Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: papertyger
I asked, "Do you realize therefore that if someone is aware of the concept of the Assumption of Mary and doubts its truth, that person is not a Christian according to the RCC (Munificentissimus Deus)?" You replied, I'm not aware of ANY Catholic teaching that uses "aware of the concept" as a basis for conviction. Could you be more specific with your citation?

Yes. When I used "aware of the concept", I was responding to when you previously said, "That depends on the level of understanding they had informing that rejection."; I was pointing out that anyone who is aware of the "Assumption of Mary" concept and doubts its validity is not a true Christian, according to the RCC via Munificentissimus Deus and by your 'level of understanding' criteria; there simply is no way around that.

Assuming you'd agree with me that people were actually saved before the Assumption of Mary became official RCC doctrine (and maybe before The Church began even), would you like to take a stab at explaining why believing in the Assumption of Mary would become a necessary part of Salvation only so many hundreds of years after the actual event was supposedly acknowledged by many early Believers through apostolic tradition, yet was of no significance to them while they defined what it took to be Saved? Why do you think the Holy Spirit didn't convict those early Believers of the extreme importance of the Assumption of Mary back at the beginning of the Church, if it were indeed so necessary for Salvation?

Which scenario do you honestly believe to be more plausible: 1) God didn't care at first, but slowly realized over time that true Believers actually did need to believe in the Assumption of Mary as proof that they were properly convicted by the Holy Spirit; or 2) the RCC didn't receive that teaching from the Holy Spirit, but instead pulled that requirement for Salvation out of the ether to further its worship of Mary, Queen of Heaven?

If scenario 2 is true, that would mean that the RCC is just the Jesus and Mary cult, and not the true Church of Christ, correct? It would then stand to reason that instead of being a necessary part of the Salvation process, the RCC would be a hindrance to it, wouldn't it? If scenario 2 isn't true, could you dispassionately explain why/how scenario 1 would be more plausible because admittedly, it looks to me that the RCC is an exclusive club started by arrogant control freaks who liked to exert power over others by claiming to have God's Stamp of Approval™ on their dogma i.e. the RCC is just your typical cult.

157 posted on 05/15/2008 4:20:46 AM PDT by BizarroNo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]


To: BizarroNo1
I was pointing out that anyone who is aware of the "Assumption of Mary" concept and doubts its validity is not a true Christian, according to the RCC via Munificentissimus Deus...

And I very clearly asked you for a more specific citation.

Is there a problem with that?

158 posted on 05/15/2008 5:02:24 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson