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

christiantruth.com ^ | William Webster

[CynicalBear]

>>The teaching authority by Christ was not extended to any Tom, Dick, and Harry.<<

Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

>>The most perfect and purest of all God’s creation in heaven and earth and born without original sin, was not to rot in the ground.<<

Again, please show from an infallible source where the apostles taught that.

>>Besides, if you take the time and trouble to read with care there is convincing authority for this dogma,<<

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Infallible source for the apostles teaching the assumption of Mary please.

The woman in Revelation is Isreal.

[CynicalBear]

Do you or the Catholic Church consider or hold that Epiphanius’ Panarion is infallible?

[ronnietherocket3]

Faith by itself without works is dead. When one is saved by faith the indwelling of the Holy Spirit will produce works. The works part is the Holy Spirit working through us. It remains that it was the faith that saved.

Okay, so sola fidei is false. If sola fidei were true, then Faith by itself would not be dead. Remember demons have faith.

Paul, in fact, gave instructions that leadership need first prove fit by having successfully raised a family.

Where?

Jesus also said that none of them was the leader of the others.

Then why does he specifically ask Peter to feed his sheep?

[mlizzy]

Another anti-Catholic thread?

Looks like it, doesn't it? :(

I like this:

He [Pius XII] then speaks of St. Francis de Sales, who "after stating that it would be wrong to doubt that Jesus Christ has kept in the most perfect way the divine commandment that children honor their parents, puts this question: 'What son, if he could, would not bring his mother back to life, and take her, after death, into paradise?'"(AAS 42. 766).

[boatbums]

Another day, another anti-Catholic screed filled with cut-n-paste part truthes mixed in with blatant falsehoods. All allowed here. As the stench grows so does the feeling that the Catholic conservative is no longer welcome here.

Why don't you point out all the "untruths" and "blatant falsehoods" in this essay, then, instead of just marking it off as "another anti-Catholic screed"? Seems like FRoman Catholics have free reign here to dominate the Religion Forum with whatever hits their fancy and there have been plenty that condemn non-Catholic Christians right off the bat. Don't complain when that "stench" may just be the reaping of what y'all sowed in the first place. What did you expect?

[ronnietherocket3]

Do you or the Catholic Church consider or hold that Epiphanius’ Panarion is infallible?

No, but Protestants frequently use writings of the Church Fathers to support their opinions. Why can't Catholics use writings from the same era to support ours? The ironic part about this is that Protestant theology appears to have problems with the concept of a Magisterium and Tradition, but Catholic Theology do not. In addition the Panarion was used specifically to attack the Catholic Church's beliefs and teachings. It is completely fair to use it to defend the Catholic Church's beliefs and teachings.

[CynicalBear]

>>Remember demons have faith.<<

Oh really?

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and tremble.

Please don't try to twist scripture when debating with me. Demons do not have saving faith.

Now, the subject of the thread is the assumption of Mary. Rather than going down some rabbit trail on another subject. Do you or do you not have an infallible source showing that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary?

[CynicalBear]

Was either Pius XII or St. Francis de Sales infallible?

[boatbums]

Catholicism has never been liked here.

Oh boo, hoo, hoo! Catholics are allowed here just like any others as long as they are Conservatives. What you probably mean is that you don't like that Catholicism is freely disputed here by other Freepers who aren't Catholic. If it's the "rules" that you don't like, that's another story.

[CynicalBear]

>>No, but Protestants frequently use writings of the Church Fathers to support their opinions.<<

Nancy Palosi is Catholic. Joe Biden is Catholic. Do you support or defend all of their views and the sources they site for those views? If not, can we dispense with generalizing?

If Epiphanius’ Panarion was not infallible and teaches something the apostles did not teach what did Paul say we were to consider him?

[Steelfish]

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

The BIble did not fall from the skies. The infallible authority was provided to the Church, and the early Church Fathers used methods of scholarly inquiry, research, examined the oral tradition, and guided by the Holy Spirit sorted out which books should be excluded, which ones included, and over many years assembled the “Word” of God. This authority continues to this day. Scripture records that not all what was said by Christ was reduced to writing. When the Church speaks ex cathedra, that authority is infallible. We call it the Catechism, the Credo, the Eucharist, the Mass. This doctrine is for all times.

We don’t have or allow for TD Jakes, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Billy Grahams, Jimmy Swaggarts, Rev. Moons, or Mormons or some 35,000 Protestant and Evangelical sects “each” offering up “their” own interpretations resulting in Biblical anarchy.

It is foolish for every street corner pastor to open up his Foursquare Church, take snippets of Scripture and try refuting the Petrine authority that has been examined for centuries by scholars and theologians in universities around the world.

This is for simplistic minds and thus we have the pedantic fluff interpretations from Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Billy Graham which translates to different versions of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles according to “each” one of them.

[ronnietherocket3]

Please don't try to twist scripture when debating with me. Demons do not have saving faith.

Sure, they don't have good works (or deeds as the NIV translates).

Do you or do you not have an infallible source showing that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary?

First problem with this statement is that I still have no reason to believe you would believe, if I showed you. Second, have you read comment 77? Third issue, has to do with directness of proof. If the proof is indirect, would you accept it?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Wonderful --- and absolutely agreed!

Now, my question. Look at the context carefully:

Matthew 16:19
And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18:18
“Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."<> Who's He talking to here? Who has this power to "bind on earth as it is bound in heaven" in your church?

[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.<<

You had better study scripture rather then study what the Catholic Church teaches since that belief is clearly not in agreement with scripture. It is the Holy Spirit within true believers who teaches.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

And not just the apostles.

1 John 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit -- just as it has taught you, remain in him.

1 Corinthians 2:9-14 However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" -- but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

>>This is for simplistic minds <<

1 Corinthians 1:25-28 [25] For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. [26] Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. [27] But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. [28] He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things -- and the things that are not -- to nullify the things that are,

[MamaB]

They want to be able to do their thing and expect everyone else to believe it too. Even if it is wrong.

[Steelfish]

You keep playing this scriptural quotations game as street “theologian.” The Catholic Church is what authenticated the books in the Bible and this binding authoritative interpretation did not suddenly stop. You keep referring to quotations on the “truth” but this is ONE truth authenticated by ONE body until the end of time. You have no more right to your version of “truth” than does David Koresh.

[MamaB]

No passage has been stated.

[CynicalBear]

The Cathic Church has totally corrupted those verses. I'm going to post the explanation from Gill's Exposition simply because he explains it well.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,.... By the kingdom of heaven is meant the Gospel, which comes from heaven, declares the king Messiah to be come, speaks of things concerning his kingdom, is the means of setting it up, and enlarging it, displays the riches of his grace, and gives an account of the kingdom of heaven, and of persons' right unto it, and meetness for it. "The keys" of it are abilities to open and explain the Gospel truths, and a mission and commission from Christ to make use of them; and being said to be given to Peter particularly, denotes his after qualifications, commission, work, and usefulness in opening the door of faith, or preaching the Gospel first to the Jews, Acts 2:1 and then to the Gentiles, Acts 10:1 and who was the first that made use of the keys of evangelical knowledge with respect to both, after he, with the rest of the apostles, had received an enlarged commission to preach the Gospel to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Otherwise these keys belonged to them all alike; for to the same persons the keys, and the use of them, appertained, on whom the power of binding and loosing was bestowed; and this latter all the disciples had, as is manifest from Matthew 18:18 wherefore this does not serve to establish the primacy and power of Peter over the rest of the apostles; nor do keys design any lordly domination or authority; nor did Christ allow of any such among his apostles; nor is it his will that the ministers of his word should lord it over his heritage: he only is king of saints, and head of his church; he has the key of David, with which he opens, and no man shuts, and shuts, and no man opens; and this he keeps in his own hand, and gives it to none. Peter is not the door-keeper of heaven to let in, nor keep out, whom he pleases; nor has his pretended successor the keys of hell and death; these also are only in Christ's hands: though it has been said of the pope of Rome, that if he sends millions of men to hell, none should say to him, what dost thou? but the keys here mentioned are the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or of the Gospel, which was shut up in the Jewish nation, through the ignorance, malice, and calumnies of the Scribes and Pharisees, who would neither embrace it, or enter into the kingdom of God themselves, nor suffer others that were going to enter into it; and through their taking away the key of knowledge, or the right interpretation of the word of God; and through a judicial blindness, which that nation in general was given up to: and this was shut up to the Gentiles through the natural darkness that was spread over them, and through want of a divine revelation, and persons sent of God to instruct them: but now Christ was about, and in a little time he would (for these words, with what follow, are in the future tense) give his apostles both a commission and gifts, qualifying them to open the sealed book of the Gospel, and unlock the mysteries of it, both to Jews and Gentiles, especially the latter.

Keys are the ensigns of treasurers, and of stewards, and such the ministers of the Gospel are; they have the rich treasure of the word under their care, put into their earthen vessels to open and lay before others; and they are stewards of the mysteries and manifold grace of God, and of these things they have the keys. So that these words have nothing to do with church power and government in Peter, nor in the pope, nor in any other man, or set of men whatever; nor to be understood of church censures, excommunications, admissions, or exclusions of members: nor indeed are keys of any such similar use; they serve for locking and unlocking doors, and so for keeping out those that are without, and retaining those that are within, but not for the expulsion of any: but here they are used in a figurative sense, for the opening and explaining the truths of the Gospel, for which Peter had excellent gifts and abilities.

And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. This also is not to be understood of binding, or loosing men's sins, by laying on, or taking off censures, and excommunications; but only of doctrines, or declarations of what is lawful and unlawful, free, or prohibited to be received, or practised; in which sense the words, , "bound and loosed", are used in the Talmudic writings, times without number, for that which is forbidden and declared to be unlawful, and for that which is free of use, and pronounced to be so: in multitudes of places we read of one Rabbi "binding", and of another "loosing"; thousands, and ten thousands of instances of this kind might be produced; a whole volume of extracts on this head might be compiled. Dr. Lightfoot has transcribed a great many, sufficient to satisfy any man, and give him the true sense of these phrases; and after him to mention any other is needless; yet give me leave to produce one, as it is short, and full, and explains these phrases, and points at the persons that had this power, explaining Ecclesiastes 12:11 and that clause in it, "masters of the assemblies".

[ronnietherocket3]

If Epiphanius’ Panarion was not infallible and teaches something the apostles did not teach what did Paul say we were to consider him?

Then please refrain from ever citing Jerome in your attempt to throw the Deuterocanon out of scripture, as he taught the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. According to comment 39, Luther taught that Mary was the Mother of God, not just the Mother of Jesus. According to Protestants this is heresy and not something the Apostles preached. What did Paul say we were to consider him?

I raise this because I have read Protestants say that Sola Scriptura is not Solo Scriptura. The difference being Sola permits authority, provided it can be taken back to the Bible. However, if I have to ignore the entirety of what someone says because of one error, I fail to see the distinction between Sola and Solo Scriptura.

Now we arrive at another question. In Galatians 1 (NIV), Paul wrote "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!" What is contrary to the Gospel? There are only two ways I can think that the Assumption of Mary contradicts the Gospel. The first is that the Gospel requires or states that Mary's body is not in Heaven. The other is that only that which is explicitly mentioned in Scripture does not contradict the Gospel.

As to the former, I am unaware of anything that state's it is not in Heaven, we do have the example of Elijah being taken to Heaven. In addition since Elijah was, unless Scripture says a woman cannot be taken into Heaven until the Resurrection, I think it would have to state that Mary's body was not taken upto Heaven. The other point is back to the Sola Scriptura vs. the Catholic understanding of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. I have seen nothing that convinces me that Tradition and the Magisterium contradict scripture.

[CynicalBear]

Too many double standards going on there.