Still waiting for an answer

Astralis · Aug 13, 2002

Psalms,

Please read my post - your question, although legitimate, is loaded with bias.

Everyting that we must beleive in order to obtain our salvation is found in Scripture. But this is not to say that Scripture is our sole rule of faith, and this is not to say that to obtain salvation one merely has to beleive in x, y, and z. One must live out that faith, and seek every day to live in a manner worthy of one who follows Christ.

Read my post above (three or four back) that includes some Catholic posts from members of my Catholic message board who responded to your question after I posted it on my board. This way you can understand the logic that we're using.

[ August 13, 2002, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Astralis ]

Dualhunter · Aug 13, 2002

Originally posted by Astralis:
Psalms,

Please read my post - your question, although legitimate, is loaded with bias.

Everyting that we must beleive in order to obtain our salvation is found in Scripture. But this is not to say that Scripture is our sole rule of faith, and this is not to say that to obtain salvation one merely has to beleive in x, y, and z. One must live out that faith, and seek every day to live in a manner worthy of one who follows Christ.

Read my post above (three or four back) that includes some Catholic posts from members of my Catholic message board who responded to your question after I posted it on my board. This way you can understand the logic that we're using.
Click to expand...

All we ask for is a simple specific answer and you post a lengthy answer, which probably wasn't even what was asked, which you were specifically told not to do. Just give a plain and simple answer without the junk filler surrounding it.

Astralis · Aug 13, 2002

Dualhunter,

There is no simple answer to this question. If there was then the Catholics on this board would have answered it - surely you can't say they don't defend their faith on this board.

If you want to understand why Catholics don't see this as question that can be provided with a a "yes" or a "no", then read my previous post. If you don't want to listen and call it "junk" then perhaps you don't want to debate on this board.

[ August 13, 2002, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Astralis ]

Ps104_33 · Aug 13, 2002

Let me help you. For example. Does a Catholic have to believe in the Assumption of Mary in order to get to Heaven. Yes or No.

Dualhunter · Aug 13, 2002

Originally posted by Astralis:
Dualhunter,

There is no simple answer to this question. If there was then the Catholics on this board would have answered it - surely you can't say they don't defend their faith on this board.

If you want to understand why Catholics don't see this as question that can be provided with a a "yes" or a "no", then read my previous post. If you don't want to listen and call it "junk" then perhaps you don't want to debate on this board.
Click to expand...

"CAN YOU NAME ONE ORAL, EXTRABIBLICAL TRADITION, DEMONSTRABLY TRACED TO THE APOSTOLIC AGE, WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR THE FAITH AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST."

He is not asking for you to post an encyclepedia, just name one oral tradition that can be trace to the apostolic age that is necessary to believe to be saved, if it is not necessary to believe it, you shouldn't be posting it. First just name one, then if you like you can use the space you need to trace it back to the apostolic age. If you cannot name one that is necessary to be saved, don't post. Ps104_33 just gave an example of what he's looking for to aid in your understanding of the question.

HankD · Aug 13, 2002

Let me help you. For example. Does a Catholic have to believe in the Assumption of Mary in order to get to Heaven. Yes or No.
Click to expand...

The problem with the question is that no one can say, not even the Pope who goes to heaven or purgatory or hell. My grandmother had masses said for my grandfather until she herself died.
No one could tell her if he was out of purgatory or even there, although when I was a boy the assumption was that most people who were "devout" went to purgatory. My grandfather qualified for devout, my grandmother was considered very devout.

The dogma of the Assumption of the BVM is "binding" upon pain of excommunication. No Catholic would admit to not believing it unless he/she were ready to go all the way out the door.

I had an uncle who would occassionally tell me "its all a crock..." yet he continued to do his Easter/Christmas duty to appease the family.

HankD

[ August 13, 2002, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

Ps104_33 · Aug 13, 2002

Whats the point of the whole Roman Catholic system then? If an afterlife isnt the important thing then control of the masses here on earth must be whats important, right? Its all about politics. Control the people down here and dangle a spiritual carrot in front of them their whole life. How very sad.

Tell them they cant know for sure that they can go to heave then lie to the family at the funeral. " Uncle Leroy is safe in the arms of Jesue, now," But dont tell him that while he is alive.

Astralis · Aug 14, 2002

Does a Catholic have to believe in the Assumption of Mary in order to get to Heaven?
Click to expand...

No.

However, one must accept the dogma of the Assumption to be Catholic.

Ps104_33 · Aug 14, 2002

Then it follows that if one doesnt believe in the Assumption then one isnt Catholic, and if one isnt Catholic then one doesnt recieve Mass and one cant gain Eternal life,right?

Astralis · Aug 14, 2002

My friend, Albanach, has a good answer for this:

Questions like these come from a very minimalist mindset. By minimalist, I mean that the person only will beleive only what he thinks he needs to in order to get into heaven and nothing else.

Someone like that can't fathom a God who would deny someone entrance into heaven simply because they did not beleive that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven -- therefore they see no need to beleive in it.

And furthermore, they think those who do are buying in to "the traditions of men."

The Catholic Church, with its divine authority, officially declared the Assumption of Mary a doctrine to be believed by all the faithful on November 1, 1950. It was not a new doctrine, then. People have known and written about it since Apostolic times. But this was the first time it was officially defined by the Church, and since it has been officially defined, Catholics are now bound by obedience to accept it as a matter of faith.

So, to answer your question, I'd have to know who we are talking about. Are we talking about a Protestant who grew up in a faith tradition that has no knowledge of the Assumption of Mary? This man would be following Christ in the best and only way he knew how. So I cannot see how his ignorance of the Assumption would have any bearing on his salvation.

Or are we talking about a Catholic, who is bound by obedience of faith to believe what the Catholic Church teaches, who knows of the Assumption, but willfully chooses to disobey and not beleive? Then this man is guilty of the sin of disobedience and yes, he may be putting his soul in jeapordy.

Or are we talking about a Catholic priest, bishop, or educator who publicly teaches that the Assumption never happend, and the Church is wrong? In that case, this man is guilty of heresy and yes, his soul is in danger.

What it boils down to is that any question like this -- "do you have to beleive in x, y, or z to be saved?" -- is unanswerable. We cannot see into people's hearts. Every person, every situation, is different. This is why we are uncapable of judging ourselves, let alone other people. God is our only judge -- and only he can answer this question. And the answer may be different for each one of us.

Astralis · Aug 14, 2002

My friend, Albanach, has a good answer for this:

Questions like these come from a very minimalist mindset. By minimalist, I mean that the person only will beleive only what he thinks he needs to in order to get into heaven and nothing else.

Someone like that can't fathom a God who would deny someone entrance into heaven simply because they did not beleive that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven -- therefore they see no need to beleive in it.

And furthermore, they think those who do are buying in to "the traditions of men."

The Catholic Church, with its divine authority, officially declared the Assumption of Mary a doctrine to be believed by all the faithful on November 1, 1950. It was not a new doctrine, then. People have known and written about it since Apostolic times. But this was the first time it was officially defined by the Church, and since it has been officially defined, Catholics are now bound by obedience to accept it as a matter of faith.

So, to answer your question, I'd have to know who we are talking about. Are we talking about a Protestant who grew up in a faith tradition that has no knowledge of the Assumption of Mary? This man would be following Christ in the best and only way he knew how. So I cannot see how his ignorance of the Assumption would have any bearing on his salvation.

Or are we talking about a Catholic, who is bound by obedience of faith to believe what the Catholic Church teaches, who knows of the Assumption, but willfully chooses to disobey and not beleive? Then this man is guilty of the sin of disobedience and yes, he may be putting his soul in jeapordy.

Or are we talking about a Catholic priest, bishop, or educator who publicly teaches that the Assumption never happend, and the Church is wrong? In that case, this man is guilty of heresy and yes, his soul is in danger.

What it boils down to is that any question like this -- "do you have to beleive in x, y, or z to be saved?" -- is unanswerable. We cannot see into people's hearts. Every person, every situation, is different. This is why we are uncapable of judging ourselves, let alone other people. God is our only judge -- and only he can answer this question. And the answer may be different for each one of us.

Dualhunter · Aug 14, 2002

Originally posted by Astralis:
This is why we are uncapable of judging ourselves, let alone other people. God is our only judge -- and only he can answer this question. And the answer may be different for each one of us.
Click to expand...

The Bible says otherwise:

Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you–unless, of course, you fail the test? - 2 Corinthians 13:5 NASB

And a good way to do that is to ask yourself if you are really a new creation in Christ, has Christ changed your heart and your life?

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! - 2 Corinthians 5:17 NASB

Ps104_33 · Aug 14, 2002

quote by astralis

Or are we talking about a Catholic, who is bound by obedience of faith to believe what the Catholic Church teaches, who knows of the Assumption, but willfully chooses to disobey and not beleive? Then this man is guilty of the sin of disobedience and yes, he may be putting his soul in jeapordy.
Click to expand...

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Can you demonstratively trace this doctrine(Assumption) to the Apostolic age? Although it wasnt official until 1950, you said it was always believed.

Astralis · Aug 14, 2002

From my same friend, Albanach:

The earliest known written reference to the Assumption can be found in the Greek text De Obitu S. Dominae, which dates to the fourth or fifth century but has been attributed to St. John himself. In the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others.

In 451 AD, at the Council of Chalcedon, the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria desired to own the body of Mary, the Mother of God. St. John of Damascus tells us that St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, told them that, "Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven." The Catholic Church does not, however, claim to derive this doctrine from any of these early writers, but from Apostolic Tradition itself, which these early sources merely point to.

The Assumption of Mary has also been celebrated since early times with a Feast day. We do not know exactly where or when this celebration first occurred, but according to the life of St. Theodosius (d. 529) it was celebrated in Palestine before the year 500, probably in August. It has been celebrated at other times of the year in various places, however, such as in Egypt and Arabia, where it was observed in January. By 700 it was one of the principle feasts in Rome, and was a Holy Day of Obligation. As we do not know exactly where or when Mary died, we cannot mark the exact anniversary of her death, but we can still remember her Assumption with this celebration.

Many will argue that nowhere in the Bible can mention be found of Mary's Assumption. In Genesis, Enoch is said to have been assumed, and the same goes for Elijah in 2 Kings. So if Mary was truly assumed, then wouldn't this event have warranted mention in the Bible? On the face of it, this argument seems to hold weight. There are no express Scriptural proofs that show the validity of this doctrine. As Catholics, though, we need not rely solely on the Bible as our rule of faith. For us, it is enough that the living, infallible, teaching Church has told us that it is true, and it must be so. This requires an examination of the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture Alone), and will be dealt with later. For now it is important to point out that nowhere in the Bible does it exclude the possibility of the Assumption. In fact, in Matthew 27 it describes a scene where "graves were opened, and many bodies rose out of them, bodies of holy men gone to their rest: who, after his rising again, left their graves and went into the holy city. . ." This scene certainly seems to imply that such a thing as the Assumption is possible.

If one were to look to the Scripture for references to Mary's Assumption, the best place to look is the Book of Revelation, chapter 12. "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, . . ." This reading, of course, requires the reader to look for a deeper meaning than that normally given by commentators. The woman, to them, refers to some collective entity, such as the Church. However, since the dragon is always identified with Satan, and the child always Christ, and these are both singular entities, it makes sense that the woman should be identified first as a singular entity, and secondarily as a collective entity. The singular entity is, of course, Mary. John's vision of Mary in heaven with her son, Jesus, only makes sense if she had been Assumed into heaven, as Pope John Paul II as well as Pius X have stated. And this is, of course, what the Apostles believed happened, according to what the Bishop of Jerusalem said at the Council of Chalcedon, as we read above.

In fact, the absence of a body, or any remains at all, attributed to Mary speaks volumes. The Biblical silence on her assumption is neither an affirmation or a rejection of the fact--it is simply silence. But the silence of anyone claiming to have, or have seen, her earthy remains is worth noting. From the very beginning of the Church, Catholics have had a special veneration for the saints. The bones of the martyrs killed in the Coliseum were gathered up and preserved almost immediately, according to the biographies of those first Christian victims. Cities would vie for the claim to fame of being the final resting place of a famous saint. For some of the more famous saints, the bones were even divided up so that more than one town could claim them. These relics were preserved and venerated and were objects of great devotion. Surely a saint such as Mary, the most well known of all, who had such a special honor among all the saints, would be preserved and venerated more than any other. Yet no city anywhere has ever claimed her remains. We know she lived for a while in Ephesus with John and may have died there. There is also a good case that she may have died at Jerusalem and her temporary tomb is said to be there. Yet neither of these cities claims or ever has claimed to have her corporeal remains. Nowhere are her bones venerated. No one claims to have them. Why not? Because there were no remains to venerate and the people of the time knew it.

Mary's Assumption cannot be explained without also considering the doctrine of her Immaculate Conception. I cannot give that doctrine a full treatment here, but it states that Mary was conceived immaculately, without the stain of original sin. That from her conception she was set aside, chosen by God, to be the New Eve, the one to bear Christ to the World. Death and decay are the punishments for original sin, and since Mary was free from this stain, she was free of its consequences. So why did she die? If she died, it was because she was united with Christ. It was her desire to do the will of God, and just as Christ chose to die for our sins so that we may be redeemed, she chose to suffer and die an earthly death to be united with her son. Just as we all will one day be reunited with our physical bodies in our eternal home, Mary's body was taken into Heaven along with her soul. God would not allow her body, the body of His servant, free of sin, to corrupt. Her assumption gives us a glimpse of what the final destination of all of us may be.
Click to expand...

[ August 14, 2002, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Astralis ]

Astralis · Aug 16, 2002

Good! You got your answer!

Abiyah · Aug 16, 2002

Astralis --

What I see here is not what you apparently see,
and I am not writing this to put either you or
your chosen religion down. I am merely stat-
ing what I have watched here as well as over the
years in real life.

It is not only the schools and politicians that
rewrite history and rename things and people in
order to further an agenda, it is the churches as
well. I watched for fifty years as the church I
once attended did the same things. In my first
introduction to the Baptist church, I found,
tucked away and quite out of sight, a tract written
by a Baptist about the Baptist church which
rewrote its history in such a way that it was em-
barrassing to see such ignorance in print. I know
why this tract was hidden: it had embarrassed
someone there and they did not expect it to be
found. Although not a member, I trashed it be-
fore anyone else could read it.

I have had enough dealings with other religions
to know that they repaint things to match an
agenda. As a person who desires to live in
complete honesty and who needs others to be
the same, I have seen many times when my
very belief in our God has been deeply shaken
by these things. If we cannot tell, know, and
live in truth About Our Religion, About Our God,
what is left? What is the purpose?

I was one of the main soloists in that church I
once attended. But because of a lack on
integrity and basic honesty and decency, I lost
all desire to go to church because of the rewrit-
ten, politically correct "truth" there. I would have
stomach cramps and be Sick for about two hours
before services Every Ttime.

What is my point? If truth--absoute truth--is
not in our places of worship, they are worse than
paganism. If we have to recreate our history, we
are useless. If we have to build our religions
upon suppositions, what we wish had happened,
and upon the words of mere humans, why bother?
If we must recreate our gods in our own image,
what power do they have?

I think that we must, MINIMALLY, build upon an
honest foundation, one without supposition or
the doctrines of mere humans, or we should
walk away from our religions and admit the
truth--that we are godless.

[ August 16, 2002, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

Ps104_33 · Aug 16, 2002

AStralis,
Your frien albanach needs to study up a little further. You said that belief in the Assumption wasnt necessary for salvation. Well read this and weep.

The official teaching of the Assumption comes from the decree Munificentissimus Deus by pope Pius XII:

All these proofs and considerations of the holy Fathers and the theologians are based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation. These set the loving Mother of God as it were before our very eyes as most intimately joined to her divine Son and as always sharing His lot. Consequently it seems impossible to think of her, the one who conceived Christ, brought Him forth, nursed Him with her milk, held Him in her arms, and clasped Him to her breast, as being apart from Him in body, even though not in soul, after this earthly life. Since our Redeemer is the Son of Mary, He could not do otherwise, as the perfect observer of God’s law, than to honour, not only His eternal Father, but also His most beloved Mother. And, since it was within His power to grant her this great honour, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that He really acted in this way.
Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.
For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God Who has lavished His special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honour of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that 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.
Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare wilfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith...It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul (Munificentissimus Deus, Selected Documenst of Pope Pius XII (Washington: National Catholic Welfare Conference), 38, 40, 44-45, 47).

jasonW* · Aug 16, 2002

Someone like that can't fathom a God who would deny someone entrance into heaven simply because they did not beleive that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven -- therefore they see no need to beleive in it.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid this is not the ultimate reason many people don't believe in the AOM. Most simply don't believe it because it isn't biblically stated and goes against all of what the bible speaks about for humans and human nature. So, the AOM, ICOM (Immaculate Conception) and most other catholic teachings regarding Mary are rejected, not because belief is not necassary for entrance to heaven(it isn't), but because they are unbiblical and, quite frankly, heretical. We are to flea such teachings, and we are.

Or are we talking about a Catholic, who is bound by obedience of faith to believe what the Catholic Church teaches, who knows of the Assumption, but willfully chooses to disobey and not beleive? Then this man is guilty of the sin of disobedience and yes, he may be putting his soul in jeapordy.
Click to expand...

You are indeed adding layers to salvation all of the sudden. Now, Jesus is no longer the redeemer. He can't be. If something non-jesus related is needed for salvation (AOM,ICOM), then there are additions, above and beyond Jesus, which need to met in order to attain salvation. Unbiblical and quite dangerous.

What is interesting is according to Catholic doctrine, one who has never heard of Jesus could be saved simply by trying to be good and striving for something he/she can't explain. But, this same catholic institution has stated that a catholic, one who is in this supposed chosen heirachy, MUST believe in not only Jesus's saving nature/triune nature and God's saving grace, but also the AOM, ICOM, Infallibility of the pope and a host of other ideas. Failing to believe in any of these would leave the person in a state of lost salvation.

Quite simply, we are not looking for a simple Christianity. Rather, we are searching for God without man. In the catholic institution (I could say catholic 'heresy' and be like an unnamed Catholic, but I won't, I have more respect than that) you have man's horrible, unbiblical ideas placed on top of Jesus. Picture a diamond hidden inside of a landfill. Something wonderful and pure hidden beneath...well...you get the picture.

In Christ,
jason

Astralis · Aug 16, 2002

AStralis,
Your frien albanach needs to study up a little further. You said that belief in the Assumption wasnt necessary for salvation. Well read this and weep.
Click to expand...

I read it but I don't see that it is contradictory. It's difficult to explain though because to be Catholic you have to believe in it. But, do you have to be Catholic to be saved? That is the question that is difficult to answer in a single post. Let me post this paragraph from the Catholic Cathechism:

1859. "Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart[Cf. Mk 3:5-6 ; Lk 16:19-31 .] do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin."

Most simply don't believe it because it isn't biblically stated and goes against all of what the bible speaks about for humans and human nature.
Click to expand...

In Genesis, Enoch is said to have been assumed, and the same goes for Elijah in 2 Kings. Were they not human?

[ August 16, 2002, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Astralis ]

DHK · Aug 16, 2002

Originally posted by Astralis:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Your frien albanach needs to study up a little further. You said that belief in the Assumption wasnt necessary for salvation. Well read this and weep.

Click to expand...

I read it but I don't see that it is contradictory. It's difficult to explain though because to be Catholic you have to believe in it. But, do you have to be Catholic to be saved? That is the question that is difficult to answer in a single post. Let me post this paragraph from the Catholic Cathechism:

1859. "Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart[Cf. Mk 3:5-6 ; Lk 16:19-31 .] do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin."</font>[/QUOTE]Your implication is that all who are outside the Catholic Church are without Christ and are doomed to Hell. Are you that arrogrant?
DHK

Still waiting for an answer

Astralis New Member

Dualhunter New Member

Astralis New Member

Ps104_33 New Member

Dualhunter New Member

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Ps104_33 New Member

Astralis New Member

Ps104_33 New Member

Astralis New Member

Astralis New Member

Dualhunter New Member

Ps104_33 New Member

Astralis New Member

Astralis New Member

Abiyah <img src =/abiyah.gif>

Ps104_33 New Member

jasonW* New Member

Astralis New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

Useful Searches

Still waiting for an answer

Astralis New Member

Dualhunter New Member

Astralis New Member

Ps104_33 New Member

Dualhunter New Member

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Ps104_33 New Member

Astralis New Member

Ps104_33 New Member

Astralis New Member

Astralis New Member

Dualhunter New Member

Ps104_33 New Member

Astralis New Member

Astralis New Member

Abiyah <img src =/abiyah.gif>

Ps104_33 New Member

jasonW* New Member

Astralis New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter