Assumption

Bob, you understand that this account is not Scripture, right? And that the Church does not hold "flying apostles" to be an inerrant truth that all Catholics must believe, right? So why are you mentioning it, other than to try and ridicule the Church with a "truth" that the Church does not teach. Which leads us to

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen

 

I personally liked Reverend Fulton Sheen and his basicly Christian message. My grandfaither's father lived in the country of France, so all of my deceased relatives were Roman Catholic. My grandfather was Roman Catholic until some how--some way he was 'born again' [John 3:3] through faith in Jesus Christ and found a real experience and relationship with the Lord. He was not at all pleased that the Catholic Church had shrouded this Biblical truth. It seems bigotted by todays mores but in his displeasure of the church he called, Roman Catholic people, 'cross-backs.' Apart from this perhaps flaw, he was a Godly man who attended church twice every Sunday and the mid-week prayer service at his church. He would have been one of those hundred people who hated the teaching of an apostate church.

 

Hi Ray,

No apology, no retraction? Your statement concerning the assumption that I quickly addressed above.. do you believe that was a little "out of line" on your part?

You wrote, "My grandfather was Roman Catholic until some how--some way he was 'born again' [John 3:3] through faith in Jesus Christ and found a real experience and relationship with the Lord. He was not at all pleased that the Catholic Church had shrouded this Biblical truth."

*Sigh* Which Biblical truth is shrouded by Catholicism? That we must be born again? That we must have faith in Jesus Christ? That our relationship with Jesus is a real exsperience and a personal relationship?

"No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit. God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!' This knowledge of faith is possible only in the Holy Spirit: to be in touch with Christ, we must first have been touched by the Holy Spirit. He comes to meet us and kindles faith in us. By virtue of our Baptism, the first sacrament of the faith, the Holy Spirit in the Church communicates to us, intimately and personally, the life that originates in the Father and is offered to us in the Son. "Baptism gives us the grace of new birth in God the Father, through his Son, in the Holy Spirit. For those who bear God's Spirit are led to the Word, that is, to the Son, and the Son presents them to the Father, and the Father confers incorruptibility on them. And it is impossible to see God's Son without the Spirit, and no one can approach the Father without the Son, for the knowledge of the Father is the Son,and the knowledge of God's Son is obtained through the Holy Spirit" (St. Irenaeus of Lyons; cf. 180 A.D.). Through his grace, the Holy Spirit is the first to awaken faith in us and to communicate to us the new life, which is to know the Father and the one whom he has sent, Jesus Christ" (CCC 683).

Pray tell, Ray, what Biblical truth has the Catholic Church "shrouded"? Or is this another "false witness" of yours, like the one above concerning the doctrine of Mary's assumption into heaven?

 

Ray, you say:

Archbishop Fulton Sheen's "basically" Christian message is the teachings of the Catholic Church. I like him too. I collect his books.

God Bless

 

Why should Ray apologize for anything. The Assuption is simply a fairy-tale story with no Biblical basis whatsoever at all.

Yes. You don't believe that one must be Biblially born again to be saved. You believe that one must be baptized to be saved, and that baptism is part of the born again process, which is heresy. Baptism is never mentioned once in John 3, where Jesus said "You must be born again." Being born again takes faith. It takes the belief of the one who is being born into God's family. He does so by His own volition, not the will of another. Therefore it is an impossibilty for an infant to be born again; it is an heresy which you believe. It is obvious then that an infant cannot have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ--another heresy.

Not so! You misunderstand the verse in 1Cor.12. Any devil can say that Jesus Christ is Lord. Try it. Go from door to door and ask atheists and ungodly people, "Can you say the words "Jesus Christ is Lord?" Any fool can say those words, with or without the Holy Spirit.

What does Jesus say in verse 1 of 1Cor.12?
"I would not have you ignorant of spiritual of gifts." The context is spiiritual gifts which Paul discusses in chapters 12 to 14, with an emphasis on the gift of tongues. That was the gift that was being abused the most. He reminds the Corinthians about their pagan past that they had come out of, and how that they had worshipped idols. No doubt, in doing this they went into a trance like state, became demonically possessed, spoke ecstatic incoherent languages. These "languages" were not from God, they were coming from their pagan past. Sometimes they were actually praising Satan in a foreign language, which could be possibly detected by another present. Thus Paul writes:

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
--One who has the true gift of tongues will say that Jesus is the Lord by the Holy Spirit. It is the demonically possessed person that cannot say that Christ is Lord, for he does not have the Holy Spirit in Him, but rather a demon. Not every person is demon possessed, Carson. You can get any fool to repeat the words "Jesus is the Lord."

"By virtue of baptism," Baptism has nothing to do with this. Baptism simply makes you wet.

There is a good descriptive word for that--hogwash!
Baptism does not give grace of the new birth in God, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. There is no Scriptural evidence of that. Baptism does not give any grace at all. Baptism is simply a command that Christ gave to all believers after they were saved; after they personally put their faith in Christ. It is the first step of obedience in the walk of the Chrisian life, nothing more. It is symbolic of the believers death to his old life to sin, and his resurrection to a new life with Christ. It is symbolic, and nothing more. It does not impart grace. It does not give or have anthing to do with the new birth. It does not have anything at all to do with salvation.
By your statement here you have outrightly condemned a person like Singer to an eternity in Hell, because he has not been baptized. Is this what you really believe?

The Assumption of Mary, or course (but then that never was Biblical in the first place.)
The New Birth.
Salvation itself--a works salvation; not of grace alone.
Baptismal regeneration.
idolatry.
a denial of "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." i.e. Purgatory.
and many more.
DHK

 

Speaking of the Assumption, the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is this Friday, August 15th, 2003, and it is a Holy Day of Obligation for those Catholics residing in the United States.

Don't forget to go to Mass on Friday!

P.S. DHK, when you get to Heaven, you'll believe as we Catholics do presently; unforunately, it's going to take a good lickin' in Purgatory to get your doctrine all straightened out.

 

Are Catholics truly obligated to observe this so-called assumption of Mary? Didn't Paul say something about days in Romans 14? How can the church "obligate" someone to observe a day? Or am I understanding obligation wrong?

In the Risen Lord Jesus Christ,
Neal

 

Celebrating many holy days could become a way of stealing our liberty in Christ. Yes, I celebrate with the church certain holy days like, Christmas, Easter, Lent and the Day of Pentecost for example, but we are not required to do this as far as the Bible suggests. Thus, Romans 14:5-6 as one of the other brethren spoke about in his post. Celebrating being born again of the Spirit is more useful than giving allegiance to a dead saint who is very much alive in Heaven above. The bones of the saints turn to ashes in the grave, but everyone who is born again is a saint in the eyes of the Lord Jesus. [I Cor. 1:2] Everyone born of the Spirit is also sanctified in Christ Jesus because God has placed His seal on the soul of the person who has received Christ as personal Savior.

 

Protestant, Evangelical, and Anabaptist doctrines were not taught for 1600 years until the rebels left the Church of our Lord. Jesus didn't teach them. St. Paul didn't teach them. St. Peter didn't teach them. They come from twisting and torturing the Scriptures to fit preconcieved ideas, from rebeling against the teachings of the apostles, and from a complete lack of understanding the covenant

BUUUUUUT

We are suppose to believe them as if they have always been the truth.

RIIIIIIGHT!!!

 

Ray:

Matthew 16:19
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Jesus left a Church with His authority to teach and to bind and to loose.

God Bless

 

Yup! But, by the mercy of God, we'll all gather together later to have a big laugh about it!

 

God Bless You, CC.

In Christ,
Neal

 

Matthew 16:19
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Jesus left a Church with His authority to teach and to bind and to loose.

God Bless </font>[/QUOTE]Not to mention that we celebrate a Holy Day by going to Mass, which is the most Christ-centered worship you'll find in this world.

 

Protestant, Evangelical, and Anabaptist doctrines were not taught for 1600 years until the rebels left the Church of our Lord.

Ray says, 'There have always been pockets of believers who 'went underground' with their beliefs and worship because of a persecuting and torturing, mother, church. Certain doctrines could not have been taught because the Roman Catholic Church suppressed, pristine, spiritual truth away from the masses of searching people. Perpetuating the ecclesiastical church was more important than studying the Bible and its beautiful truth.

'The church of our Lord,' was the apostolic church until it too apostacized from the purity of the truth and took on the worldly concepts of statues and images of saints, to please the new converts to Catholocism who always had their many deities.

Has anyone in the New Testament read about statues to saints or even statues to angels? I don't recall that in my reading or studying. Am I wrong?

 

Did the first alleged pope, St. Peter, use the term 'Mass' in his epistles? We skeptics need a chapter and verse for this concept. By the way, who invented the idea of a Mass?

 

Mike, you understand that non-Catholics do not believe in the RC "story" about the assumption of Mary - right?

You understand that the "story" given by that writer is what is promoted on RC Mariology information sites and is the ONLY story that the RC has for "The assumption of Mary" - right?

If you have "another story" or an "official story" that is "more common" or "better accepted" or "better endorsed" than the one posted by the RCC (as I pointed out) you are encouraged to back up such a claim with a reference.

ORRR - are you claiming that the RC says Mary was assumed and that there is NO "account" or "letter" or "story" telling us anything at all about it - they just "make it up"?

Which version are you suggesting?

In Christ,

Bob

 

That would be Christ, Ray.

 

Mike, you understand that non-Catholics do not believe in the RC "story" about the assumption of Mary - right?

You understand that the "story" given by that writer is what is promoted on RC Mariology information sites and is the ONLY story that the RC has for "The assumption of Mary" - right?

If you have "another story" or an "official story" that is "more common" or "better accepted" or "better endorsed" than the one posted by the RCC (as I pointed out) you are encouraged to back up such a claim with a reference.

ORRR - are you claiming that the RC says Mary was assumed and that there is NO "account" or "letter" or "story" telling us anything at all about it - they just "make it up"?

Which version are you suggesting?

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Bob,

I'm suggesting you read the papal encyclical MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS and notice that there is no mention of flying apostles, or St. John the Theologian, or The Transitus Mariæ. After you've read the encyclical and the 48 footnoted items then we can discuss what the Church actually teaches regarding the Assumption, rather than what some advocacy websites promote.

 

One word, Ray: "Trinity"

 

Yup! But, by the mercy of God, we'll all gather together later to have a big laugh about it! </font>[/QUOTE]Well, Carson and Mike,
I find it no laughing matter.
For at the time of death, you'll fly right by a non-existent purgatory. I am not sure if you'll be happy or sad if you will find out you'll be wrong on that point.
You will find out that Mary died a natural death, and that before she did, she had children by her husband Joseph. Thus this story of the Assumption has just been a lark all along.

But more importantly than all of that, you will find that if you are wrong on your view of the New Birth, you may not see Heaven at all.
DHK