Is Mary ONLY a Catholic doctrine?

[thessalonian]

Solo is that tradition called the bible bunk? Is all tradition bunk as your initial statement concluded.

It is completely wrong that pius XII based his statement on the assumption on nothing but speculative theology. He said it was not explicit in scirpture but it was implicit. If you study the relationship of Mary to the Ark of the Covenant this is far from speculative. Pius XII was well aware of the implicit evidence in scripture of which there is a significant amount. He is also aware of Augustine's and I think it was Gregories statements with regard to Psalm 132:8. So it is not a 20th century speculation by a Pope. You simply don't know what you are talking about.


Your claims by Mr. Webster about Pope Gelasius were shown to be very bad history by someone who is bent on twisting history to his own favor, without enough evidence to justify his definitive position that Gelasius condmented the assumption. Such a conclusion cannot be made, though it is one of several possibilities. I find it to be an unlikely one. Once againg this author of yours goes off on a path without having studied all the details, coming to conclusion based on the tradition that the assumption of Mary is false. It is a tradition.

Solo I hate to tell you but you have "traditions" that have been taught to you by your parents. Some of them false and you, if you have kids will pass them along to your kids. Some of what you hold is true tradition. Some is false. Teachings about what YOU personally think the Bible says. We know you've said your views are infallible. Got news for you. They're not.

 

[Gary]

Was the Ark of the Covenant also assumpted to heaven?

Or does your analogy not go that far?

Why not?

 

[Gary]

It is completely wrong that pius XII based his statement on the assumption on nothing but speculative theology. He said it was not explicit in scirpture but it was implicit. If you study the relationship of Mary to the Ark of the Covenant this is far from speculative. Pius XII was well aware of the implicit evidence in scripture of which there is a significant amount. He is also aware of Augustine's and I think it was Gregories statements with regard to Psalm 132:8. So it is not a 20th century speculation by a Pope. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

More "blessings" by our Roman Catholic!

But let us test his theory.

Is Psalm 132:8 referring to an assumption of Mary? Augustine says that the ark is the church, not Mary. He mentions the flesh of Christ as another possibility, but says nothing of a Marian interpretation, much less an assumption of Mary. Compare the comments of Pope Pius XII with those of Augustine:

"this privilege of the Virgin Mary's Assumption is in wonderful accord with those divine truths given us in Holy Scripture...Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers, have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption [of Mary]. Thus, to mention only a few of the texts rather frequently cited in this fashion, some have employed the words of the psalmist: 'Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified' [Psalm 132:8]; and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and placed in the Lord's temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven." - Pope Pius XII (Munificentissimus Deus)

"'Arise, O Lord, into Thy resting place' (ver. 8). He saith unto the Lord sleeping, 'Arise.' Ye know already who slept, and who rose again. ...'Thou, and the ark of Thy sanctification:' that is, Arise, that the ark of Thy sanctification, which Thou hast sanctified, may arise also. He is our Head; His ark is His Church: He arose first, the Church will arise also. The body would not dare to promise itself resurrection, save the Head arose first. The Body of Christ, that was born of Mary, hath been understood by some to be the ark of sanctification; so that the words mean, Arise with Thy Body, that they who believe not may handle." - Augustine (Expositions on the Psalms, 132:8)

Notice that Augustine mentions Mary, saying that Christ's body was "born of Mary". Thus, it can't be argued that Augustine wasn't thinking of Mary at the time that he wrote. He was thinking of her, but he didn't view her as the ark. He didn't even mention a Marian interpretation as a secondary possibility. The only alternative he mentions to seeing the church as the ark is seeing Christ's flesh as the ark.

Source: "Catholic but not Roman Catholic"


:D :D

 

[Gary]

Is the queen in Psalm 45:9-14 Mary, and is the passage alluding to the Assumption of Mary?

Pope Pius XII approvingly cites Roman Catholics who interpreted the passage that way:

"Treating of this subject, they [Roman Catholic theologians and preachers] also describe her [Mary] as the Queen entering triumphantly into the royal halls of heaven and sitting at the right hand of the divine Redeemer [Psalm 45:9-14]." (Munificentissimus Deus)

But Augustine sees the queen as the church, not Mary, and he says nothing about an assumption of Mary:

"For all the souls that have been born through their preaching and evangelizing are 'daughters of kings:' and the Churches, as the daughters of Apostles, are daughters of kings....Behold, Rome, Carthage, and several other cities are the daughters of kings, and yet have they 'made glad the King in His honour:' and all these make up one single Queen....'Upon Thy right hand did stand the Queen' (ver. 9). She which stands on the left is no Queen. For there will be one standing on 'the left' also, to whom it will be said, 'Go into everlasting fire.' But she shall stand on the right hand, to whom it will be said, 'Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.' On Thy right hand did stand the Queen, 'in a vesture of gold, clothed about with divers colours.' What is the vesture of this Queen? It is one both precious, and also of divers colours: it is the mysteries of doctrine in all the various tongues: one African, one Syrian, one Greek, one Hebrew, one this, and one that; it is these languages that produce the divers colours of this vesture. But just as all the divers colours of the vesture blend together in the one vesture, so do all the languages in one and the same faith....The Prophet addresses this Queen (for he delights in singing to her), and moreover each one of us, provided, however, we know where we are, and endeavour to belong to that body [the church], and do belong to it in faith and hope, being united in the membership of Christ. For it is us whom he addresses, saying, 'Hearken, O daughter, and behold'" (Expositions on the Psalms, 45:21-23)

Source: "Catholic but not Roman Catholic"

:-? :-? :wink:

 

[Solo]

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).

 

[Solo]

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 Theotokosâ€â€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.

 

[thessalonian]

Solo,

Is all tradition BUNK?

Are you going to answer or just keep posting red herrings. If you can post Gelesus's words as to why he condemned the book that would be great. You have not done so and so regardless of whether the document is available (I haven't seen it and have only seen online another document that they believe was derived from the one condemed and so I doudt Webster's story) or not, you and Mr. Webster have not proven that Gelasius condemned the assumption any more than you prove that I believe it was Pope Agatho in the 5th century condemned grace and free will because he condememned a document by that title written by Pelagius. Do you know who Pelagius is?

Blessings

 

[cj]

Scriptures tell us that God's feeling on man's level of understanding is that its quite limited. Unlike you it seems, I choose to stick with God's view.

As for my problem being that I think that I am greater than everyone else,..... again, you're attempting to build a strawman.

Nothing that I have said suggests anything of the sort. Saying that Webster's defnintion of the word apostate is short on reality is not the same as saying I know more, what it is is simple saying what the bible says about the efforts of men.

You not understanding this expose either that you are ignorant of what the bible says regarding this subject, or that you have no problem hiding the truth while openly being deceiptful.

And deluded, really AwedbyGod,.... the best that you can do is dance timidly around my points, and like OC throw make-believe stones at me.

"Ouch,... that "delude" make-believe stone really hurt me,... Ouch, so did that make-believe one about me being "nothing."

You're as funny as the silly clothes the religionist leadership wear.

When you want to get real, if you ever want to get real,.... lets talk about real stuff.

Right now you sound like someone in a bar grumbling at the person on the TV.


In love,
cj

 

[cj]

Solo, you're presenting some worthy thoughts,..... but consider this, the first thing that the enemy did to Eve was draw her into a non-essential discussion.

If these traditions of men are truly in error, an I'm fully convinced they are,... then God's word, which is His full word to man, will have within it the proper and complete response to this error.

Man's history does not defeat the wiles of the Devil, only God's word does.

Jesus gave us the perfect example of this when He was in the desert.

Take any of the statements that Satan made to Jesus and consider them for yourself,..... would you, could you, have responded like He did, or would your response have be some long oratory based on your experience and knowledge of the matter.

Jesus could have started with the creation of Lucifer and then come through years of history,.... but He did not, for good reason.

For what its worth, follow His lead; there is always a particular reason why a darkened mind asks a question. Don't consider the question first, consider the source first and this will allow you to better understand the motive of the question, the true reality of the question.

Doing this and seeing this, you will then be better able to receive the Spirit's answer to the adversary's advance.

In love,
cj

 

[AwedbyGod]

Scriptures tell us that God's feeling on man's level of understanding is that its quite limited. Unlike you it seems, I choose to stick with God's view.

No. You act as if you are the voice of God and anyone who disagrees with you is an "apostate".

As for my problem being that I think that I am greater than everyone else,..... again, you're attempting to build a strawman.

Nope, just pointing out how you come across in your posts.
Nothing that I have said suggests anything of the sort. Saying that Webster's defnintion of the word apostate is short on reality is not the same as saying I know more, what it is is simple saying what the bible says about the efforts of men.

You not understanding this expose either that you are ignorant of what the bible says regarding this subject, or that you have no problem hiding the truth while openly being deceiptful.

I am not sure where this delusion comes from. Care to cite examples?

And deluded, really AwedbyGod,.... the best that you can do is dance timidly around my points, and like OC throw make-believe stones at me.

You are obessed with OC. It is rather amusing. He has "gotten your goat" so many times, you can't even write a post in reply to me without mentioning him.

"Ouch,... that "delude" make-believe stone really hurt me,... Ouch, so did that make-believe one about me being "nothing."

You're as funny as the silly clothes the religionist leadership wear.
huh? Is this some sort of cult auto-response put down?

When you want to get real, if you ever want to get real,.... lets talk about real stuff.
I don't care to participate in your version of reality.

Right now you sound like someone in a bar grumbling at the person on the TV.
And you sound like some loony ranting and gesticulating while not saying anything of real value.
In love,
cj

 

[Vic C.]

A reminder to all of you to Please take all personal conflicts off the boards and make use of PM's.

"All of you" means exactly that... not just the ones posting in this thread.

Thank you,
Vic

 

[salvation122]

I just have time to say that many RC 'madonna' statues, worldwide, have golden hair, blue eyes & pale skin - just like forbidden pagan occult teple prostitution goddesses Venus, Astarte, etc

1): "Pagan occult temple prostitution goddess" statues are, uh, stone. As such they don't really have a complextion or hair color. Indeed, considering the typical phenotype of the Mediterranean region, it would be quite unusual for Venus to be depicted as a blonde.

Moreover, I don't think I've ever seen a Roman Catholic depiction of Mary that painted her as Aryan.

I can show you many, many Roman Catholic prayers to Mary which have no mention or illusion back towards our Lord.

Then do so.

 

[Gary]

I can show you many, many Roman Catholic prayers to Mary which have no mention or illusion back towards our Lord.

Then do so.

I will do so. IF I do, what will you then concede? Will you reconsider your Roman Catholic belief? Will you then agree that worship of Mary takes the focus off Jesus?

 

[salvation122]

I'm not really Roman Catholic, and no, not particularly; the idea that Jesus must be the absolute and total focus of the faith, and that there is no room to discuss the admirable qualities of other biblical figures, is rather myopic and silly and seems intended deliberately to piss off Catholics. But do so anyway; I'm curious.

 

[Gary]

I'm not really Roman Catholic, and no, not particularly; the idea that Jesus must be the absolute center of the faith, and that there is no room to discuss the admirable qualities of other biblical figures, is rather myopic and silly and seems intended deliberately to piss off Catholics. But do so anyway; I'm curious.

This was not about "discussing" Mary.... but PRAYING to Mary. I said:

I can show you many, many Roman Catholic prayers to Mary which have no mention or illusion back towards our Lord.

Roman Catholics claim that all their prayers to Mary mention Jesus or point back to Him. I claim that is not true.

If you are only curious... then do the Google/internet search yourself. You will find many, many prayers to Mary. Analyse them yourself.

 

[salvation122]

Roman Catholics claim that all their prayers to Mary mention Jesus or point back to Him. I claim that is not true.

Then back up your claim.

 

[Loren Michael]

Roman Catholics claim that all their prayers to Mary mention Jesus or point back to Him. I claim that is not true.

Then back up your claim.

he doesn't seem to understand the concept of burden of proof.

 

[Gary]

What do you say Loren... are there many, many Roman Catholic prayers to Mary which show no reference to Jesus?

 

[TruthHunter]

I think one may find prayer which do not mention Jesus specifically, however When Dealing with Mary Jesus is always in the Heart.

Ben

 

[Gary]

Tell me how you see Jesus in these prayers:

Mary, Help of Those in Need

Holy Mary,
help those in need,
give strength to the weak,
comfort the sorrowful,
pray for God's people,
assist the clergy,
intercede for religious.
Mary all who seek your help
experience your unfailing protection.
Amen.

:o :o

• Comment:
  That sounds like it should be directed to Jesus not MARY!

Morning consecration to Mary

My Queen, My Mother, I offer
myself entirely to Thee.
And to show my devotion to Thee,
I offer Thee this day, my eyes,
my ears, my mouth, my heart,
my whole being without reserve.
Wherefore, good Mother, as I am thine own, keep me, guard me as Thy property and
possession.
Amen

:o :o

• Comment:
  I give my all to Jesus, not MARY! Paul talks about being a slave to our Lord Jesus Christ.... NEVER to Mary! In fact, he never even mentions Mary!

The Memorare

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it
known that anyone who fled to your protection, implored your help or sought your
intercession, was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto you, O
Virgin of virgins, my Mother. To you I come, before you I stand, sinful and
sorrowful. O Mother of the Word incarnate, despise not my petitions, but, in
your mercy, hear and answer me.
Amen.

:o :o

• Comment:
  So MARY now hears your prayers... she is your protector, your intercessor....
  You ask MARY for mercy???
  Does MARY answer you?

Prayer to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

O Immaculate Heart of Mary, full of goodness, show your love towards us. Let the
flame of your heart, O Mary, descend on all people. We love you immensely.
Impress true love in our hearts so that we have a continuous desire for you. O
Mary, gentle and humble of heart, remember us when we are in sin. You know that
all men sin. Give us, by means of your Immaculate Heart, spiritual health. Let
us always see the goodness of your motherly heart and may we be converted by
means of the flame of your heart.
Amen.

:o :o

• Comment:
  Now you confess sins to MARY!!

Many more ....
http://www.marypages.com/PrayerstoMary.htm

:-?