Assumption

Bob Ryan,

Good post!

I respect Mary as the mother of my Lord but the Assumption of Mary into Heaven is a fanciful illusion at best. From the time of the apostles to when the Pope declared this a doctrine it was apparently not important at all. Now with the brainstorming of a pope we come up with yet another doctrine to absorb as being the truth.

One day, the elected Pope--- was a Cardinal, and the day of his installation he gets the 'hocuspocus' and he immediately gets the right to make up new doctrine. This they cast as his ex cathedras. My understanding is that he is not totally infallible but only when he brings to the table his imagined, new doctrines.

Let's wait and see. Maybe soon one will say that the Apostle Paul ascended into Heaven or perhaps Padre Pio. After all--it's not impossible. Anything is possible in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

So Ray, shall we consider this your official response to MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS?

"he gets the 'hocuspocus'" -- am I in a Saturday Night Live skit and I don't know it?

 

Where does one really find the story of the Assumption of Mary? Is it in the Apocrypha? Or in the Lost Books of the Bible? or in Aesop's Fables?
DHK

 

Where does one really find the story of the Assumption of Mary? Is it in the Apocrypha? Or in the Lost Books of the Bible? or in Aesop's Fables?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Remind me again in Scripture where every truth of the faith must be explicitly found in Scripture.

 

Jude
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

The faith is that body of doctrine contained within the pages of the Word of God. It is that which is written by the prophets of the Old Testament, and the Apostles of the New Testament.

2Pet.3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

All of our doctrine is from the Word of God. Jesus said Search the Scriptures; not the Tradition of the Catholic Church; neither Church Fathers of the Catholic Church. He said Search the Scriptures.
Isaiah said also that if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them (Isa.8:20).
One can only conclude that those who continue to hold to such fairy-tale like doctrines which are totally unsubstantiated by Scripture “have no light in them,” as Isaiah says.
DHK

 

A License to Invent:

Remind me again in Scripture where every truth of the faith must be
explicitly found in Scripture.

 

The assumption of Mary into Heaven was not even whispered for 1950 years and now we are supposed to shout it from the church bell tower. God must have been busy in Heaven because it took Him nearly 2,000 years to get the message out to all Christians; and for the Lord that is a long time.

 

Please back up that statement.

 

They 'Searched the Scriptures Daily to See IF the things spoken to them by Paul - Were So" Acts 17:11.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In the case of Mary - there was "nothing to catch" the RC traditions had been making things up - for a long time. (Infant Baptism, Purgatory, the Papacy itself, indulgences..) Once they established their man-made traditions as a valid "source" to created new doctrine - adding more stories about Mary is the easy part.

The more difficult task would be to "change the text of scripture itself". Scripture that was written and distributed in the first century. So they have historically settled for either burning it, banning it, or adding to it.

Good point Mike. Surely the doctrinal errors and myths must have a purpose - some "gain". Point well made.

Notice that when the images of Zeus are baptized as "peter" in Rome - the church "benefits" with this inclusion of paganism. In fact the entire system of praying to the dead - turns out to be very beneficial on numerous counts. The Pagans instantly identify with it. Their existing gods and images are "reusable" in the new Christianized form of paganism AND an entire "industry" grows within Catholicism dedicated to this worship of the dead. (See the back of Catholic Digest for a good example of ads and "business" based soley in non-biblical man-made traditions).

But then as Mike correctly asks -- "why Mary"? What good does it do to add another story about Mary to the stories about the "tomb of Mary" and all the dead saints?

Why introduce the "Assumption of Mary" - and "sinless like Christ" and "Queen of heaven" and "All-powerful" and "at her Command even God obeys"... etc?

Notice that none of the other dead saints achieve the full God status of Mary. There is no statement about them that they are "King" or "Queen" of heaven, "All powerful" or that "At their command even God obeys".

This "second source of Doctrine" can elivate its deities EVEN to the same level as God himself "Co-Redemptrix" - "Sinless like Christ" etc.

The obvious "incentive" is there - to take this second - man-made-avenue to the "very top". Financial gain - as well as the hold over the masses of an even more powerful superstition than prayers to dead ancestors, forefathers, leaders is also "an obvious incentive".

We may argue that all these "benefits" are simply "unforeseen byproducts" and pretend that they massive traffic in sales, donations and the ability to hold the masses with a source that is not objective and can not be established in scripture - never "occured to them".

But that is a bit far fetched.

No "need to" and the "Risk is high". By establishing their second channel of man-made-stories as "equally authorotative as scripture" they need to take the risk of announcing in 520 AD "Hey we have a new Bible today" - No Internet -and no good way to zap the entire world with its various copies held and and outside of the RC institutions - (copies even maintained in RC monastaries) - to "all change at once".

So again - high risk, and no incentive when the "Second channel" is so effective and too many changes would be "needed in the text of scripture" to get the loads of tradition - imported into the text.

(Not to mention the fact that God - is the "owner" of His Word, not the RCC).

The "Bible Believing" Christians "already" did not accept "purgatory" or "prayers to the dead" or "infallability of the Papacy" etc. Making up more "stories" along those same lines - would not "increase the risk" - they were already "way down that road". And they had been working on the "Assumption of Mary" myth prior to 1950.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Nice theory, Bob. Too bad you just made all that up.

 

quote:Bob Said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN the assumption "story" Apostles are flying in from all over the world to say farewell to Mary. There is no "Tomb" in that "story".

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

Ahh then some light evening reading is called for.

Here it is...

In Christ,

Bob

 

The incredible depths to which the RCC will quickly descend in its pursuit if superstition and exaultation of Mary - will continually surprise non-Catholics.

I have learned that lesson repeatedly as one fantastic RC document after another is discovered and published BY RC sources themselves!

In Christ,

Bob

 

They 'Searched the Scriptures Daily to See IF the things spoken to them by Paul - Were So" Acts 17:11.

Ray is saying, Bob, you are more than correct that the first Christians judged everything by whether or not it was in the Word of God. Hey, when we get into believing a tradition of a denomination or branch of the church we then become similar to the Mormons who have added extra-biblical sources.

This is why the Reformers demanded the concept of sola Scriptura. For the zealous Catholics, if they were told that Heaven was made of Limburger cheeze they would not even try to smell if it were true on their arrival at Heaven. Is blind faith really faith at all? I am sure that in other states than Missouri they also call this gullibility.

Again brethren, 'Search the Scriptures daily, whether these things be true!'

 

Hi Ray, You wrote, "The assumption of Mary into Heaven was not even whispered for 1950 years and now we are supposed to shout it from the church bell tower."

Not even whispered? How comfortable do you feel when making such extravagantly false statements as that?

From the 7th century, almost the whole Church, east and west, celebrated the feast of the Assumption.

Not even a whisper? *Sigh* I have two words for you Ray.. "false", "witness".

 

They 'Searched the Scriptures Daily to See IF the things spoken to them by Paul - Were So" Acts 17:11

Okay, let's be Berean! All we have is the Old Testament, and from the Old Testament, we must verify whether the Apostolic Tradition being taught to us is true or not (because, as Bereans, we don't have a New Testament - just what this guy named "Paul" is claiming).

In the Old Testament, we see the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. The ark contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, "Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might."

If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark — who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ. This Lord went to his resting place in the Ascension as well as the ark of his might, the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the Assumption.

A good, faithful Berean would say, "Yup, Mary's Assumption can be verified from Scripture", having only the Old Testament to go by.

 

I'd be careful saying that. While Martin Luther, "reformer" pushed for sola scriptura, he soon became aware that he had opened Pandora's Box and effectively put limits on that. If I want to be Lutheran again, I'd have to openly state my adherance to the Holy Scriptures AND the Lutheran Confessions. In fact, my hometown pastor asked me (as I began moving towards the Catholic Church) to no longer receive communion there, lest even go up to the rail for a blessing, as doing so means that one believes "as the Lutheran Confessions teach."

Also, I don't appreciate you overlooking my other post, asking you to back up your "whisper" statement.

 

The incredible heights to which the Catholic Church will quickly ascend in its pursuit of the One True Faith and true role of the Mother of the Redeemer - will continaully suprise non-Catholics.

Yes, indeed.

 

As you would have it. The "flying apostles" swooping in to visit Mary as given in the example above - being a prime example.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That's no answer. Is this a tradition of men you're defending?