John's Gospel & Epistles

AMEN! Brother! </font>[/QUOTE]Ditto Amen!!!! We Catholics agree. The whole Gospel is about Jesus Christ and how to follow him every day of your lives. How to immitate him. That does not mean that we do not reflect on the travels of Paul or the life of Peter or what Mary has to do in the whole thing. In fact it demands it. Because reflecting on the lives of these people is reflecting on how God has accomplished his work in and through them (Mary's canticle, "God has done great things for me"). It gives honor and glory to God to reflect on their lives and to honor them. We of course also spend a great amount of time reflecting directly on Jesus life and who he was. Few verses for ya to consider.


Hebrews 6:12We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised.

Hebrews 13:7
Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.


1 Corinthians 4:16
Therefore I urge you to imitate me.

 

"Through Him, with Him, and in him, with the unity of the Holy Spirit all Honor and Glory is yours Almighty Father for ever and ever."

I think this is what being a catholic is all about.

Yours truly in Christ,

John

 

I think we have a big disconnect. Where did I ever say the assumption was unbiblical? You also evidently didn't read my post above. Christ is enough. That does not mean that it is fruitless to reflect on these things, like who Mary was and what it would take to bear God's son in your womb for 9 months. I have written a piece on the Ark of the Covenant and Mary (compare 2 Sam 6 with Luke 1) where she is directly tied to it. Some Church fathers such as Augustine if I recall correctly related Psalm 132:8 as a prophecy of the assumptoin. It says "arise, O Lord (Jesus), and go to thy resting place, thou and the ARK OF THY MIGHT.". This is a prophecy of the resurrection and the assumption. You will deny it but you cannot convince me otherwise. Then we have hammered over the Ark of the Covenent in Rev 11 and then the Woman Clothed with the sun..... in Rev 12. It all ties together. You baptists reject types in the OT that are fullfilled in the new. That causes you to miss the depths of scripture. The purity of the Ark of the covenant and that it was made by God's specifications has alot to do with Mary also. The Jews could not even touch it or they would be struck down.

As for the assumption being declared as dogma, the reason why this has been done is to settle a dispute. It was always believed by the Church but when denials rise to a certain level, the Church acts and speaks authoritively. This we believe is guided by the Holy Spirit. It is not good enough for you because you believe that everything has to be spoken explicity in the Bible, yet you can't show me an explicit statement of Sola Scirptura anywhere. Also, AngelMom's tread on weddings is interesting. Did you have one? Do you were a wedding ring. Exclusive explictiness is the Bible is a protestant creation that cuases much division in Christianity.

 

Curtis,

You said...

"Why is it not preserved, or, why was it invented. I guess you answered the why was it invented, so the questoin now is, should it have been invented ?

At least you almost admit that it was invented. I am very disappointed in the rest of the RCCers ignoring this thread. "


Ummmm. Excuse me. If you take such liberty with my words what is to stop you from doing so with the Bible. Answer nothing. I never said it was invented. I never said that it was not preserved. I gave you biblical evidence in typology. Sorry you are so blind that you cannot see it. I don't believe in Bible alone and so am okay with preservation of the fullfullment of a prophecy through Tradition. Jesus spoke of the ending of Peter's life at the end of John's

 

I took the liberty of paraphrasing your answer....

We have no hope at all of earning divinity. That is coming to us, free of charge, when we join our Lord for eternity. Joint-heirs with Christ.

Second, if Mary was born sinless, so that she could bring forth a sinless son, how did Mary come to us ? For if you follow the RCC doctrine, and believe a corrupt vessel couldn't bring forth God's son, then surely a corrupt vessel could not have brought to us a sinless woman, either. And ad infinitum, so forth, where did Mary's divinity begin ?

And please don't say that the RCC doesn't call her divine, because sinless means divine. </font>[/QUOTE]Of course they do. It is, as I said, an outgrowth of trying too hard to define something indefinable.

Mary was a special person who was chosen, even before there was a thing called "time," to be the mother of Jesus.

Virginity carries with it more than simple chastity. There's also the sense of sanctity, purity, devotion, even holiness. Cultures predating Christianity understood this; for example the women who served the Roman goddess Vesta were to be virgins (ever heard the term "vestal virgin?" That's where it comes from).

This idea of being set apart from before birth to be the mother of Jesus is hard to define. Mary was a virgin at the time of the Conception, and at birth. This much is solidly Biblical. The idea that Mary was, in a strictly spiritual sense, an eternal virgin, is also arguably Biblical (remembering all of the things that word implies besides chastity), since she was obviously devoted to serving God, and was present at all the most pivotal times in Christ's ministry.

The error occurs in insisting that Mary must have been physically a virgin throughout her life. There's no proof for or against this idea in Scripture, and no real need for it until one tries to "go to 11" in explaining the miracle of Christ's birth. Some Athenasians crossed over into heresy early on by overspiritualizing the nature of Christ, effectively removing from Him any humanity whatever.

This seems to be the antecedent to what I call radical Marian theology, which insists that she was immaculately conceived (though, as you point out, from sinfully conceived parents, so where does it end?), that she never ever ever consummated her marriage to Joseph (though to have done so would have been unnatural and against God's clearly defined plan for marriage as far back as the book of Genesis), ascended bodily into heaven (and as you point out, such an event would have certainly caught the attention of John, the apostle charged with her care), and serves as heaven's Queen (a view dangerously close to idolatry, if not stomping all in it already).

Mary was blessed among all women as one who was set apart from the very foundations of the earth to be man's redemption. But divine? Nope, sorry. That is Christ's office alone.

By the way, look more closely at the verses I cited for the bronze snake. I think you'll see a parrallel to the way Mary is viewed by the radical Marian theologians. The snake was a conduit of grace, if you will, rather than the source of grace, which was Christ's office. Thus I see the snake as a type of Mary. Later, when the snake became an object of worship, it was destroyed as a graven image, because the conduit of grace superceded the Source of grace.

 

"Where does the Bible say Mary bodily rose to heaven, and don't give me the Revelation 12 thing, because it doesn't wash. Show me where Mary rose, or admit the Bible didn't preserve it. "


Snore.

 

Well, I can see that I'm wasting my time, because you clearly aren't reading the things I'm posting. This is disappointing, because you are treating me in an adversarial manner when we are obviously not disagreeing.

 

Curtis, I will respond very directly to your question.

But first, I ask for you to share with me how many years you were a practicing Catholic and how knowledgeable you consider yourself to be, concerning matters of doctrine as held by the Catholic Church.

Ron

 

["I'm sorry you see me as an advisary, I'm not trying to be, but if we are going to preach Mary bodily rising, we should locate the source of the story, and test it against scripture, first. "]

Bro Curtis, If you were presented with a source I think you would dismiss it off hand because you have already made up your mind that it is impossible for Mary to have been assumed(sp)into heaven. It seems to me history means nothing to you. I feel sorry for you if that is the case.

God Bless you Bro.
Yours truky in Christ,

John

 

*sigh*

Yes, Mary had children. The Bible is clear on that. Read what I wrote again. See all that I said about purity, sanctity, etc.

And no, for the umpteenth time, i am not saying that Mary arose bodily.

I wish you'd actually read what I posted, and comment on that, rather than upon what you think I'm probably saying when you scan over a couple of lines in each paragraph.

 

There is no historical evidence that Mary ever did anything even remotely approximating assumption.

 

Curtis, I've got to head out the door, so I thought that I would go ahead and answer your question as directly as possible.

"All I am asking is a scripture reference. Proof positive of her ascension."

There absolutely no proof of Mary ascending into Heaven.

There is nothing in the Bible which says that Mary ascended into Heaven.

There is no Tradition that Mary ascended into Heaven.

It is not the teaching of the Catholic Church that Mary ascended into Heaven.

Ron

 

Curtis, you out there?

 

Curtis, how about a specific source.

Mary's "ascending" or "bodily rising" is not the teaching of the Church.

The teaching is "assumption".

My point being that your once a week Catechism class until age 8 or 9 does not necessarily mean that you have a good knowledge of the teachings of the Church.

Your confusion of ascending/assumption is the latest example.

You have been asking for Bible verses to support what the Church does not teach.