Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Roman Catholic dogma of the Assumption is not Biblical

Is the Roman Catholic dogma of the Assumption of Mary biblical?


  • Total voters
    5

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
G

Gary

Guest
The Assumption of Mary

(The origin of the feast and Roman Catholic dogma of the Assumption)

In the Eastern Church, the dormition ("falling asleep") of Mary began to be commemorated in the 6th century. The observance gradually spread to the West, where it became known as the feast of the Assumption. By the 13th century, most Roman Catholic theologians accepted the belief of the Assumption. However this doctrine did not become an article of faith until recent times, when Pope Pius XII declared it a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith: “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†(Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950).

Not taught in Scripture

Roman Catholic authors readily admit that the Assumption is not explicitly taught in Scripture. In the biblical narrative, Mary is last mentioned in Acts 1 where she is found praying with the other disciples before Pentecost. After that, the Bible is silent about her life and death.

Naturally, Roman Catholic writers refer to various scriptures to demonstrate the possibility of this doctrine, and that it is was ‘fitting’ that Mary should be assumed to heaven. For example, it is argued that bodily assumption is the natural effect of Mary being “full of grace.†However, the same word translated “full of grace†(Greek, charitoo) is applied to all believers in Ephesians 1:6. Yet, nobody suggests that every believer should be assumed bodily into heaven soon after death!

Pope Pius XII commented, “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.†Yet he still based his argument on these writings, thereby conceding that there is no solid biblical proof of the Assumption.

Not taught by the Church Fathers

The Catholic Encyclopaedia admits that the first “genuine†written reference to the Assumption come from St Gregory of Tours who lived in the sixth century. Thus for several centuries in the early Church, there is no mention by the church fathers of the bodily assumption of Mary. Ireneus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose and the others church fathers said nothing about it. Writing in 377 A.D., the church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end.

First taught by heretics

So, how did this teaching originate, given that it is absent in the Sacred Scriptures and in the tradition of the early Church? The belief of the assumption is based on apocryphal and spurious writings.

“The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite†(Catholic Encyclopaedia).

The first church author to speak on the assumption, Gregory of Tours, based his teaching on the Transitus, perhaps because he accepted it as genuine. However, in 459 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree that officially condemned and rejected the Transitus along with several other heretical writings. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this decree in the sixth century. It is ironic, that this heretical teaching was later promoted within the Roman Catholic Church, until eventually it was proclaimed a dogma in the twentieth century.

Conclusion

The Roman Catholic Church solemnly warns anyone who “should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined (i.e. the Assumption), let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith (Munificentissimus Deus). How could this dogma be so important, seeing that it was unknown in the early Church, even condemned by two Popes, and more importantly, since it is absent from the Holy Scriptures?

Some have indeed fallen from the catholic faith. The apostates are those who have invented this novel doctrine. The faithful are those who, together with the early Christians, have remained steadfast in upholding the faith of the New Testament.

Maranatha! Come back for Your true church, the family of believers!

:) :)
 
"How could this dogma be so important, seeing that it was unknown in the early Church, even condemned by two Popes, and more importantly, since it is absent from the Holy Scriptures? "

Once again, you twist the truth. You say it was unknown, you have no proof. There is a difference between when you KNOW something and when you commemorate it.


However, in 459 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree that officially condemned and rejected the Transitus along with several other heretical writings. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this decree in the sixth century. It is ironic, that this heretical teaching was later promoted within the Roman Catholic Church, until eventually it was proclaimed a dogma in the twentieth century.

Show me.

I'd also like to know how see died if she wasn't a sinner. Don't say she wasn't because the early church records that she felt no pain in child birth- a product of original sin.
 
stray bullet said:
I'd also like to know how see died if she wasn't a sinner. Don't say she wasn't because the early church records that she felt no pain in child birth- a product of original sin.

Hi there!

:angel:


source please for the statement...

"the early church records that she felt no pain in child birth"



~thanks~
 
"[T]he report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.’ And many said, ‘She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain’" (Ascension of Isaiah 11 [A.D. 70]).

"So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will . . . " (Odes of Solomon 19 [A.D. 80]).
 
Assumption of Mary

stray: Once again, you twist the truth. You say it was unknown, you have no proof.

Gary: Once again, like the Roman Catholic "church", you try twist the truth. You claim that the assumption of Mary was known by the early church. You have no proof.

Where is the assumption of Mary in the Bible? What Scripture will you and your Roman Catholic "church" twist this time?

:) :) :) :) :) :)

Even your own Roman Catholic theologian and defender of Roman Catholic dogma, Ott, admits in "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" page 209 ....
“direct and express scriptural proofs are not to be had.â€Â

Roman Catholic theologians speak rather of the “possibility†or “probability†of it, based on certain texts. When, however, the texts are examined closely, no such probability exists!!

Maybe you, stray, can do better than your own theologians and see how much you can twist the truth of the Scriptures.

:-? :-? :-? :-? :-?

Even if one grants the validity of arguments from tradition in general, the traditional argument for the bodily assumption of Mary is weak. Roman Catholic authorities admit that “The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries.†Further, they acknowledge that “these are apocryphal.†In fact, the bodily assumption of Mary was not held by most of the early church fathers. Roman Catholic theologian Ott admits that belief in this dogma did not appear until nearly the seventh century. :o

Noted Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner acknowledged that “at best it can only be considered as evidence of theological speculation about Mary, which has been given the form of an ostensible historical account.†He adds, “there is nothing of any historical value in such apocryphal works.â€Â

Source: Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (Page 316). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

:roll: :wink: :roll:
 
Mary sinless?

stray: I'd also like to know how see died if she wasn't a sinner.

Gary: Show me where, in Scripture, Mary is declared sinless for the whole of her life. Which Scripture will you and your Roman Catholic "church" try and twist this time?

:) :)

The Bible does not support the sinlessness of Mary. To the contrary, it affirms her sinfulness. Speaking as a sinner, Mary said, “my spirit rejoices in God my savior†(Luke 1:46).

An examination of the text used to prove Mary’s sinlessness reveals the lack of any real support for such a doctrine. Contrary to Scotus’s solution of her being prevented from needing to be saved from sin, she was confessing her present need (after her conception) of a Savior.

Indeed, she even presented an offering to the Jewish priest arising out of her sinful condition (Luke 2:22–24) which was required by law (Lev. 12). This would not have been necessary if she were sinless.

Maybe you, stray, would like to show us which Scripture you or the Roman Catholic "church" will twist this time to try and support your un-biblical dogma.

:sad :sad :sad :sad
 
Sister Mary Ann Collins Former nun

http://www.catholicconcerns.com/MaryWorship.html

ASSUMPTION -- At the end of her life, Mary was taken up ("assumed") body and soul into Heaven. ("Catechism" 966, 974)

There is no biblical reference to the assumption of Mary. The Gospel of John was written around 90 A.D., which is more than 100 years after Mary was born. (Surely Mary was more than ten years old when Jesus was conceived.) If Mary had been supernaturally assumed into Heaven, wouldn't John (the disciple that Mary lived with) have mentioned it? When Enoch and Elijah were taken up to Heaven, the Bible recorded it. With Elijah it was recorded in some detail. (See Genesis 6:24 and 2 Kings 2:1-18.)

The Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith in 1950. This means that every Roman Catholic is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it. However, as we will see, the teaching of the Assumption originated with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church.

maryassumpt7at.jpg


Catholic fable

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
 
William Putnam said:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AOFMARY.HTM

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3c.htm

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Come on! Links? Is that the best you can do?

We can disprove that Mary was sinless from scripture. You have to use links and the opinions of men to make a weak case for your beliefs.

I am disgusted. :x



My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages
call me blessed.
(Luke 1:46-48)
 
bibleberean said:
Come on! Links? Is that the best you can do?

Better then you, who can only spam!

Did you read them, bibleberean or just ignore them?

Look, if you ever get interested in a real discussion, I will use real words, composed on this computer keyboard of mine in reply!

We can disprove that Mary was sinless from scripture. You have to use links and the opinions of men to make a weak case for your beliefs.

Please "disprove" from scripture that Mary was sinless!

I bet I have seen them already..................

:angel:

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things that I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as a pathway to peace;
taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,
not as I would have it;
trusting that you will make all things right
if I surrender to Your will;
so that I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.
 
Stay on topic Bill.....

The Dogma of the Assumption of Mary

In the Eastern Church, the dormition ("falling asleep") of Mary began to be commemorated in the 6th century. The observance gradually spread to the West, where it became known as the feast of the Assumption. By the 13th century most Roman Catholic theologians accepted the belief of the Assumption. However this doctrine did not become an article of faith until recent times, when Pope Pius XII declared it a dogma of the Catholic faith: “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†(Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950).

Not taught in Scripture

Roman Catholic authors readily admit that the Assumption is not explicitly taught in Scripture. (see Note 1.) In the biblical narrative, Mary is last mentioned in Acts 1 where she is found praying with the other disciples before Pentecost. After that, the Bible is silent about her life and death.

Naturally, Roman Catholic writes refer to various scriptures to demonstrate the possibility of this doctrine, and that it is was ‘fitting’ that Mary should be assumed to heaven. These efforts fall short of biblical proof. Consider some examples:
  • Genesis 3:15 [And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel] It is argued that Mary, “most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium, would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death.†We notice, however, that it is the seed, Jesus, rather that the woman, who bruised the serpent’s head. His resurrection is the sure sign of Messiah’s triumph over the Devil. Together with all Christians, Mary would also benefit from Christ’s victory according to God’s plan of salvation at the “resurrection of life.†That is still a future event.

    Luke 1:28 [And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women]. Bodily assumption is said to be the natural effect of being highly favoured or full of grace. However, the same word translated “full of grace†(Greek, charitoo) is applied to all believers in Ephesians 1:6. Yet, no-one suggests that every believer should be assumed bodily into heaven soon after death!

    Revelation 12:1 [And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars]. A Roman Catholic author writes: “Mary's coronation implies her preceding bodily assumption.†He wrongly assumes that this “woman†is Mary and ignores the problems of such interpretation. For example, the woman of Revelation, “being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered†(Revelation 12:2); whereas Roman Catholics believe that Mary “gave birth to her Son without pain†(Pope Alexander III).
None of these and similar scriptures actually prove the bodily assumption. As Pope Pius XII commented, “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.†Yet he still based his argument on these writings, thereby conceding that there is no genuine biblical proof of the Assumption!

Not taught by the Church Fathers

The Catholic Encyclopaedia admits that the first “genuine†written references to the Assumption come from authors who lived in the sixth to the eight centuries:
“If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first.†(see Note 2.)

St. Gregory lived in the sixth century, while St John Damascene belongs to the eight. Thus for several centuries in the early Church, there is no mention by the church fathers of the bodily assumption of Mary. Ireneus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose and the others church fathers said nothing about it. Writing in 377 A.D., the church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end. (see Note 3.)

First taught by heretics

So, how did this teaching originate, given that it is absent in the Sacred Scriptures and in the tradition of the early Church? The belief of the assumption is based on apocryphal and spurious writings.

“The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite†(Catholic Encyclopaedia).

The first church author to speak on the assumption, Gregory of Tours, based his teaching on the Transitus, perhaps because he accepted it as genuine. (see Note 4.) However, in 459 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree that officially condemned and rejected the Transitus along with several other heretical writings. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this decree in the sixth century. (see Note 5.) It is ironic that this heretical teaching was later promoted within the Roman Catholic Church, until eventually it was proclaimed a dogma in the twentieth century!

Conclusion

(a) The Roman Church solemnly warns anyone who “should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined (i.e. the Assumption), let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith (Munificentissimus Deus). How could this dogma be so important, seeing that it was unknown in the early Church, even condemned by some Popes, and more importantly, since it is absent from the Holy Scriptures? Some have indeed fallen from the catholic faith. The apostates are those who have invented this novel doctrine. The faithful are those who, together with the early Christians, have remained steadfast in upholding the faith of the New Testament.

(b) In theory, the Roman Church teaches that:

1. The sacred deposit of the faith (the Word of God) is contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
2. The Magisterium gives an authentic interpretation to the Word of God but does not add to its contents.

"The apostles entrust the 'Sacred deposit' of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church...[the Magisterium] teaches only what has been handed on to it...All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith" (Catechism, 84-86).

In practice, Rome teaches doctrines that are not drawn from the deposit of faith. We have seen that the Assumption is neither found in Scripture nor in the early church tradition. Certainly, if this doctrine were transmitted by the apostles to the bishops of the early church, we would expect to find at least some references to it in the voluminous writings of the Fathers. But they are conspicuously silent about this subject.

If you are a Catholic, ask yourself whether your implicit trust in the Roman magisterium is warranted. The magisterium claims to explain the Word of God, but at least in this case, it has gone far beyond it's stated role. It is inventing novel doctrines beyond the Word of God. Be careful! You may feel convinced that your faith is built on a solid rock, when in fact, you are standing on sinking sand.

(c) Roman Catholic theology has exalted Mary to the heavens, and it is therefore natural for Roman Catholics to look to her for their spiritual needs. “O most sweet Lady and our Mother, thou hast already left the earth and reached thy kingdom, where, as Queen, thou art enthroned … From the high throne, then, to which thou art exalted, turn, O Mary, thy compassionate eyes upon us, and pity us.†(Of the Assumption of Mary, St. Alphonsus de Liguori).

Despite their protestations to the contrary, the sad truth is that such Marian devotion detracts from that simple faith and devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Scripture explicitly speaks of Jesus, who having lived a sinless life, died for sinners, was buried and raised from the death, and after forty days He ascended into Heaven, where He is reigning in glory, interceding for His people. Compassion and pity is found only when we have recourse to the Lord Jesus. “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens†(Hebrews 7:25,26).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes

(1) "Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false." Immaculate Conception and Assumption; Catholic Answers; http://www.catholic.com

(2) St. Gregory of Tours lived in the 6th Century; St. Andrew of Crete, St. Modestus of Jerusalem lived in the 7th Century; St. John Damascene lived in the 8th Century.

(3) "But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary's death…for her end no-one knows." (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by Juniper Carol, OFM, Mariology, vol. II, pp. 139-40).

(4) "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).

(5) Webster, W; Marian Dogmas in The Church of Rome at the Bar of History; Banner of Truth Trust, 1995; pp. 81-85.

http://www.justforcatholics.org/assumption.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maranatha!

.
 
Mary was not assumed into heaven. Mary was not sinless.

Mary was a under the headship of Adam just like the rest of us.

The Catholic Church teaches,

Mary was born sinless

The bible teaches

1 Kings 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

This should say all have sinned except Mary if she never sinned.

The reason it dosen't was because Mary was a sinner like all men.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

If Mary was sinless then the epistles would have stated other wise.

They do not because Mary was a sinner.

If Mary was sinless then Mary we be worthy to open this book.

Revelation 5:2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

Revelation 5:3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

Only Jesus is worthy,

Revelation 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

Jesus is the only man that was ever sinless.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Mary is not even mentioned in the book of Revelation let alone as being worthy to open the book and to loose the seven seals.

Why isn't Mary called the sinless Mother of God by any of the apostles?

If Mary is the Queen of the World and of Heaven as Rome claims why isn't it mentioned at all in the epistles or the book of Revelation?

The book of Revelation should show Mary next to the throne of God if she were all that Rome claims she is.

Rome is a maker of a lie.

Revelation does mention that.

Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

What is depicted in this painting never happened. It is a lie!


mtcarmel.jpg


You can bet the apostle John would have mentioned it if in heaven Jesus was a child in the lap of his all powerful mother!
 
Not all Catholics believe in the assumption. It wasn't even official RCC doctrine until the '50s. It clearly is a non-biblical doctrine.
 
Bryan said:
Not all Catholics believe in the assumption. It wasn't even official RCC doctrine until the '50s. It clearly is a non-biblical doctrine.

As Ed McMahon used to say..." You are correct sir!"

It is a false doctrine concocted by the Marian cult.

2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
 
Gary_Bee said:
Stay on topic Bill.....

I'm off-topic?

The Dogma of the Assumption of Mary

In the Eastern Church, the dormition ("falling asleep") of Mary began to be commemorated in the 6th century. The observance gradually spread to the West, where it became known as the feast of the Assumption. By the 13th century most Roman Catholic theologians accepted the belief of the Assumption. However this doctrine did not become an article of faith until recent times, when Pope Pius XII declared it a dogma of the Catholic faith: “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†(Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950).

And your point is.....................?

I have already spoken about beliefs that have been believed early on, only to be come dogmas later on, of which the immaculate Conception and the Assumption are the two most recently defined. The Trinity as well, not defined until a heresy came along and denied the three persons in God.

Not taught in Scripture

Have I not said as much?

Roman Catholic authors readily admit that the Assumption is not explicitly taught in Scripture. (see Note 1.) In the biblical narrative, Mary is last mentioned in Acts 1 where she is found praying with the other disciples before Pentecost. After that, the Bible is silent about her life and death.

Naturally, Roman Catholic writes refer to various scriptures to demonstrate the possibility of this doctrine, and that it is was ‘fitting’ that Mary should be assumed to heaven. These efforts fall short of biblical proof. Consider some examples:
  • Genesis 3:15 [And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel] It is argued that Mary, “most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium, would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death.†We notice, however, that it is the seed, Jesus, rather that the woman, who bruised the serpent’s head. His resurrection is the sure sign of Messiah’s triumph over the Devil. Together with all Christians, Mary would also benefit from Christ’s victory according to God’s plan of salvation at the “resurrection of life.†That is still a future event.

    Luke 1:28 [And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women]. Bodily assumption is said to be the natural effect of being highly favoured or full of grace. However, the same word translated “full of grace†(Greek, charitoo) is applied to all believers in Ephesians 1:6. Yet, no-one suggests that every believer should be assumed bodily into heaven soon after death!

    Revelation 12:1 [And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars]. A Roman Catholic author writes: “Mary's coronation implies her preceding bodily assumption.†He wrongly assumes that this “woman†is Mary and ignores the problems of such interpretation. For example, the woman of Revelation, “being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered†(Revelation 12:2); whereas Roman Catholics believe that Mary “gave birth to her Son without pain†(Pope Alexander III).
None of these and similar scriptures actually prove the bodily assumption. As Pope Pius XII commented, “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.†Yet he still based his argument on these writings, thereby conceding that there is no genuine biblical proof of the Assumption!

Not taught by the Church Fathers


Yawn...............ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

The Catholic Encyclopaedia admits that the first “genuine†written references to the Assumption come from authors who lived in the sixth to the eight centuries:
[quote:36032]“If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first.†(see Note 2.)

St. Gregory lived in the sixth century, while St John Damascene belongs to the eight. Thus for several centuries in the early Church, there is no mention by the church fathers of the bodily assumption of Mary. Ireneus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose and the others church fathers said nothing about it. Writing in 377 A.D., the church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end. (see Note 3.)

First taught by heretics [/quote:36032]

Yawn.........ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ (Did you read any of the links?)

So, how did this teaching originate, given that it is absent in the Sacred Scriptures and in the tradition of the early Church? The belief of the assumption is based on apocryphal and spurious writings.

“The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite†(Catholic Encyclopaedia).

The first church author to speak on the assumption, Gregory of Tours, based his teaching on the Transitus, perhaps because he accepted it as genuine. (see Note 4.) However, in 459 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree that officially condemned and rejected the Transitus along with several other heretical writings. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this decree in the sixth century. (see Note 5.) It is ironic that this heretical teaching was later promoted within the Roman Catholic Church, until eventually it was proclaimed a dogma in the twentieth century!

Conclusion

I can't wait.......................... :biggrin

(a) The Roman Church solemnly warns anyone who “should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined (i.e. the Assumption), let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith (Munificentissimus Deus). How could this dogma be so important, seeing that it was unknown in the early Church, even condemned by some Popes, and more importantly, since it is absent from the Holy Scriptures? Some have indeed fallen from the catholic faith. The apostates are those who have invented this novel doctrine. The faithful are those who, together with the early Christians, have remained steadfast in upholding the faith of the New Testament.

(b) In theory, the Roman Church teaches that:

1. The sacred deposit of the faith (the Word of God) is contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
2. The Magisterium gives an authentic interpretation to the Word of God but does not add to its contents.

"The apostles entrust the 'Sacred deposit' of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church...[the Magisterium] teaches only what has been handed on to it...All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith" (Catechism, 84-86).

In practice, Rome teaches doctrines that are not drawn from the deposit of faith. We have seen that the Assumption is neither found in Scripture nor in the early church tradition. Certainly, if this doctrine were transmitted by the apostles to the bishops of the early church, we would expect to find at least some references to it in the voluminous writings of the Fathers. But they are conspicuously silent about this subject.

If you are a Catholic, ask yourself whether your implicit trust in the Roman magisterium is warranted. The magisterium claims to explain the Word of God, but at least in this case, it has gone far beyond it's stated role. It is inventing novel doctrines beyond the Word of God. Be careful! You may feel convinced that your faith is built on a solid rock, when in fact, you are standing on sinking sand.

(c) Roman Catholic theology has exalted Mary to the heavens, and it is therefore natural for Roman Catholics to look to her for their spiritual needs. “O most sweet Lady and our Mother, thou hast already left the earth and reached thy kingdom, where, as Queen, thou art enthroned … From the high throne, then, to which thou art exalted, turn, O Mary, thy compassionate eyes upon us, and pity us.†(Of the Assumption of Mary, St. Alphonsus de Liguori).

Despite their protestations to the contrary, the sad truth is that such Marian devotion detracts from that simple faith and devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Scripture explicitly speaks of Jesus, who having lived a sinless life, died for sinners, was buried and raised from the death, and after forty days He ascended into Heaven, where He is reigning in glory, interceding for His people. Compassion and pity is found only when we have recourse to the Lord Jesus. “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens†(Hebrews 7:25,26).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes

(1) "Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false." Immaculate Conception and Assumption; Catholic Answers; http://www.catholic.com

(2) St. Gregory of Tours lived in the 6th Century; St. Andrew of Crete, St. Modestus of Jerusalem lived in the 7th Century; St. John Damascene lived in the 8th Century.

(3) "But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary's death…for her end no-one knows." (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by Juniper Carol, OFM, Mariology, vol. II, pp. 139-40).

(4) "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).

(5) Webster, W; Marian Dogmas in The Church of Rome at the Bar of History; Banner of Truth Trust, 1995; pp. 81-85.

http://www.justforcatholics.org/assumption.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maranatha!.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz Oops, I'm awake!

Look, I believed in the Assumption of Mary before I entered the Catholic Church, Gary, and I also put myself under the obligation of being obedient to the magisterium of the Church.

What happens if I cease to do this? I cease to be a Catholic )in practice, that is...)

Did you read any of the links?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Give me that REAL old time religion!
The CATHOLIC CHURCH, 2,000 years of history!
 
William Putnam said:
Look, I believed in the Assumption of Mary before I entered the Catholic Church, Gary, and I also put myself under the obligation of being obedient to the magisterium of the Church.

What happens if I cease to do this? I cease to be a Catholic )in practice, that is...)

Hi there!

:angel:



I would be curious as to what was the authority that cause you to surrender to the sovereign rule of church dogma over biblical teachings?



Give me that REAL old time religion!
The CATHOLIC CHURCH, 2,000 years of history!

Also, when you cite the 2,000 year history of the RCC, I immediately think that if time is the equator, satanism has been around a lot longer than Christianity.


History teaches that the Roman church attempted to quelch out the true church and the true body of believers.


~serapha~
 
serapha said:
I would be curious as to what was the authority that cause you to surrender to the sovereign rule of church dogma over biblical teachings?

What "authority"? Excuse a bit of circular logic, but the bible, of course! :biggrin

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and dthe gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 16:18-19 Catholic NAB

Actually, I have the cart before the horse, as Christ said this before this bit of scripture was written, which indicates that it is authority of the very church Christ establishes, with the awesome authority you also see given to it. The bible, which is "authority" as well, and as defined and declared by the...the...the...(gasp!)...same CHURCH Christ establishes, records the event of Christ's giving authority to His Church!

Also, when you cite the 2,000 year history of the RCC, I immediately think that if time is the equator, satanism has been around a lot longer than Christianity.

Of course, else why would Adam and Eve be deceived by the very serpent that tempted them to eat the forbidden fruit?

Actually, your statement in non sequitur, as the 2,000 years happens to be the span of time when Christ established His church and the present day! Also, the 2,000 years is pertinant as it describes the age of the oldest Christian Church around, thus it has to be the one Christ founded! :biggrin

History teaches that the Roman church attempted to quelch out the true church and the true body of believers.

What history? :o

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.


- The Apostles Creed -
 
bibleberean said:
Mary was not assumed into heaven. Mary was not sinless.

Mary was a under the headship of Adam just like the rest of us.

The Catholic Church teaches,

Mary was born sinless

The bible teaches

1 Kings 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

This should say all have sinned except Mary if she never sinned.

The reason it dosen't was because Mary was a sinner like all men.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

If Mary was sinless then the epistles would have stated other wise.

They do not because Mary was a sinner.

If Mary was sinless then Mary we be worthy to open this book.

Revelation 5:2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

Revelation 5:3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

Only Jesus is worthy,

Revelation 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

Jesus is the only man that was ever sinless.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Mary is not even mentioned in the book of Revelation let alone as being worthy to open the book and to loose the seven seals.

Why isn't Mary called the sinless Mother of God by any of the apostles?

If Mary is the Queen of the World and of Heaven as Rome claims why isn't it mentioned at all in the epistles or the book of Revelation?

The book of Revelation should show Mary next to the throne of God if she were all that Rome claims she is.

Rome is a maker of a lie.

Revelation does mention that.

Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

What is depicted in this painting never happened. It is a lie!


mtcarmel.jpg


You can bet the apostle John would have mentioned it if in heaven Jesus was a child in the lap of his all powerful mother!

This may have been missed. :biggrin
 
Gary_Bee said:
Stay on topic Bill.....

The Dogma of the Assumption of Mary

In the Eastern Church, the dormition ("falling asleep") of Mary began to be commemorated in the 6th century. The observance gradually spread to the West, where it became known as the feast of the Assumption. By the 13th century most Roman Catholic theologians accepted the belief of the Assumption. However this doctrine did not become an article of faith until recent times, when Pope Pius XII declared it a dogma of the Catholic faith: “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†(Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950).

Not taught in Scripture

Roman Catholic authors readily admit that the Assumption is not explicitly taught in Scripture. (see Note 1.) In the biblical narrative, Mary is last mentioned in Acts 1 where she is found praying with the other disciples before Pentecost. After that, the Bible is silent about her life and death.

Naturally, Roman Catholic writes refer to various scriptures to demonstrate the possibility of this doctrine, and that it is was ‘fitting’ that Mary should be assumed to heaven. These efforts fall short of biblical proof. Consider some examples:
  • Genesis 3:15 [And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel] It is argued that Mary, “most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium, would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death.†We notice, however, that it is the seed, Jesus, rather that the woman, who bruised the serpent’s head. His resurrection is the sure sign of Messiah’s triumph over the Devil. Together with all Christians, Mary would also benefit from Christ’s victory according to God’s plan of salvation at the “resurrection of life.†That is still a future event.

    Luke 1:28 [And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women]. Bodily assumption is said to be the natural effect of being highly favoured or full of grace. However, the same word translated “full of grace†(Greek, charitoo) is applied to all believers in Ephesians 1:6. Yet, no-one suggests that every believer should be assumed bodily into heaven soon after death!

    Revelation 12:1 [And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars]. A Roman Catholic author writes: “Mary's coronation implies her preceding bodily assumption.†He wrongly assumes that this “woman†is Mary and ignores the problems of such interpretation. For example, the woman of Revelation, “being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered†(Revelation 12:2); whereas Roman Catholics believe that Mary “gave birth to her Son without pain†(Pope Alexander III).
None of these and similar scriptures actually prove the bodily assumption. As Pope Pius XII commented, “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.†Yet he still based his argument on these writings, thereby conceding that there is no genuine biblical proof of the Assumption!

Not taught by the Church Fathers

The Catholic Encyclopaedia admits that the first “genuine†written references to the Assumption come from authors who lived in the sixth to the eight centuries:
“If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first.†(see Note 2.)

St. Gregory lived in the sixth century, while St John Damascene belongs to the eight. Thus for several centuries in the early Church, there is no mention by the church fathers of the bodily assumption of Mary. Ireneus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose and the others church fathers said nothing about it. Writing in 377 A.D., the church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end. (see Note 3.)

First taught by heretics

So, how did this teaching originate, given that it is absent in the Sacred Scriptures and in the tradition of the early Church? The belief of the assumption is based on apocryphal and spurious writings.

“The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite†(Catholic Encyclopaedia).

The first church author to speak on the assumption, Gregory of Tours, based his teaching on the Transitus, perhaps because he accepted it as genuine. (see Note 4.) However, in 459 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree that officially condemned and rejected the Transitus along with several other heretical writings. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this decree in the sixth century. (see Note 5.) It is ironic that this heretical teaching was later promoted within the Roman Catholic Church, until eventually it was proclaimed a dogma in the twentieth century!

Conclusion

(a) The Roman Church solemnly warns anyone who “should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined (i.e. the Assumption), let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith (Munificentissimus Deus). How could this dogma be so important, seeing that it was unknown in the early Church, even condemned by some Popes, and more importantly, since it is absent from the Holy Scriptures? Some have indeed fallen from the catholic faith. The apostates are those who have invented this novel doctrine. The faithful are those who, together with the early Christians, have remained steadfast in upholding the faith of the New Testament.

(b) In theory, the Roman Church teaches that:

1. The sacred deposit of the faith (the Word of God) is contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
2. The Magisterium gives an authentic interpretation to the Word of God but does not add to its contents.

"The apostles entrust the 'Sacred deposit' of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church...[the Magisterium] teaches only what has been handed on to it...All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith" (Catechism, 84-86).

In practice, Rome teaches doctrines that are not drawn from the deposit of faith. We have seen that the Assumption is neither found in Scripture nor in the early church tradition. Certainly, if this doctrine were transmitted by the apostles to the bishops of the early church, we would expect to find at least some references to it in the voluminous writings of the Fathers. But they are conspicuously silent about this subject.

If you are a Catholic, ask yourself whether your implicit trust in the Roman magisterium is warranted. The magisterium claims to explain the Word of God, but at least in this case, it has gone far beyond it's stated role. It is inventing novel doctrines beyond the Word of God. Be careful! You may feel convinced that your faith is built on a solid rock, when in fact, you are standing on sinking sand.

(c) Roman Catholic theology has exalted Mary to the heavens, and it is therefore natural for Roman Catholics to look to her for their spiritual needs. “O most sweet Lady and our Mother, thou hast already left the earth and reached thy kingdom, where, as Queen, thou art enthroned … From the high throne, then, to which thou art exalted, turn, O Mary, thy compassionate eyes upon us, and pity us.†(Of the Assumption of Mary, St. Alphonsus de Liguori).

Despite their protestations to the contrary, the sad truth is that such Marian devotion detracts from that simple faith and devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Scripture explicitly speaks of Jesus, who having lived a sinless life, died for sinners, was buried and raised from the death, and after forty days He ascended into Heaven, where He is reigning in glory, interceding for His people. Compassion and pity is found only when we have recourse to the Lord Jesus. “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens†(Hebrews 7:25,26).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes

(1) "Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false." Immaculate Conception and Assumption; Catholic Answers; http://www.catholic.com

(2) St. Gregory of Tours lived in the 6th Century; St. Andrew of Crete, St. Modestus of Jerusalem lived in the 7th Century; St. John Damascene lived in the 8th Century.

(3) "But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary's death…for her end no-one knows." (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by Juniper Carol, OFM, Mariology, vol. II, pp. 139-40).

(4) "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).

(5) Webster, W; Marian Dogmas in The Church of Rome at the Bar of History; Banner of Truth Trust, 1995; pp. 81-85.

http://www.justforcatholics.org/assumption.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maranatha!

.

These are excellent points Gary. I don't think "yawn" and "zzzzzzzzzzz..."

Refutes any of this! :angel:
 
Thanks bibleberean. :wink: I realise that Bill cannot refute the argument and he therefore reverts to sarcasm, the lowest form of wit. It matters not.... he has been presented with the truth. He can choose to reject it as he has done in several other threads when he cannot answer or refute the argument.

The extended and expanded post above with all the references was also intended for stray-bullet who said: "... you have no proof..." and "Show me."

I have noticed that Muslims in debates also act like Bill does. I think that is the reaction when presented with the "light" of true Christianity. More and more, I realise that Muslims and Roman Catholics share many traits.

:-? :-? :-?
 
Back
Top