THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries

christiantruth.com ^ | William Webster

[Gamecock]

Full Title: THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A Roman Catholic Dogma Originating with Heretics and Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries

The Roman Catholic doctrine of the assumption of Mary teaches that she was assumed body and soul into heaven either without dying or shortly after death. This extraordinary claim was only officially declared to be a dogma of Roman Catholic faith in 1950, though it had been believed by many for hundreds of years. To dispute this doctrine, according to Rome’s teaching, would result in the loss of salvation. The official teaching of the Assumption comes from the decree Munificentissimus Deus by pope Pius XII:

All these proofs and considerations of the holy Fathers and the theologians are based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation. These set the loving Mother of God as it were before our very eyes as most intimately joined to her divine Son and as always sharing His lot. Consequently it seems impossible to think of her, the one who conceived Christ, brought Him forth, nursed Him with her milk, held Him in her arms, and clasped Him to her breast, as being apart from Him in body, even though not in soul, after this earthly life. Since our Redeemer is the Son of Mary, He could not do otherwise, as the perfect observer of God’s law, than to honour, not only His eternal Father, but also His most beloved Mother. And, since it was within His power to grant her this great honour, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that He really acted in this way.
Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.
For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God Who has lavished His special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honour of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare wilfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith...It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul (Munificentissimus Deus, Selected Documenst of Pope Pius XII (Washington: National Catholic Welfare Conference), 38, 40, 44-45, 47).

This is truly an amazing dogma, yet there is no Scriptural proof for it, and even the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:

But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).

In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject. Even Roman Catholic historians readily admit this fact:

In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts...Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).

How then did this teaching come to have such prominence in the Church that eventually led it to be declared an issue of dogma in 1950? The first Church father to affirm explicitly the assumption of Mary in the West was Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D. But the basis for his teaching was not the tradition of the Church but his acceptance of an apocryphal Gospel known as the Transitus Beatae Mariae which we first hear of at the end of the fifth century and which was spuriously attributed to Melito of Sardis. There were many versions of this literature which developed over time and which were found throughout the East and West but they all originated from one source. Mariologist, Juniper Carol, gives the following historical summary of the Transitus literature:

An intriguing corpus of literature on the final lot of Mary is formed by the apocryphal Transitus Mariae. The genesis of these accounts is shrouded in history’s mist. They apparently originated before the close of the fifth century, perhaps in Egypt, perhaps in Syria, in consequence of the stimulus given Marian devotion by the definition of the divine Maternity at Ephesus. The period of proliferation is the sixth century. At least a score of Transitus accounts are extant, in Coptic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. Not all are prototypes, for many are simply variations on more ancient models (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 144).

Thus, the Transitus literature is the real source of the teaching of the assumption of Mary and Roman Catholic authorities admit this fact. Juniper Carol, for example, writes: ‘The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’ (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149). Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, likewise affirms these facts when he says:

The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).

Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian:

The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150).

It was partially through these writings that teachers in the East and West began to embrace and promote the teaching. But it still took several centuries for it to become generally accepted. The earliest extant discourse on the feast of the Dormition affirms that the assumption of Mary comes from the East at the end of the seventh and beginning of the eighth century. The Transitus literature is highly significant as the origin of the assumption teaching and it is important that we understand the nature of these writings. The Roman Catholic Church would have us believe that this apocryphal work expressed an existing, common belief among the faithful with respect to Mary and that the Holy Spirit used it to bring more generally to the Church’s awareness the truth of Mary’s assumption. The historical evidence would suggest otherwise. The truth is that, as with the teaching of the immaculate conception, the Roman Church has embraced and is responsible for promoting teachings which originated, not with the faithful, but with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church. History proves that when the Transitus teaching originated the Church regarded it as heresy. In 494 to 496 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree entitled Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis. This decree officially set forth the writings which were considered to be canonical and those which were apocryphal and were to be rejected. He gives a list of apocryphal writings and makes the following statement regarding them:

The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below some which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics (New Testament Apocrypha, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed. (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1991), p. 38).

In the list of apocryphal writings which are to be rejected Gelasius signifies the following work: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus (Pope Gelasius 1, Epistle 42, Migne Series, M.P.L. vol. 59, Col. 162). This specifically means the Transitus writing of the assumption of Mary. At the end of the decree he states that this and all the other listed literature is heretical and that their authors and teachings and all who adhere to them are condemned and placed under eternal anathema which is indissoluble. And he places the Transitus literature in the same category as the heretics and writings of Arius, Simon Magus, Marcion, Apollinaris, Valentinus and Pelagius. These are his comments. I have provided two translations from authoritative sources:

These and the like, what Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Ebion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Bonosus, who suffered from similar error, also Montanus with his detestable followers, Apollinaris, Valentinus the Manichaean, Faustus the African, Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatus, Sabbatius, Calistus, Donatus, Eustasius, Iovianus, Pelagius, Iulianus of ERclanum, Caelestius, Maximian, Priscillian from Spain, Nestorius of Constantinople, Maximus the Cynic, Lampetius,Dioscorus, Eutyches, Peter and the other Peter, of whom one besmirched Alexandria and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his associates, and what also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics and schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but excluded from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with its authors and the adherents of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever (New Testament Apocrypha, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Ed., (Cambridge: James Clark, 1991).

These and [writings] similar to these, which ... all the heresiarchs and their disciples, or the schismatics have taught or written ... we confess have not only been rejected but also banished from the whole Roman and Apostolic Church and with their authors and followers of their authors have been condemned forever under the indissoluble bond of anathema (Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma (London: Herder, 1954), pp. 69-70).

Pope Gelasius explicitly condemns the authors as well as their writings and the teachings which they promote and all who follow them. And significantly, this entire decree and its condemnation was reaffirmed by Pope Hormisdas in the sixth century around A.D. 520. (Migne Vol. 62. Col. 537-542). These facts prove that the early Church viewed the assumption teaching, not as a legitimate expression of the pious belief of the faithful but as a heresy worthy of condemnation. There are those who question the authority of the so-called Gelasian decree on historical grounds saying that it is spuriously attributed to Gelasius. However, the Roman Catholic authorities Denzinger, Charles Joseph Hefele, W. A. Jurgens and the New Catholic Encyclopedia all affirm that the decree derives from Pope Gelasius, and Pope Nicholas I in a letter to the bishops of Gaul (c. 865 A.D.) officially quotes from this decree and attributes its authorship to Gelasius. (See Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma (London: Herder,1954), pp. 66-69; W. A.Jurgens, TheFaith of theEarlyFathers, vol. I (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1970), p. 404; New CatholicEncyclopedia, vol. VII (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 434; Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), vol. IV, pp. 43-44). While the Gelasian decree may be questioned by some, the decree of Pope Hormisdas reaffirming the Gelasian decree in the early sixth century has not been questioned.

Prior to the seventh and eighth centuries there is complete patristic silence on the doctrine of the Assumption. But gradually, through the influence of numerous forgeries which were believed to be genuine, coupled with the misguided enthusiasm of popular devotion, the doctrine gained a foothold in the Church. The Dictionary of Christian Antiquities gives the following history of the doctrine:

In the 3rd of 4th century there was composed a book, embodying the Gnostic and Collyridian traditions as to the death of Mary, called De Transitu Virginis Mariae Liber. This book exists still and may be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima (tom. ii. pt. ii. p. 212)....The Liber Transitu Mariae contains already the whole of the story of the Assumption. But down to the end of the 5th century this story was regarded by the Church as a Gnostic or Collyridian fable, and the Liber de Transitu was condemned as heretical by the Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticus et Apocryphis, attributed to pope Gelasius, A.D. 494. How then did it pass across the borders and establish itself within the church, so as to have a festival appointed to commemorate it? In the following manner:
In the sixth century a great change passed over the sentiments and the theology of the church in reference to the Theotokos—an unintended but very noticeable result of the Nestorian controversies, which in maintaining the true doctrine of the Incarnation incidentally gave strong impulse to what became the worship of Mary. In consequence of this change of sentiment, during the 6th and 7th centuries (or later):

1)The Liber de Transitu, though classed by Gelasius with the known productions of heretics came to be attributed by one...to Melito, an orthodox bishop of Sardis, in the 2nd century, and by another to St. John the Apostle.
2) A letter suggesting the possibility of the Assumption was written and attributed to St. Jerome (ad Paulam et Eustochium de Assumptione B. Virginis, Op. tom. v. p. 82, Paris, 1706).
3) A treatise to prove it not impossible was composed and attributed to St. Augustine (Op. tom. vi. p. 1142, ed. Migne).
4) Two sermons supporting the belief were written and attributed to St. Athanasius (Op. tom. ii. pp. 393, 416, ed., Ben. Paris, 1698).
5) An insertion was made in Eusebius’s Chronicle that ‘in the year 48 Mary the Virgin was taken up into heaven, as some wrote that they had had it revealed to them.’

Thus the authority of the names of St. John, of Melito, of Athanasius, of Eusebius, of Augustine, of Jerome was obtained for the belief by a series of forgeries readily accepted because in accordance with the sentiment of the day, and the Gnostic legend was attributed to orthodox writers who did not entertain it. But this was not all, for there is the clearest evidence (1) that no one within the church taught it for six centuries, and (2) that those who did first teach it within the church borrowed it directly from the book condemned by pope Gelasius as heretical. For the first person within the church who held and taught it was Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem (if a homily attributed to John Damascene containing a quotation from from ‘the Eutymiac history’...be for the moment considered genuine), who (according to this statement) on Marcian and Pulcheria’s sending to him for information as to St. Mary’s sepulchre, replied to them by narrating a shortened version of the de Transitu legend as ‘a most ancient and true tradition.’ The second person within the church who taught it (or the first, if the homily attributed to John Damascene relating the above tale of Juvenal be spurious, as it almost certainly is) was Gregory of Tours, A.D. 590.
The Abbe Migne points out in a note that ‘what Gregory here relates of the death of the Blessed Virgin and its attendant circumstances he undoubtedly drew...from Pseudo-Melito’s Liber de Transitu B. Mariae, which is classed among apocryphal books by pope Gelasius.’ He adds that this account, with the circumstances related by Gregory, were soon afterwards introduced into the Gallican Liturgy...It is demonstrable that the Gnostic legend passed into the church through Gregory or Juvenal, and so became an accepted tradition within it...Pope Benedict XIV says naively that ‘the most ancient Fathers of the Primitive CHurch are silent as to the bodily assumption of the Blesseed Virgin, but the fathers of the middle and latest ages, both Greeks and Latins, relate it in the distinctest terms’ (De Fest. Assumpt. apud. Migne, Theol. Curs. Compl. tom. xxvi. p. 144, Paris, 1842). It was under the shadow of the names of Gregory of Tours and of these ‘fathers of the middle and latest ages, Greek and Latin,’ that the De Transitu legend became accepted as catholic tradition.
The history, therefore, of the belief which this festival was instituted to commemorate is as follows: It was first taught in the 3rd or 4th century as part of the Gnostic legend of St. Mary’s death, and it was regarded by the church as a Gnostic and Collyridian fable down to the end of the 5th century. It was brought into the church in the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries, partly by a series of successful forgeries, partly by the adoption of the Gnostic legend on part of the accredited teachers, writers, and liturgists. And a festival in commemoration of the event, thus came to be believed, was instituted in the East at the beginning of the 7th, in the West at the beginning of the 9th century (A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, William Smith and Samuel Cheetham, Ed., (Hartford: J.B. Burr, 1880), pp. 1142-1143).

R.P.C. Hanson gives the following summation of the teaching of the Assumption, emphasizing the lack of patristic and Scriptural support for it and affirming that it originated not with the Church but with Gnosticism:

This dogma has no serious connection with the Bible at all, and its defenders scarcely pretend that it has. It cannot honestly be said to have any solid ground in patristic theology either, because it is frist known among Catholic Christians in even its crudest form only at the beginning of the fifth century, and then among Copts in Egypt whose associations with Gnostic heresy are suspiciously strong; indeed it can be shown to be a doctrine which manifestly had its origin among Gnostic heretics. The only argument by which it is defended is that if the Church has at any time believed it and does now believe it, then it must be orthodox, whatever its origins, because the final standard of orthodoxy is what the Church believes. The fact that this belief is presumably supposed to have some basis on historical fact analogous to the belief of all Christians in the resurrection of our Lord makes its registration as a dogma de fide more bewilderingly incomprehensible, for it is wholly devoid of any historical evidence to support it. In short, the latest example of the Roman Catholic theory of doctrinal development appears to be a reductio ad absurdum expressly designed to discredit the whole structure (R.P.C. Hanson, The Bible as a Norm of Faith (University of Durham, 1963), Inaugral Lecture of the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity delivered in the Appleby Lecture Theatre on 12 March, 1963, p. 14).

Pius XII, in his decree in 1950, declared the Assumption teaching to be a dogma revealed by God. But the basis upon which he justifies this assertion is not that of Scripture or patristic testimony but of speculative theology. He concludes that because it seems reasonable and just that God should follow a certain course of action with respect to the person of Mary, and because he has the power, that he has in fact done so. And, therefore, we must believe that he really acted in this way. Tertullian dealt with similar reasoning from certain men in his own day who sought to bolster heretical teachings with the logic that nothing was impossible with God. His words stand as a much needed rebuke to the Roman Church of our day in its misguided teachings about Mary:

But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things, suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it ... It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do...(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Vol. III, Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch. X and XI, p. 605).

Tertullian says that we can know if God has done something by validating it from Scripture. Not to be able to do so invalidates any claim that a teaching has been revealed by God. This comes back again to the patristic principle of sola scriptura, a principle universally adhered to in the eaerly Church. But one which has been repudiated by the Roman Church and which has resulted in its embracing and promoting teachings, such as the assumption of Mary, which were never taught in the early Church and which have no Scriptural backing.

The only grounds the Roman Catholic faithful have for believing in the teaching of the assumption is that a supposedly ‘infallible’ Church declares it. But given the above facts the claim of infallibility is shown to be completely groundless. How can a Church which is supposedly infallible promote teachings which the early Church condemned as heretical? Whereas an early papal decree anathematized those who believed the teaching of an apocryphal Gospel, now papal decrees condemn those who disbelieve it. The conclusion has to be that teachings such as Mary’s assumption are the teachings and traditions of men, not the revelation of God.

[boatbums]

I remember as a sixteen year old going to my grandparents Southern Baptist church Sunday school and a teacher there showing me John 10:27-30 from the Bible. I light went on in my heart and I understood for the first time that through faith in Jesus, He GIVES me eternal life and I will NEVER perish or be plucked out of His hands. I left the Roman Catholicism I was born into and started attending a non-denominational church where I learned the deep things of God I had never heard of as a Catholic. When I graduated from high school, I decided to go to Bible college so that I could know what I believed and why I believed it. I earned a bachelor's degree in theology. I hardly "petered out". My ministry has never stopped.

The most beautiful faith in the world is Christianity - the Biblical kind - because it teaches that we cannot possibly earn or merit the grace God bestows on us through Christ. What I argue against is the perversion of the gospel found in Catholicism as well as other religions. I want people to know Christ - the REAL Christ, not the angry, crabby, Momma's boy who begrudgingly does what she tells him to do. I don't think there IS such a thing as spending too much time where sharing the gospel of grace is concerned.

[Salvation]

**I will NEVER perish or be plucked out of His hands.**In my opinion, this is not true. You can sin, kill. commit adultery, lie, blaspheme or skip Church and still not be plucked out of Jesus’ hand?

Too bad you left the Sacrament of Reconciliation/Penance so that those sins could be forgiven by God and forgotten by God.

BTW, you can come back at any time, and I believe, down the road, that might happen. Just sit down with a priest and get your questions and misunderstandings answered and/or clarified.

[narses]

[mlizzy]

My Jesus is not angry, crabby, or a momma’s boy; in fact, there’s a lot of disrespect in that commentary, imo. I know you are smart, boatbums, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you know anything. Catholicsm has saved me through its Sacraments, and you should respect that. I respect that your faith has saved you; God love you for that. But I’m sorry, in my mind you petered out (and I feel that way about all Catholics who left the faith), and I don’t see you as sharing the Gospel necessarily; I see you as admonishing those of us who love our Jesus through the Eucharist.

[Syncro]

The bible (sic) is silent on everyone that Jesus visited with after his death

Seriously? A through study of the New Testament would show you differently:

14 After saying these things, she turned back and viewed Jesus standing, but she did not discern it was Jesus.
15 Jesus said to her: Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for? She, imagining it was the gardener said to him: Sir, if you have carried him off, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.
16 Jesus said to her: Mary! Upon turning around, she said to him, in Hebrew: Rabboni! which means Teacher!
17 Jesus said to her: Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.'
18 Mary Magdalene came and brought the news to the disciples: I have seen the Lord! and that he said these things to her (John 20)[Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James (Mark 15:40) saw him on this first appearance.]

Another one:

13 But, look! on that very day 2 of them were journeying to a village about 60 stadia distant from Jerusalem [and] named Emmaus,
14 and they were conversing with each other over all these things that had come about.
15 Now as they were conversing and discussing, Jesus himself approached and began walking with them;
16 but their eyes were kept from recognizing him.
17 He said to them: What are these matters that you are debating between yourselves as you walk along? And they stood still with sad faces.
18 In answer the one named Cleopas said to him: Are you dwelling as an alien by yourself in Jerusalem and so do not know the things that have occurred in her in these days?
19 And he said to them: What things? They said to him: The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who became a prophet powerful in work and word before God and all the people;
20 and how our chief priests and rulers handed him over to the sentence of death and impaled him.
21 But we were hoping that this [man] was the one destined to deliver Israel; yes, and besides all these things, this makes the 3rd day since these things occurred.
22 Moreover, certain women from among us also astonished us, because they had been early to the memorial tomb
23 but did not find his body and they came saying they had also seen a supernatural sight of angels, who said he is alive.
24 Further, some of those with us went off to the memorial tomb; and they found it so, just as the women had said, but they did not see him.
25 So he said to them: Oh senseless ones and slow in heart to believe on all the things the prophets spoke!
26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?
27 And commencing at Moses and all the Prophets he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.
28 Finally they got close to the village where they were journeying, and he made as if he was journeying on farther.
29 But they used pressure upon him, saying: Stay with us, because it is toward evening and the day has already declined. With that he went in to stay with them.
30 And as he was reclining with them at the meal he took the loaf, blessed it, broke it and began to hand it to them.
31 At that their eyes were fully opened and they recognized him; and he disappeared from them.
32 And they said to each other: Were not our hearts burning as he was speaking to us on the road, as he was fully opening up the Scriptures to us? (Luke 24).

There are 4 more, would you like me to post them?

I have to go with the crowd that says he visited his mother. Who wouldn’t visit mom? She was at the foot of his cross.

Does anyone in the "crowd" have any Biblical proof?

Here is an interesting scripture from Luke 8 for you to ponder while you are speculating on whether or not Jesus visited His mother after his death:

19Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. 20Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.”

21He replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.”

It's interesting that he didn't "venerate" His mother above common everyday followers.

He set quite an example there for us to ponder on a thread titled "THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries"

It seems Jesus saw his mother as quite an un"assuming" follower.

[mlizzy]

Posters who cannot suffer having their deeply held religious beliefs ridiculed, condemned, attacked or dismissed should IGNORE "open" RF threads altogether otherwise they will be offended. They should instead read and post to RF threads labeled "prayer" "devotional" "caucus" or "ecumenical" where antagonism is not allowed.

I appreciate your warning, I do, but, through suffering and the daily Eucharist, confession, adoration, and the rosary, I am made of STONE. No one can Truly offend me. But again............I appreciate, and thank you!

Time to hit the sack; G-d love you. :)

[Salvation]

**The most beautiful faith in the world is Christianity - the Biblical kind**

The one that Christ founded on the Apostles? That’s Biblical.

[narses]

“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “

[Syncro]

To: CynicalBear

What you don’t seem to get, is that neither you, nor I, nor any other Tom, Dick, and Harry may authoritatively interpret scripture.

I think you will find that all born again Christians who follow Jesus closely and study the Bible diligently, understand that quite clearly.

Anyone who attempts to interpret scripture on their own will almost always fail.

The only surefire way to understand the scriptures is to pray to God and ask the Holy Spirit to interpret for you. That's His job and He does it quite well.

When ever you read the Bible, remember to ask the Holy Spirit for understanding and wisdom.

On, and God will do the same for all Toms, Dicks, and Harrys.

He is not a respecter (Biblical use of that word of course) of persons.

[Syncro]

Catholicism has never been liked here.

Protestantism and Protestants are hated here.

[JPX2011]

No one can remove a Christian from being in Jesus, nor remove Jesus from being in the Christian.

Until they can. "He/She did what? Well then, they are not a Christian. Get a couple more peeps together. "He/She did what? They are no Christian." And now you have an edict of excommunication.

As a result, the individual has been declared excommunicate and removed from the society of Christians. Separated from Jesus by consensus. And so by what authority do protestant claim to declare someone a non-Christian? Futhermore, does their separation jeopardize their OSAS status? And once again what magisterial authority do protestants claim to make such a determination?

Rather, the protestant doesn't concern themselves with such matters. They simply attempt to console themselves with the standard protestant line, "They were never Christians to begin with."

Interesting that they'll assume the mantle of magiserial authority to determine an individual's status as a Christian and yet deny there is such a thing as magisterial authority in defining matters of faith and morals

Is Jesus in the Eucharist? Could be from the line of reasoning above: "because he has the power, that he has in fact done so" Works for so many doctrines in Catholicism.

In the end it's not about whether authority exists. Even protestants recognize a modicum of terrestial magisterial authority is necessary since they practice it (although they won't call it that). The issue is where it exists. Peter or Luther. Jesus gave the command to Peter, not to Luther. The Petrine Office is Supreme.

[caww]

....”feelings of a Catholic”....

Well if they could separate their humanity from their churchianity that might be a reasonable request. But as long as their “heart” rests in their church and not in Jesus that’s simply an unreasonable request.

Truth will always trump “feelings”......because feelings can change on a dime. Truth is Jesus and that never changes.

[JPX2011]

Protestantism and Protestants are hated here.

Quite the contrary. This is primarily a secular political website with strong patriotic fervor. Attributes that don't necessarily require religious belief to be expressed. With some space set aside for religious people to do their thing. Protestantism, and its underlying reliance on secular modes of thought and philosophy to promulgate itself (hence the reason protestantism is always chasing the latest fads) are much more compatible with such a system than Catholicism whose spirit of belief, tradition and thought are not dependent upon secularistic or nationalistic zeal to gain appeal.

Simply put: Protestants think God is an American. Catholics do not.

[Syncro]

Daivd Koresh, Rev. Moon, the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses ,Osteens, Swaggarts, Schullers, Jeremah Wrights, , Jim Jones, Al Sharpton, Rick Warren

The more those names are thrown in the mix with many repeats-- the favorite seems to be Koresh-- the less effective become the arguments.

I hope you didn't get sucked into following any of them in the past.

[mitch5501]

"Truth is Jesus and that never changes"

Amen! and there aint no feeling like FREEDOM!

[Syncro]

LOL to your last sentence...

Is that your final answer?

Thanks for the chuckle.

I stand by my statement:

Protestantism and Protestants are hated here.

Yes, bad things are said about Catholics as well as Protestants, not to mention just plain ol’ Christians (who have a difficult time convincing Catholics that all non Catholic Christians are NOT Protestants!)

"Protestant" is thrown around everyday here as if it is a dirty word.

Oh and nice little essay, although I don't agree with most of it. Painted with a very broad brush. Lots of intellect displayed though.

I'm quite familiar with Protestantism (as well as Catholicism) but am not a Protestant (or Catholic,) flail 'em all ya want, they are used to it.

[JPX2011]

Well if they could separate their humanity from their churchianity that might be a reasonable request

The more reasonable request is for protestants to stop attempting to separate their humanity from their Christianity. Gnosticism and its, "matter is evil" heresy has already been condemned by the Church. I don't know why protestants insist on making this mistake.

But as long as their “heart” rests in their church and not in Jesus that’s simply an unreasonable request

False bifurcation. Why protestants insist on erecting either/or strawmen after being shown its false is beyond me. Could it be that protestants have to constantly put up these either/or barriers in order to justify their belief system? I suppose it is. Which is why they end up with the 'god in a box' problem.

Truth will always trump “feelings”......because feelings can change on a dime. Truth is Jesus and that never changes.

Is that so? Then perhaps you can explain the vast difference in hermeneutics between protestants after scripture has spoken to their heart plainly and clearly with the assistance of the Holy Spirit

Oh yeah. I forgot. "Those other people aren't real Christians. And you determined that how and by what authority?"

[caww]

....”the management is hostile toward Catholicism”.....

It's difficult to see your animosity toward this site and its administration.....if you're not happy with how things are operating, and since Free Republic is private property with the right to do as it wishes, then why make yourself miserable by posting to the Open Threads when the caucus threads have been specifically provided to you?

[JPX2011]

Yes, bad things are said about Catholics as well as Protestants, not to mention just plain ol’ Christians (who have a difficult time convincing Catholics that all non Catholic Christians are NOT Protestants!)

I fully agree. I recognize the Orthodox as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Heck, even in my more charitable moments I acknowledge my separated bretheren of the reformed tradition as being Christians, albeit protestants, but Christians nonetheless. Civil war is the bloodiest kind of war.

Oh and nice little essay, although I don't agree with most of it. Painted with a very broad brush. Lots of intellect displayed though.

Understandable. Some of that argument is based on my own personal observations. Lex Orandi Lex Credendi , how we pray is how we believe. I'm a big believer in that. So when I see Christianity as expressed by protestants in their matching polo shirts, wristbands, and carrying clipboards I see a definite connection between the secularity of their expression of belief and the theology itself.

[Syncro]

Really?

If that were so, we wouldn’t see all the posts from Catholics saying that Protestants are going to hell unless they become Catholics.

I haven’t seen Protestants whine about that, they just counter it with debate.

Your “The anti-Catholic rhetoric is supported by the powers that be” is a strawman used when debate is too difficult to do,.