can improve upon Christianity or shed some sort of epiphanic insight upon scripture b/c it's incomplete or inconclusive...yeah Im not buying that.

Click to expand...

Well, I am sorry to tell you that there is not one single denomination on earth that agrees with you that the Bible interprets itself, and does not need further comment from anyone. Christian bookshops everywhere testify that the Bible is NOT complete, and that we need also the interpretation of the Holy Spirit in order to gain the fullness of any truth contained in Scripture.

On its own, without the Holy Spirit, the Bible is indeed incomplete, inconclusive and fallible.

So then I'm asking you.... blatantly and as directly as I possibly can: Do you believe that the Bible is true?

It's a closed ended question btw.

Click to expand...

No. To me, it is verging on blasphemy, and it is certainly NOT warranted in Scripture itself to make any such claim.

The Lord said, 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.'

Therefore, if you are looking for an absolute, you will find it in the Lord; He is True. Anything less than him is also necessarily less true than he is. And that is as much the case for the Bible as it is of any other part of God's creation. Perfection belongs to God alone, and God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Nothing else.

If you want to consider this issue further, I recommend the following article:

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

How can an ancient narrative text be authoritative? How, for instance, can the book of Judges, or the book of Acts, be authoritative? It is one thing to go to your commanding officer first thing in the morning and have a string of commands barked at you. But what would you do if, instead, he began ‘Once upon a time . . .’?

Click to expand...

98cwitr said:

Or am I wrong, do you consider the Bible to be true? Is it infallible and inerrant?

Click to expand...

As an Anglican, I cannot be asked to believe anything that is not able to be read in and proven by Scripture. The infallibilty and inerrancy of Scripture are assumed, but not written. Therefore, they are interpretation, and not Scripture. And if they are not Scripture, then there is no reason on earth why any Christian should believe them.

Sola Scriptura, therefore, is itself sufficient grounds for rejecting the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Quite simply, it is NOT written. Anyone who chooses to follow Sola Scriptura also flies in the face of written Scripture, and instead follows a modern, man-made gospel, counter to the one we have been given.

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Click to expand...

Anyone who believes the Bible to be true, cannot at the same time believe it to be infallible, because such a claim is not written in Scripture.

QED

Good luck with that.

Catherineanne said:

Well, I am sorry to tell you that there is not one single denomination on earth that agrees with you that the Bible interprets itself, and does not need further comment from anyone. Christian bookshops everywhere testify that the Bible is NOT complete, and that we need also the interpretation of the Holy Spirit in order to gain the fullness of any truth contained in Scripture.

On its own, without the Holy Spirit, the Bible is indeed incomplete, inconclusive and fallible.



No. To me, it is verging on blasphemy, and it is certainly NOT warranted in Scripture itself to make any such claim.

The Lord said, 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.'

Therefore, if you are looking for an absolute, you will find it in the Lord; He is True. Anything less than him is also necessarily less true than he is. And that is as much the case for the Bible as it is of any other part of God's creation. Perfection belongs to God alone, and God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Nothing else.

If you want to consider this issue further, I recommend the following article:

How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright

Click to expand...

Great thing that Christianity, real Christianity, is not based on denominational beliefs nor the opinions of Christian bookstore owners

You have got to be kidding me. Of all possible websites on the Internet, you cite jesus-is-lord. Amazing. When in doubt, conspiracy theory nutjob websites to the rescue! Did you just type something into Google and pick the first result?

98cwitr said:

So many different places to start I don't know where to begin first. Let's start with your Eucharist being literal blood and flesh. There's no evidence of this and if we pump your stomach afterward we are only going to find your DNA in there.

Click to expand...

Look up Eucharistic miracles.

There is no evidence of Mary's resurrection nor ascension, but you believe it happened...why? Your church says so. If your church told you to drink the red koolaid...would you?

Click to expand...

No different than you believing that the Bible is inspired because it says so. I find it odd how you harp on empirical evidence for matters of faith when the entire Christian religion is founded upon something that is not empirically possible and has absolutely zero empirical evidence that it occurred.

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Call priests father, e.g., Father McKinley.

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Click to expand...

Do you call your biological father "male parental unit"? Because if you read this verse that way, you had better be doing so.

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Forbidding the priesthood to marry.

1 Timothy
4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Click to expand...

Only priests in the Latin rite are required to be celibate, and even then there are exceptions. Also, let's not forget the exhortation of celibacy by Paul.

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary remained a perpetual virgin.

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Click to expand...

Can be also translated as "brethren," "cousins," etc. I prefer to go with the historical belief, not a Protestant innovation.

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary is the queen of heaven.

Jeremiah
7:17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
7:19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?

Click to expand...

Except that probably refers to Asherah. It's in the Old Testament. I'm sure you can do better than using a ~650 year anachronism as an argument against Mary's title as the Queen of Heaven.

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Saved, in part, by good works.

Do we even need to go there?

Click to expand...

Since you don't understand it, probably.

CATHOLIC TRADITION - The church is founded on Peter.

1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 3:10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. (NIV)

It's fun when context destroys arguments. It's even more fun when the context is one verse prior to the out of context verse used to make the argument.

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Confessing sins to a priest. Petitioning saints and Mary.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus [not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope];

Click to expand...

[]s are eisegesis to the extreme. Also shows a basic misunderstanding of Catholic theology. Praying to the Saints is asking the Saints to intercede to God. Confession is elsewhere in the Bible: "whose sins you forgive are forgiven. Those whose sins you retain are retained." The theology behind Confession also explicitly states it is Christ doing the forgiving. But let's not let pesky facts get in the way of fabricated reality!

The Roman Catholic "Church" is Not Christian

Click to expand...

Because a site that claims the NIV deletes verses and tells us that we should "Print out and bind [our] own" KJV because "Heathen publishers are making changes to the Authorized King James Bible" is an entirely reliable source of information!

KJV-onlyism is a joke. It's quite possibly the height of cognitive dissonance in Protestant movements. The Johanine Comma destroys the entire notion alone.

Let's not forget the ridiculous accusations that evolution is a religion and that "there are no transitional fossils!" silliness. Oh, and how about "mental health professionals are witch doctors"? Yeah, that's some smart advice right there.

Oh, how about the "Jesuit Oath Exposed"? Too bad that was proven to be a forgery created by anti-Catholics in the early 20th century. Yet, it's on that site, presented in all its forged glory as if it were something true.

And for some final funnies, let's not forget that this guy advocates returning to the "good old days" where Catholics couldn't be politicians and where the "filthy trance medium" of television didn't exist. After all, if you have a television, you're apparently not Christian: "And if you watch that filthy trance medium called tv, shame on you! You cannot have a sanctified home if you are not sanctified! Are you a Christian or not?"

Don't forget you make sure that you home school your children and only use the Bible (the Authorized KJV of course). Everything else is heresy and Evil.

This guy is, to put it simply, crazy. He advocates shutting yourself off from the world and reading only the Bible. Cut yourself off from television. Cut yourself off from the Internet. Don't read that blasphemy out there. That's all the makings of cultic groupthink right there.

If you want to have a discussion, post valid objections from sites that aren't run by lunatics. It will help you in the long run.

98cwitr said:

So why is this amazing feat not included in any of the Bible? You think, if it we so amazingly true and that the apostles were there to witness this, it would have been recorded in canon.

Click to expand...

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
John 21:25

In other words, we can infer from Scripture what did happen. We cannot infer from Scripture what didn't. The Bible is the story of God's gradual revelation of himself to mankind over many thousands of years, made perfect in the coming of the Lord; the Incarnation. What we have is a selection of highlights in the path of that revelation. What we do not have is an exhaustive history of Judaism and the early church.

The first and second century Christians did not distinguish between patristic writing and Scripture; to them it would all have been regarded as Scripture (ie writings). This distinction came much later, as has already been noted on this thread. The idea of having one discrete body of writings, with a particular status as the word of God, was unknown to the early church, for the very good reason that most of them would have been illiterate. Therefore they would not know to put a particular element into the special status writings; it was enough to pass the stories down orally.

And this is exactly what they did. The OT was the same, for much of its history its writings were conveyed orally. When God's word is passed on in the OT, mostly it is spoken, and not written.

Dorothea said:

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).

Click to expand...

Very good point. I am in agreement that one can or cannot believe this teaching and still be saved. However, to elevate it to the stature of something as essential as the Trinity either debases those dogmas or opens the door to heresy (division of the church over non-dogmatic issues).

Dark_Lite said:

This guy is, to put it simply, crazy. He advocates shutting yourself off from the world and reading only the Bible. Cut yourself off from television. Cut yourself off from the Internet.

Click to expand...

... On the other hand, if any 'Bible believing' Christian here feels called to chuck out the PC, live in a shed, live on locusts and wild honey and get down to some serious reading, go ahead.

Catherineanne said:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
John 21:25

In other words, we can infer from Scripture what did happen. We cannot infer from Scripture what didn't. The Bible is the story of God's gradual revelation of himself to mankind over many thousands of years, made perfect in the coming of the Lord; the Incarnation. What we have is a selection of highlights in the path of that revelation. What we do not have is an exhaustive history of Judaism and the early church.

The first and second century Christians did not distinguish between patristic writing and Scripture; to them it would all have been regarded as Scripture (ie writings). This distinction came much later, as has already been noted on this thread. The idea of having one discrete body of writings, with a particular status as the word of God, was unknown to the early church, for the very good reason that most of them would have been illiterate. Therefore they would not know to put a particular element into the special status writings; it was enough to pass the stories down orally.

And this is exactly what they did. The OT was the same, for much of its history its writings were conveyed orally. When God's word is passed on in the OT, mostly it is spoken, and not written.

Click to expand...

not in context. Yes, Jesus did many other things...I see no mention of Mary there.

98cwitr said:

Great thing that Christianity, real Christianity, is not based on denominational beliefs nor the opinions of Christian bookstore owners

Click to expand...

So, you are taking the soundbyte approach, rather than that of reasoned consideration of the points made?

Fair enough.

Dark_Lite said:

You have got to be kidding me. Of all possible websites on the Internet, you cite jesus-is-lord. Amazing. When in doubt, conspiracy theory nutjob websites to the rescue! Did you just type something into Google and pick the first result?

Yes


Look up Eucharistic miracles.

Got a good link? God forbid I pull up some biased site

No different than you believing that the Bible is inspired because it says so. I find it odd how you harp on empirical evidence for matters of faith when the entire Christian religion is founded upon something that is not empirically possible and has absolutely zero empirical evidence that it occurred.

Sorry I didn't know that empirical evidence was required

Do you call your biological father "male parental unit"? Because if you read this verse that way, you had better be doing so.

No, I have always called him "Dad"

Only priests in the Latin rite are required to be celibate, and even then there are exceptions. Also, let's not forget the exhortation of celibacy by Paul.

And why is that?

Can be also translated as "brethren," "cousins," etc. I prefer to go with the historical belief, not a Protestant innovation.

We'll never be in consensus about this one. Let's agree to disagree

Except that probably refers to Asherah. It's in the Old Testament. I'm sure you can do better than using a ~650 year anachronism as an argument against Mary's title as the Queen of Heaven.

Or maybe you can find me one iota of proof that Mary is the Queen of Heaven in Scripture

Since you don't understand it, probably.

Works salvation, in whole or part, is heresy. Romans 9:16

1 Corinthians 3:10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. (NIV)

It's fun when context destroys arguments. It's even more fun when the context is one verse prior to the out of context verse used to make the argument.

Was that Peter talking? Or Paul?

[]s are eisegesis to the extreme. Also shows a basic misunderstanding of Catholic theology. Praying to the Saints is asking the Saints to intercede to God. Confession is elsewhere in the Bible: "whose sins you forgive are forgiven. Those whose sins you retain are retained." The theology behind Confession also explicitly states it is Christ doing the forgiving. But let's not let pesky facts get in the way of fabricated reality!

Really? So are you talking to the priest or God when you say "Bless me father, for I have sinned."

Because a site that claims the NIV deletes verses and tells us that we should "Print out and bind [our] own" KJV because "Heathen publishers are making changes to the Authorized King James Bible" is an entirely reliable source of information!

KJV-onlyism is a joke. It's quite possibly the height of cognitive dissonance in Protestant movements. The Johanine Comma destroys the entire notion alone.

Im with you...I'll never trust a Bible with a man's name on the cover...plus Genesis 22:1 KJV just discredits the whole thing for me

Let's not forget the ridiculous accusations that evolution is a religion and that "there are no transitional fossils!" silliness. Oh, and how about "mental health professionals are witch doctors"? Yeah, that's some smart advice right there.

Oh, how about the "Jesuit Oath Exposed"? Too bad that was proven to be a forgery created by anti-Catholics in the early 20th century. Yet, it's on that site, presented in all its forged glory as if it were something true.

And for some final funnies, let's not forget that this guy advocates returning to the "good old days" where Catholics couldn't be politicians and where the "filthy trance medium" of television didn't exist. After all, if you have a television, you're apparently not Christian: "And if you watch that filthy trance medium called tv, shame on you! You cannot have a sanctified home if you are not sanctified! Are you a Christian or not?"

Don't forget you make sure that you home school your children and only use the Bible (the Authorized KJV of course). Everything else is heresy and Evil.

This guy is, to put it simply, crazy. He advocates shutting yourself off from the world and reading only the Bible. Cut yourself off from television. Cut yourself off from the Internet. Don't read that blasphemy out there. That's all the makings of cultic groupthink right there.

If you want to have a discussion, post valid objections from sites that aren't run by lunatics. It will help you in the long run.

Click to expand...

The rest I agree with