YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT CATHOLICISM

[Albion]

In the Immaculate Conception doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church it states that .......

"Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

Immaculate, meaning "without stain," implies that Mary herself was preserved from original sin at conception, that she was born without a sin nature, and that she lived a sinless life.

I don't believe that it necessarily does imply that, and the statement you quoted seems to take care not to suggest it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

There are two very gray areas concerning the Roman Catholic dogmas of the immaculate conception of Mary and the assumption of Mary.

Although it is widely believed and taught in the Roman Catholic church that Mary never at any point in her life sinned and, in actual fact, was highly resistant, if not completely impervious, to sin of any kind, the actual wording comes just a hair from declaring her to be a goddess with the same impeccability as Jesus Christ, so from a very technical standpoint she is just the slightest level from being a goddess.

The second is the death of Mary. As scripture clearly states, "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 3:23). All who sin do die physically. Thus, it becomes problematic for an utterly sinless human to die. So, the question arises as to whether or not Mary did die. There are multitudes of depictions of the death of Mary from about the seventh century and onward. Thus, it is quite evident that both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches did believe that she actually died physically. So, the questions arise, logically, that if she was utterly sinless, did she die and, if so, why? The dogma of the assumption of the Virgin Mary skirts the issue with the intentionally vague statement that when her earthly life was finished she was assumed directly into heaven.

 

[Albion]

There are two very gray areas concerning the Roman Catholic dogmas of the immaculate conception of Mary and the assumption of Mary.

I disagree when we are speaking of the dogma itself.

If the point is what Catholics often think about these ideas, etc., that would be different; but with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, the church's declared position is pretty clear. That has nothing to do with whether the position(s) taken is correct or not, though.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I disagree when we are speaking of the dogma itself.

If the point is what Catholics often think about these ideas, etc., that would be different; but with the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, the church's declared position is pretty clear. That has nothing to do with whether the position(s) taken is correct or not, though.

Here are the links to the Wikipedia articles which are helpful, I think. Ineffabilis Deus - Wikipedia and Assumption of Mary - Wikipedia

In the first article concerning the immaculate conception it is evident that the Catholic Church went as close as possible to define Mary's relation to sin as being that of a goddess, but not did not actually cross the line. That, however, has not limited Catholics from connecting the dots and issuing calls for a dogmatic statement from the Pope affirming Mary as co-redemptrix, based in very large part to the dogma of the immaculate conception.

The dogma of the assumption is much murkier. It is simply stated as "We proclaim and define it to be a dogma revealed by God that the immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever virgin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven." The vagary comes with what is actually meant by "the course of her earthly life was finished." Does that mean that she died and was subsequently assumed into heaven or that she actually did not die physically but was assumed into heaven as Enoch and Elijah in the Old Testament were? I think you will find sincere Catholics on both sides of that debate.

 

[Albion]

In the first article concerning the immaculate conception it is evident that the Catholic Church went as close as possible to define Mary's relation to sin as being that of a goddess....

That would be a matter of opinion, wouldn't it? What the doctrine holds is that God, by a special act, kept Mary from having any stain of Original Sin.

That, however, has not limited Catholics from connecting the dots and issuing calls for a dogmatic statement from the Pope affirming Mary as co-redemptrix, based in very large part to the dogma of the immaculate conception.

If and when the Vatican agrees, and whether or not it's accurate to say that this action would be "based in very large part to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception," the dogma we were speaking of holds that Mary was conceived without Original Sin. That's it.

The dogma of the assumption is much murkier. It is simply stated as "We proclaim and define it to be a dogma revealed by God that the immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever virgin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven."

The vagary comes with what is actually meant by "the course of her earthly life was finished." Does that mean that she died and was subsequently assumed into heaven or that she actually did not die physically but was assumed into heaven as Enoch and Elijah in the Old Testament were?

The church's explanation is that we (they) do not know, but either way, the physical body of Mary was assumed into heaven by God. That's it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That would be a matter of opinion, wouldn't it? What the doctrine holds is that God, by a special act, kept Mary from having any stain of Original Sin.


If and when the Vatican agrees, and whether or not it's accurate to say that this action would be "based in very large part to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception," the dogma we were speaking of holds that Mary was conceived without Original Sin. That's it.


The church's explanation is that we (they) do not know, but either way, the physical body of Mary was assumed into heaven by God. That's it.

This is quite a curiosity. At one time both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches did know and believe that Mary died. Hence we have the doctrine of the dormition of Mary and innumerable Orthodox Churches named after that doctrine. Now the Roman Catholic Church does not know and will not speculate about the Dormition of Mary, but knows with the utmost certainty that Mary was assumed into heaven.

 

[whatdoyounkiooo]

Welcome to the Church Teaching section of Catholics Come Home. Here we will provide you with answers to your questions about Catholicism and with tools to help you explore the beautiful and timeless teachings of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church has been devoted to spreading truth since she was founded by Christ 2,000 years ago. The late Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said, “It is easy to find truth; it is hard to face it, and harder still to follow it.” Pray that Christ will lead you to find truth, and that your heart will be open to the truth wherever you may find it.

Within each topic, you will find common questions asked by Catholics and non-Catholics about certain Catholic beliefs. After reading through the explanations we have provided, take time to learn more by using the many links we have provided in each section.


FIND ANSWERS TO YOUR OBJECTIONS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT:

Your Questions About Catholicism | Catholics Come Home

Why do you believe that Jesus started the Catholic organization?

 

[chevyontheriver]

I hear what you are saying. Now with all due respect to you, and I have no reason to be argumentative about what you believe ...

I hope that's true. So many discussions in CF are argumentative.

Now, having said that, may I just ask you where specifically in the Scriptures you studied did you find "The Assumption of Mary"

The study I referred to in previous posts was centered on soteriology. The topic of Mary came a bit later.

I looked at Rev 11 and Rev 12. There is a lot of typology employed there. And a humongous switch from the Ark of the Covenant in chapter 11 to the Woman of chapter 12. It made no sense to me until I found out that Mary is referred to as the Ark of the Covenant in the Fathers. So, having identified the subject of Rev 11 and 12 as Mary, it was clear to me that Mary was the woman clothed with the sun, in heaven, with the moon under her feet and having a crown of twelve stars.

The Assumption of Mary is a Roman Catholic doctrine, and to a lesser degree, proclaimed on
November 1, 1950, in his Munificentissimus Deus. This teaching states that the "Immaculate Virgin," the mother of Jesus, "after the completion of her earthly life was assumed body and soul into the glory of Heaven."

Ask an Orthodox person where the body of Mary is, or for that matter whether they have relics of her body in any Orthodox church. Catholics are clear about what we believe about the body of Mary, but the Orthodox come up with mostly the same answer.

This means that after her death, Mary was assumed into heaven, body, and soul, like Enoch and Elijah.

Where, in your opinion, are the bodies of Enoch and Elijah?

The doctrine further states that Mary was glorified in heaven and is "exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things."

If Jesus is king then Mary is queen. Just like Bathsheba was queen for Solomon.

Since the originator of the thread said this was about Bible TRUTH, why do you accept this Cathodic teaching which is not found anywhere in the Bible?????

?????

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I hear what you are saying. Now with all due respect to you, and I have no reason to be argumentative about what you believe as you stated that Bible Scripture cleared up your "wavering".

Now, having said that, may I just ask you where specifically in the Scriptures you studied did you find "The Assumption of Mary"

The Assumption of Mary is a Roman Catholic doctrine, and to a lesser degree, proclaimed on
November 1, 1950, in his Munificentissimus Deus. This teaching states that the "Immaculate Virgin," the mother of Jesus, "after the completion of her earthly life was assumed body and soul into the glory of Heaven."

This means that after her death, Mary was assumed into heaven, body, and soul, like Enoch and Elijah. The doctrine further states that Mary was glorified in heaven and is "exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things."

Since the originator of the thread said this was about Bible TRUTH, why do you accept this Cathodic teaching which is not found anywhere in the Bible?????

Scripture is silent, however there is some "extra biblical" anecdotal evidence (sketchy though it may be) regarding the discovery of her tomb by Constantine's wife St. Helena; tradition holds that it was empty.

Scripture is also silent about her death.

Scripture does however tell us that God can do (at least two (or three) times if we count the remains of Moses.

Does this sound like something our Lord might do for His mother, since we agree that he can? The answer is yes.

In various ways, this was held as "pious opinion" by Christians since very early times. Since Scripture is silent but neither condemns nor prohibits holding this opinion, Christians are free to do so, or to reject it as they see fit.

In most Lutheran Churches, we still mark the "Feast of St. Mary, Mother of our Lord" on August 15, just like the Assumption/Dormation. As Lutherans, we consider this Adiaphora, or a thing of indifference that we are free to hold or reject.

As others have stated, the idea of the Immaculate Conception is at odds with scripture, as is giving her the status similar to a demi-god.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no historic evidence for (or against) the assumption of Mary - or John the Baptist or any of the apostles - all of which can be theologically justified as having been assumed, especially John (cf. John 21:20-23). None of their bodies have been identified nor their graves with the possible exception of Peter.

If, in fact, any of these individuals had been assumed directly into heaven it is quite amazing that their contemporaries were so indifferent to this amazing miracle that none of them took the time and effort to mention it in any of their writings, including the myriad of texts rejected as non-canonical. On balance, it is exceedingly improbable that these miracles (one or many) ever happened.

 

[Major1]

Scripture is silent, however there is some "extra biblical" anecdotal evidence (sketchy though it may be) regarding the discovery of her tomb by Constantine's wife St. Helena; tradition holds that it was empty.

Scripture is also silent about her death.

Scripture does however tell us that God can do (at least two (or three) times if we count the remains of Moses.

Does this sound like something our Lord might do for His mother, since we agree that he can? The answer is yes.

In various ways, this was held as "pious opinion" by Christians since very early times. Since Scripture is silent but neither condemns nor prohibits holding this opinion, Christians are free to do so, or to reject it as they see fit.

In most Lutheran Churches, we still mark the "Feast of St. Mary, Mother of our Lord" on August 15, just like the Assumption/Dormation. As Lutherans, we consider this Adiaphora, or a thing of indifference that we are free to hold or reject.

As others have stated, the idea of the Immaculate Conception is at odds with scripture, as is giving her the status similar to a demi-god.

"Scripture is SILENT" actually means in everyday English.......
There are NO Scriptures in the Bible that say, or even suggest the "Assumption of Mary.

That being the case, this RCC doctrine then is based on MANS OPINION instead of the Word of God.

 

[Albion]

This is quite a curiosity. At one time both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches did know and believe that Mary died. Hence we have the doctrine of the dormition of Mary and innumerable Orthodox Churches named after that doctrine. Now the Roman Catholic Church does not know and will not speculate about the Dormition of Mary, but knows with the utmost certainty that Mary was assumed into heaven.

I hear you, and I hope I didn't make my points badly.

My comments were only to the effect that the church's definitions about these two doctrines are limited. If the average Catholic and the clergy too have taken the ball and run with it to the point that the legend of Mary has been embellished and embellished even more over time, I wouldn't for a moment deny that. But when it comes to these two doctrines themselves, they are not open-ended or hinting at other ideas about her. And of course I'm also not saying that they are Scriptural OR even that they conform to the Catholic concept of Holy Tradition.

 

[Major1]

I hope that's true. So many discussions in CF are argumentative.

The study I referred to in previous posts was centered on soteriology. The topic of Mary came a bit later.

I looked at Rev 11 and Rev 12. There is a lot of typology employed there. And a humongous switch from the Ark of the Covenant in chapter 11 to the Woman of chapter 12. It made no sense to me until I found out that Mary is referred to as the Ark of the Covenant in the Fathers. So, having identified the subject of Rev 11 and 12 as Mary, it was clear to me that Mary was the woman clothed with the sun, in heaven, with the moon under her feet and having a crown of twelve stars.

Ask an Orthodox person where the body of Mary is, or for that matter whether they have relics of her body in any Orthodox church. Catholics are clear about what we believe about the body of Mary, but the Orthodox come up with mostly the same answer.

Where, in your opinion, are the bodies of Enoch and Elijah?

If Jesus is king then Mary is queen. Just like Bathsheba was queen for Solomon.

?????

I have NO reason nor any desire to argue any points. All I do is draw attention to what is being done compared to what is actually said in the Bible...no more no less.

It is then up to the individual to draw their own conclusions.

Now as for the idea of "Soteriology", since through Eve the original fall occurred, it is through the 2nd woman mankind would be restored. There is no term for a second Eve found in the Scriptures. That would be solely a teaching of MEN.

However, there is a last Adam. In 1 Cor.15. Jesus is called this because both Adam and He had a supernatural birth. God blamed Adam for the fall because he was the FEDERAL HEAD of the family and it is Jesus brings us back from the fall to restore us to God and not Mary.

Eve had other children, Eve also fell before she had other children; Eve had sin. If there is any correlation, so did Mary. Yet Catholics deny Mary had a family. Some Catholics even claim Mary was the first Christian; the very definition of being a Christian means one is a sinner in need of a Savior. To say this means she is sinful not sinless. Something the Mary of the Scripture would agree with but the Catholic church does not. Yet Scripture records she said, I rejoice in God my savior..

I have heard several RCC people claim as you do that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant.

Again, I do not argue with you but that claim is again from MEN because it is not found anywhere in the Bible.

Jn.1:14 ....
"The word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory."

In the Greek the word dwelt is skeinoo from the Hebrew word shekinah which was the word for God residing in the tabernacle. Jesus clothed himself in human flesh as seen in Phil.2:5-8, the ark was His body it had carried the creator of the universe.

It was not Mary who was the ark Jesus’ body was the tabernacle. Mary is not the fullness of Graces the scripture is clear on this particular matter. The law came through Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ and it does state of his fullness we have received grace by grace.

"Titus 2:11.......
"For the grace of God has appeared to all men. Through all of the letters we find Grace to you and peace from God our father and the lord Jesus Christ."

IN THE BIBLE, there is no Mary involved in dispensing grace.

Also, to your idea that Mary is the woman in Revelation 12.

It should be pointed out that the proximity, in Chapter 11, of the ark of the covenant provides no basis for an identification of the woman with that object. No suggestion of such a connection can be drawn from any statement in the text. Thus, there would be no exegetical reason to see Christ’s mother as a “new ark,” even if the woman in the following vision could be shown to refer to her, which she is not.

Most Protestant scholars I know believe that the woman of Rev. 12 is ISRAEL and that is also my conclusion.

As for Enoch and Elijah, they are both examples of the Rapture and are in heaven.

Hebrews, 11:5 says.........
"By faith Enoch was transported so that he would not look upon death, and was not found because God had transported him; for before his departure it was testified of him that he pleased God".

Have a great day and be safe!

 

[Major1]

I don't believe that it necessarily does imply that, and the statement you quoted seems to take care not to suggest it.

With all due respect, I for ONE do believe that it does.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I have NO reason nor any desire to argue any points.

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

 

[Albion]

With all due respect, I for ONE do believe that it does.

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."

 

[bbbbbbb]

I hear you, and I hope I didn't make my points badly.

My comments were only to the effect that the church's definitions about these two doctrines are limited. If the average Catholic and the clergy too have taken the ball and run with it to the point that the legend of Mary has been embellished and embellished even more over time, I wouldn't for a moment deny that. But when it comes to these two doctrines themselves, they are not open-ended or hinting at other ideas about her. And of course I'm also not saying that they are Scriptural OR even that they conform to the Catholic concept of Holy Tradition.

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).

 

[bbbbbbb]

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."

I think the clearest evidence of the present understanding of these issues by the Catholic Church is found in the Marian dogmas promulgated ex-cathedra in 1950 and further elaborated at the second Vatican council in 1964. Secondary evidence can also be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[Albion]

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.

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.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

"Scripture is SILENT" actually means in everyday English.......
There are NO Scriptures in the Bible that say, or even suggest the "Assumption of Mary.

That being the case, this RCC doctrine then is based on MANS OPINION instead of the Word of God.

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