|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/19/2007 4:50:37 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1093
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
Now here's a point...Orthodox contend that she died as all do because she was part of a fallen humanity seperated from man's original life giving relationship with God...her mortality demonstrated this and thus her need for a Savior with or without any question of personal sin.
Of course the Scripture is silent of the question of her death...if this whole thing is an unverifiable tradition as some poster's claim...perhaps the Catholic position that she did not die is one Protestants would have less "scriptural" problem with...at least that narrow aspect of it.
Just a thought.
Perhaps a Catholic poster would care to respond on what support the Cathlic belief supposition that she did not die...is this a reasoned conclusion of what must be based of a particular theological understanding of the nature and person of the Theotokos or is the event itself ...that of direct translation, the Tradition as it has been recived by Rome? If the latter is the case how is the difference between the Catolic and Orthodox accounts of the tradition resolved?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/19/2007 5:19:31 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 4916
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unworthyseraphim
Now here's a point...Orthodox contend that she died as all do because she was part of a fallen humanity seperated from man's original life giving relationship with God...her mortality demonstrated this and thus her need for a Savior with or without any question of personal sin.
Of course the Scripture is silent of the question of her death...if this whole thing is an unverifiable tradition as some poster's claim...perhaps the Catholic position that she did not die is one Protestants would have less "scriptural" problem with...at least that narrow aspect of it.
Just a thought.
Perhaps a Catholic poster would care to respond on what support the Cathlic belief supposition that she did not die...is this a reasoned conclusion of what must be based of a particular theological understanding of the nature and person of the Theotokos or is the event itself ...that of direct translation, the Tradition as it has been recived by Rome? If the latter is the case how is the difference between the Catolic and Orthodox accounts of the tradition resolved?
Well UWS, where do you, or at least the EOC stand on Mary never having tasted death?
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my new book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/19/2007 5:30:58 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11604
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
I cannot see that the Catholic Church has ever defined whether she died or not--it just says "After the completion of her earthly life...." No mention of death one way or the other.
ETA: While I was gone, we went ot the Abbey of the Dormition, which is, I believe, Benedictine. They say she died, was buried, but that after burial she was assumed into Heaven.
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/19/2007 11:18:17 PM
|
|
|
gatolover
Posts: 546
Joined: 6/23/2006
Status: offline
|
Exactly Ps103,
I'm not sure where the EOC comes up with notion that the Catholic Church denies the physical death of the Blessed Mother.
Propaganda, perhaps?
Pax Christi,
gatolover
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ps103
I cannot see that the Catholic Church has ever defined whether she died or not--it just says "After the completion of her earthly life...." No mention of death one way or the other.
ETA: While I was gone, we went ot the Abbey of the Dormition, which is, I believe, Benedictine. They say she died, was buried, but that after burial she was assumed into Heaven.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/19/2007 11:50:05 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1375
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
Dear gato, it is not propaganda since I heard this from the Catholics themselves, not the EOC.
I also checked several sites, and there is no agreement among the Catholics on whether she died, was taken before she died, was taken after she died, resurrected and then taken up, etc... And these sites has nothing to do with the EOC.
I understand Wikipedia is not authoritative, but this is what they have about the Catholic teaching, "The point of her bodily death has not been infallibly defined, and many believe that she did not die at all, but was assumed directly into Heaven."
_____________________________
St. Athanasius the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/20/2007 2:02:09 AM
|
|
|
agomemnon
Posts: 98
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
The Catholic Church's definition in regards to the assumption of Mary simply states that the Immaculate Virgin "was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over" (Lumen gentium, n. 59, Vatican II).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/20/2007 2:23:47 AM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1093
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
What I was told by Newman way back when on this site was that Catholic generally belive that it was not apropriate for her to taste death so at the very instant of the end of her earthly life she was translated and caught away. This is not universal Catholic belief I know...but this or something near it is commonly believed so far as I know.
As for the EOC...we believe she died and was buried. There was a riot that tried to disrupt her funeral and dump her body to the ground...God intervened. Her resurrection came after she was buried. It was discovered when St. Thomas who had arrived late to her deathbed wished to pay his last respects. When the other apostles opened the tomb for him, it was empty and she appeared to them later back at her home and explained what had happened. This event marked the beginning of the specific veneration of the blessed Theotokos within the Church so far as I know.
My question is for those Catholic who do believe she was directly translated at the moment of the end of her earthly life has to do with the origin of that belief...is it a reasoned theological speculation or the transmission of the memory of the actual event?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/20/2007 10:50:36 PM
|
|
|
gatolover
Posts: 546
Joined: 6/23/2006
Status: offline
|
Dear unworthyseraphim,
quote:
My question is for those Catholic who do believe she was directly translated at the moment of the end of her earthly life has to do with the origin of that belief...is it a reasoned theological speculation or the transmission of the memory of the actual event?
The fact is, my friend, that no one knows for sure. Whether the EOC defined some sort of quasi-dogma regarding the Assumption of the Blessed Mother belongs to you to decipher.
The Catholic Church does not presume to know the nature of the Blessed Mother's state prior to her Assumption. The Church only defines what is revealed.
Pax Christi,
gatolover
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/20/2007 11:39:40 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1093
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
Yes...but the Tradition as we have recieved it says she reposed...that's why there exists a Church of the Dormition of the Theotokos...it marks the place where she fell asleep in the Lord. If I recall correctly it was build by an empress....but certainly not later than the emperor Justinian. If it has been called the Church of the Dormition since the early 300s then that strongly suggests that the Tradition saying she fell asleep is consistant with this fact.
Here is an excerpt of a short article on the dormition relating what St. John of Damascus says, "St. John Damascene gives the most interesting and most substantial testimony on the Dormition. In his second sermon on the Dormition, he appeals to another work, not well known to us, “The History of Euthemius” and says, that after Pulcheria, the wife of Emperor Marcian (450-457), had built a church in honor of the Most Holy Mother of God at Blachernae, a suburb of Constantinople, she wanted to place the body of the Most Holy Mother of God there. In this matter she turned to the Patriarch of Jerusalem Juvenal (+458), who at the time was at the Council of Chalcedon (451). He related to her the tradition that, after Mary’s grave had been opened for St. Thomas, her body was not found there. Instead of the body, Juvenal sent to Pulcheria the funeral clothes of the Most Holy Mother of God. The last writer in the East who collected all the traditions concerning the Dormition was the Byzantine Church writer, Nicephor Callistus Ksantopul (+1335). He also wrote the synaxaries for the Triodion and of the Saints for the whole year."
So if St. John writing in the 8th century recounts the testimony of a 5th century patriarch of Jerusalem on the matter who passed on the story that she did fall asleep before being raised, then the Orthodox affirmation of this sequence of events as being the Tradition as transmitted seems well founded.
But still whether it is a matter known with any certainty or not is not essential to the question I asked. The matter may not be officially defined within the Catholic Church, but it is certain there are a number of well informed Catholic we believe that we was taken at the instant she otherwise would have expired....or something like this. What I want to know is from those who believe that or who are familiar with this belief is the why of the belief, does it arise from the Tradition as it has been passed on to them or does it arise as an interpretation of certain aspects of the Tradition based upon a certain set of dogmatic considerations about the the nature of the Theotokos and her life? I gather from your response that since the nature of her condition more or less immediately prior to her assumption is not known...then either the story of her repose is not considered entirely credible and/or it is inveighed against on other theological grounds? I'm just trying to find out which is the case.
In either case though both of us do believe she was taken up and glorified by Christ our God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/27/2007 6:13:42 PM
|
|
|
Orthodox_Guy
Posts: 2
Joined: 3/27/2007
From: Florida
Status: offline
|
My opinion as an Orthodox Christian is that she died, yes, but afterward her body was taken up into heaven. There's a very interesting story on that... I shall try to find it.
I don't agree with the Catholic version of this tradition (nothing against Catholics of course). I think it's a flawed version of a correct doctrine.
_____________________________
Homer Simpson:
Log Cabin, full of taste, my stomach is with thee, blessed art thou among syrups and blessed...
Nun:
*SMACK* No prayin' to the condiments!
~The Simpsons
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 10/6/2007 12:44:10 PM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2250
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
The evidence is that there is NO evidence !!!
IOW...they cannot find the body !
Ergo, since there's no body, Mary must have assumed.
DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION
Munificentissimus Deus
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII issued November 1, 1950
33. In the fifteenth century, during a later period of scholastic theology, St. Bernardine of Siena collected and diligently evaluated all that the medieval theologians had said and taught on this question. He was not content with setting down the principal considerations which these writers of an earlier day had already expressed, but he added others of his own. The likeness between God's Mother and her divine Son, in the way of the nobility and dignity of body and of soul-a likeness that forbids us to think of the heavenly Queen as being separated from the heavenly Kingmakes it entirely imperative that Mary "should be only where Christ is."[35] Moreover, it is reasonable and fitting that not only the soul and body of a man, but also the soul and body of a woman should have obtained heavenly glory. Finally, since the Church has never looked for the bodily relics of the Blessed Virgin nor proposed them for the veneration of the people, we have a proof on the order of a sensible experience.[36]
A man decides that what other men wrote is inaccurate,
therefore the pope (another man) makes it official. Understand ?
_____________________________
Lay siege to your sins, and starve them out, by keeping away the food and fuel which is their maintenance and life. (Baxter)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 10/6/2007 6:32:29 PM
|
|
|
rosswell59
Posts: 1316
Joined: 3/25/2006
Status: offline
|
There is one verse of scripture to me which really speaks against all this that Catholics make of Mary:
Let him who glories glory in the Lord.
Yours in Christ,
Ross
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 10/11/2007 12:53:07 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 1096
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
Assuming a person to heaven is not a small matter. When it happened, God made sure to include it in His Providentially inspired and preserved word. We can go to this pure and perfect word and read about all of the people who were directly assumed into heaven.
Conversely, I can go ahead and say that my great aunt Myrtle was directly assumed into heaven. Yeah... It happened! When they opened the cooler door in the morgue 92 years ago, she was gone. There is only one viable explanation for this: She was directly assumed into heaven! How do I know this is true?
HA! I know it's true because my dad told me it was, and his dad told him it was true, and HIS dad said the same too, and he was a doctor in that hospital...! So it is proven because our Tradition proves it! None of these people would EVER lie, so don't go saying someone did! If you don't believe it, that just means you don't know enough about the truth... Anyways... If you need proof, I have it! See here where I wrote it down in our family journal? HA! Put THAT in yer pipe and smoke it! TRUTH PROVED!
(Understand that this is fictional, but is an example of what happened here...)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 10/15/2007 2:35:22 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 428
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
If you need proof, I have it! See here where I wrote it down in our family journal? HA! Put THAT in yer pipe and smoke it! TRUTH PROVED!
You forgot the part about Aunt Myrtle giving birth to the Son of God, etc, etc. Smoke that...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 11/5/2007 11:51:27 AM
|
|
|
Still_Papa-san
Posts: 26
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
You forgot about the part that simply states that ONLY ONE (Jesus) is worthy.
The rest is just another poppycock story just like mine... LOL It just happens that the other fiction was written before mine, otherwise y'all would be worshipping Myrtle instead!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 11/5/2007 10:40:09 PM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 756
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Silver Spring, MD
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
Assuming a person to heaven is not a small matter. When it happened, God made sure to include it in His Providentially inspired and preserved word. We can go to this pure and perfect word and read about all of the people who were directly assumed into heaven.
Like Enoch and Elijah?
It seems there is scriptural precedence for the Lord taking people directly up into Heaven. Why do you have such a hard time believing that the Lord Jesus would not be willing to do it for His mother?
quote:
Conversely, I can go ahead and say that my great aunt Myrtle was directly assumed into heaven. Yeah... It happened! When they opened the cooler door in the morgue 92 years ago, she was gone. There is only one viable explanation for this: She was directly assumed into heaven! How do I know this is true?
HA! I know it's true because my dad told me it was, and his dad told him it was true, and HIS dad said the same too, and he was a doctor in that hospital...! So it is proven because our Tradition proves it! None of these people would EVER lie, so don't go saying someone did! If you don't believe it, that just means you don't know enough about the truth... Anyways... If you need proof, I have it! See here where I wrote it down in our family journal? HA! Put THAT in yer pipe and smoke it! TRUTH PROVED!
(Understand that this is fictional, but is an example of what happened here...)
All I know is that the scriptures tell us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.(1 Tim. 3:15) And that this Church is composed of faithful men" (2 Tim. 2:2) who carefully selected other faithful men to succeed them over time. I know that this Church is still around, because the Lord Himself said "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). Therefore, if this Church says that Mary was broguht up into Heaven, then who am I to doubt it?
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 11/5/2007 11:29:38 PM
|
|
|
Still_Papa-san
Posts: 26
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
Assuming a person to heaven is not a small matter. When it happened, God made sure to include it in His Providentially inspired and preserved word. We can go to this pure and perfect word and read about all of the people who were directly assumed into heaven.
Like Enoch and Elijah?
It seems there is scriptural precedence for the Lord taking people directly up into Heaven. Why do you have such a hard time believing that the Lord Jesus would not be willing to do it for His mother? AWRIGHT!!!! Woo Hoo!!!! You finally caught on!!! (This is SO exciting!)
YES!!! Just like Enoch and Elijah!!! The only difference between them and Mary is that their assumption is factual because it is written about in Gods word... If she had been assumed into heaven, God would have included her assumption just like theirs! (However, He didn't, which means that she wasn't... Sorry to disappoint you...) Oh, I'm not saying that He wouldn't have been willing to directly assume her into heaven. What I am saying is that there was no need for it, and since it isn't mentioned, simple reasoning tells us that it didn't happen. Or at very least, even if it did, He didn't want us using it doctrinally or He would have included it in His word...quote:
quote:
Conversely, I can go ahead and say that my great aunt Myrtle was directly assumed into heaven. Yeah... It happened! When they opened the cooler door in the morgue 92 years ago, she was gone. There is only one viable explanation for this: She was directly assumed into heaven! How do I know this is true?
HA! I know it's true because my dad told me it was, and his dad told him it was true, and HIS dad said the same too, and he was a doctor in that hospital...! So it is proven because our Tradition proves it! None of these people would EVER lie, so don't go saying someone did! If you don't believe it, that just means you don't know enough about the truth... Anyways... If you need proof, I have it! See here where I wrote it down in our family journal? HA! Put THAT in yer pipe and smoke it! TRUTH PROVED!
(Understand that this is fictional, but is an example of what happened here...)
All I know is that the scriptures tell us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.(1 Tim. 3:15) And that this Church is composed of faithful men" (2 Tim. 2:2) who carefully selected other faithful men to succeed them over time. I know that this Church is still around, because the Lord Himself said "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). Therefore, if this Church says that Mary was broguht up into Heaven, then who am I to doubt it?
It's really quite simple. What you consider to be the church is a travesty. It has almost no resemblance to what it was in the beginning. The corruption that is known as the Tradition has been exemplified perfectly in the fable I made up. If it isn't clearly written in scripture, it can't be verified. Thus it cannot be relied upon, and only the ignorant will do so.
Sorry... My standard is Gods word because He said it was the standard to which all things needed to be compared to. Again I will ask: Where is it written? Doctrine was being discussed by Paul in the past tense as he wrote, except for the things that were currently in question, and all of those were closed before the writings ended... Anything newer than that is folly. Who are you to doubt it? I don't know. But before you build and follow a doctrine in regards to it, you should research it's validity. Really... It doesn't take much looking to see that it cannot really fit.
< Message edited by Still_Papa-san -- 11/5/2007 11:38:58 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 11/5/2007 11:46:24 PM
|
|
|
gatolover
Posts: 546
Joined: 6/23/2006
Status: offline
|
Still_Papa-san,
quote:
AWRIGHT!!!! Woo Hoo!!!! You finally caught on!!! (This is SO exciting!)
I'm confident Lurker is thrilled with your enthusiasm, however, I'm afraid you misunderstood his point....again.
quote:
The only difference between them and Mary is that their assumption is factual because it is written about in Gods word... If she had been assumed into heaven, God would have included her assumption just like theirs!
She was still alive and present in the Faith Community at Pentacost, and why would the evangelists write about an assumption that hadn't occurred yet? Are you saying nothing is "factual" that isn't recorded in Scripture? What about the fact the Earth orbits around the Sun? Is that factual? Are you saying you don't believe the Earth is round, rotates, and revolves? Must not be true since it isn't recorded in Scripture.
quote:
(However, He didn't, which means that she wasn't...
And that statement is just another "assumption" on your part, "Still_Papa San."
Good luck proving your own "assumptions" from Scripture alone or anywhere else, for that matter.
gatolover
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 11/6/2007 10:13:08 AM
|
|
|
Still_Papa-san
Posts: 26
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
LOL... My enthusiasm is only due to the fact that he saw where assumption was actually found mentioned in scripture. Applying this process to another person without specific mention is nothing but an assumption, (LOL) and therefore not entirely factual.
I did not miss his point, nor have I from the beginning of our discourses here. My point through this has been that you have made doctrine based on assumptions, and have been "Made Fact" only because someone later on wanted it to be that way.
The precedent for someone being directly taken to heaven is actually in scripture, I won't try to argue that. The point is that after all the evangelists were finished compiling what was God-inspired scripture, there has not been ANY need for there to be any further examples. Such examples could only serve to confuse the simple... Which is one of the purposes of Satan... Pure and simple...
As to the world being round part... All of your centuries worth of "Inspired" individuals couldn't figure this out from the east never meeting the west thing?
LOL @ their 'inspiration'
What you have found yourselves mired up to your necks in is none other than 'inspired (by whom?) men's greatest creation: The Church that deifies everything but Jesus... I's all about the tickle... Satan LOVES it when the simple get their ears tickled... It keeps them from knowing the vital truth as they happily go on about worshipping their Mary statues and believing their Saint Christopher medallion has some real power!
Let's not talk of making assumptions... 90% of Orthodoxy IS assumptions... If you had an understanding of scripture that was anywhere NEAR what you know about these man-made traditions, you'd really be a formidable soldier for Christ! Unfortunately, you have chosen to apply your talents to the man-made instead.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 11/6/2007 3:02:29 PM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 756
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Silver Spring, MD
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Still_Papa-san
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
Assuming a person to heaven is not a small matter. When it happened, God made sure to include it in His Providentially inspired and preserved word. We can go to this pure and perfect word and read about all of the people who were directly assumed into heaven.
Like Enoch and Elijah?
It seems there is scriptural precedence for the Lord taking people directly up into Heaven. Why do you have such a hard time believing that the Lord Jesus would not be willing to do it for His mother? AWRIGHT!!!! Woo Hoo!!!! You finally caught on!!! (This is SO exciting!)
YES!!! Just like Enoch and Elijah!!! The only difference between them and Mary is that their assumption is factual because it is written about in Gods word... If she had been assumed into heaven, God would have included her assumption just like theirs! (However, He didn't, which means that she wasn't... Sorry to disappoint you...) Oh, I'm not saying that He wouldn't have been willing to directly assume her into heaven. What I am saying is that there was no need for it, and since it isn't mentioned, simple reasoning tells us that it didn't happen. Or at very least, even if it did, He didn't want us using it doctrinally or He would have included it in His word...
Hrmm. How odd. I don't see where God is required to put all His miracles down in Scripture. In fact, in Scripture I do see John telling us that there was no possible way for them to write down everything Jesus did. Perhaps this was just one of those things they write down.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Conversely, I can go ahead and say that my great aunt Myrtle was directly assumed into heaven. Yeah... It happened! When they opened the cooler door in the morgue 92 years ago, she was gone. There is only one viable explanation for this: She was directly assumed into heaven! How do I know this is true?
HA! I know it's true because my dad told me it was, and his dad told him it was true, and HIS dad said the same too, and he was a doctor in that hospital...! So it is proven because our Tradition proves it! None of these people would EVER lie, so don't go saying someone did! If you don't believe it, that just means you don't know enough about the truth... Anyways... If you need proof, I have it! See here where I wrote it down in our family journal? HA! Put THAT in yer pipe and smoke it! TRUTH PROVED!
(Understand that this is fictional, but is an example of what happened here...)
All I know is that the scriptures tell us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.(1 Tim. 3:15) And that this Church is composed of faithful men" (2 Tim. 2:2) who carefully selected other faithful men to succeed them over time. I know that this Church is still around, because the Lord Himself said "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). Therefore, if this Church says that Mary was brought up into Heaven, then who am I to doubt it?
It's really quite simple. What you consider to be the church is a travesty. It has almost no resemblance to what it was in the beginning. The corruption that is known as the Tradition has been exemplified perfectly in the fable I made up. If it isn't clearly written in scripture, it can't be verified. Thus it cannot be relied upon, and only the ignorant will do so.
Sorry... My standard is Gods word because He said it was the standard to which all things needed to be compared to. Again I will ask: Where is it written? Doctrine was being discussed by Paul in the past tense as he wrote, except for the things that were currently in question, and all of those were closed before the writings ended... Anything newer than that is folly. Who are you to doubt it? I don't know. But before you build and follow a doctrine in regards to it, you should research it's validity. Really... It doesn't take much looking to see that it cannot really fit.
Oh trust me, I've been researching. I've been researching this for close to 10 years now. Originally I thought almost exactly as you did in fact. And trust me, I most certainly did NOT want to become Catholic back when I started investigating the claims of Rome, I wanted to save my Catholic friends! But through a very humbling course of historical study, prayer, research, a willingness to admit that I didn't know everything, and again, LOTS of prayer... I realized that I was the one mistaken. The claims of the Catholic Church DO fit in perfectly with scripture. Granted it did indeed sting my pride a bit to realize that I had been mistaken in some of my views, but the joy I've found resulting from my being humbled has made any pain worth it. I can honestly say that I've never encountered a more Christ centered Church than what I've found in the Catholic Church. God's Word tells me that He built a Church. That Church was given a promise that the Gates of Hell would not be able to prevail over it. And of all the churches out there, the one that holds the most convincing arguments, that has the most evidence in it's favour is the Catholic Church. It's survived all sorts of troubles, including horrible abuses by people in the magesterium at times and yet it still exists. Every day brings me closer to my sweetest Lord Jesus. The myriad of prayers I've found directed towards Jesus are enough to make one ache from the beauty. And the theology! Again, it's always focused on Jesus, but it's such a vibrant picture now! It's like going from a 13in black and white TV with tons of static to a 50in Plasma LCD. There's so much more detail and beauty to behold! And again, over and over I find that Jesus is there, always at the center of things. I see echoes of Jesus everywhere throughout the scriptures. It's like someone turned the focus knobs on a projector. I find that I enjoy reading the scriptures even more now.
I don't know if I'll ever be able to thank Jesus enough for helping me find the Catholic faith, but I do know that my love for Him has grown a thousand fold. :D
*edit to fix the quotes.*
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 11/6/2007 6:30:50 PM
|
|
|
Still_Papa-san
Posts: 26
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
Awesome!
The most important thing in the universe is our personal relationship with Jesus!
I'm glad you have found your personal communion with Him to be as fulfilling as mine is for me!
Different strokes for different folks, I guess! I just wish everyone could have such a close relationship with Him.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 12/4/2007 9:36:39 PM
|
|
|
YoelNatan
Posts: 148
Joined: 12/3/2007
Status: offline
|
No pope has recieved any message from god that adds to scripture, maybe from satan..it would be in direct violation of revelations..I have alot of speculation about mary..anything the bible is unclear on we need to leave alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 12/11/2007 1:05:01 AM
|
|
|
cybrjewls
Posts: 1479
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Fritzpw_Admin
This topic is neverending. So as to help keep things from constantly being repeated or asked we've decided to create a perpetual discussion on the topic.
Catholics and Protestants disagree on this doctrine.
Catholics contend that Mary never died but rather she ascended into heaven.
Discuss the doctrine and why there is disagreement.
This doctrine is not found in the canon of Catholic Scripture. What is found is the prophecy given by his servant when Jesus was young, 'And a sword will pierce your soul too." That scripture does not of mary's assumption is astounding basis for doctrine in some faiths apparently. It must be recorded in some other book. But its not in the Bible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 12/11/2007 12:55:43 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 1096
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: prophetica
This doctrine is not found in the canon of Catholic Scripture. What is found is the prophecy given by his servant when Jesus was young, 'And a sword will pierce your soul too." That scripture does not of mary's assumption is astounding basis for doctrine in some faiths apparently. It must be recorded in some other book. But its not in the Bible.
If it is not in the Bible, then God didn't think highly enough of it to assure it's inclusion in His everlasting and inerrant word. Therefore it's nothing other than heresy...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 12/15/2007 8:00:44 PM
|
|
|
DeborahL
Posts: 1347
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Jesus ascended.
By the word ,
that teaches us through the gospel that the Father raised HIS Son. AFTER THREE DAYS.
And all who believe on the Son shall have eternal life. Shall also be raised IN HIM.
The gospel of God never teaches that Mary 'ascended'. The Father never alludes nor defines the happening of Mary's death --although HE declares Mary her purpose, and the testimony of her faith.
Please give me his word, otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
