Pope Pius XII "creates" doctrine out of THIN AIR!

You say this as though this is not what Catholics believe.

BTW, by saying that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit it also is meant SUPERNATURALLY. </font>[/QUOTE]I meant nothing of the sort. I was clarifying for you, as you seemed to think I was saying that they had sex.

If that is all you are saying is that Mary is the 'superspouse' of the Holy Spirit, then all I am saying is that she is the superadulterer.

She had a husband.

Is that all you are going to respond to in my post?

God Bless

 

Rufus,

First of all, I want to state that, upon further reflectoin, your cry foul about my earlier post in which I expounded upon the Biblical discussion of Mary's assumption was misguided. While it did not go along with the title of your thread. It spoke to issues raised in your original post. We are not just answering titles on this board but posts. Therefore you in my view were out of line.

It saddens me when non-catholics think they know enough about Catholic theology to make such emphatic statements and posts such as you have done above and say "catholic you don't know what you beleive or what your church teaches so I will tell you.". Note these phrases in your very own post:

"defined as a dogma of faith,"

"was preparing to dogmatically define"

"declare, and define it lo be a divinely revealed dogma"

Notice anything in common. hint: it is the word dogma. Now prior to anything being dogmatically defined it has to be recognized as doctrine. Popes do not create doctrine. They dogmatize it. The article you posted only says that the actual evenT was not recorded in the Bible and that there was no written tradition of it external to Biblical writings in the earliest centuries. So, did Pius XII create doctrine. Nope, he dogmatized doctrine. The assuption is a doctrine that I can prove was in existence long before Pius walked the face of this earth. Please read from the CAtholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

It says that the first evidence of the feast of the Assumption was in the Sixth Century (500's) in Gaul. Now that is a long time before Pius XII lived. You tell me, can there be a feast of the assumption without a belief in the Assumption? I don't see how.
So how could Pius possibly have created it? Therefore I repeat myself Pius XII could not possibly have "CREATED IT OUT OF THIN AIR" as you boldy proclaim. That's like saying that Cessna created the Airplane out of thin air. Your claim just does not hold water if you want us to stick solely to that claim.

Further I think you have a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of a Pope. We are not waiting at our computers and phones and listening to Radio free vatican for the next new doctrine to believe. Rather, all I have ever seen out of this Pope is strict adherence to already understood doctrines. He is not running around defining doctrines all the time. He rarely dogmatizes anything. Generally his decrees are not dogmatic but disciplinary, relating to practices of the faithful. Further, it seems you think that nobody believes a doctrine until the Pope dogmatizes it. This is simply not the case. There are many doctrines that have not been dogmatically stated by a pope or council and yet are still believed by the Church. A person in good conscience can dissent from a doctrine, not dogmatically defined but not in a public scandalous manner. I know of no instance in which something that was ever declared as official doctrine was recanted later.

This of course is very much unlike the Protestant denominations which have all sorts of newly defined doctrines according to what they THINK the Bible says.


Further I think it you look at the reformation, you will find that Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are doctrines created out of "THIN AIR" by the reformers. There is no indication of them in the early writings of the Church either, unless you take snippets of a particular Church Father's quotes to suite you beliefs in retrospect. A global view of any father will not produce such "doctrines".

Now if you want to start another thread in which you accuse someone else of doctrinizing the Assumption, by all means feel free as it would be inappropriate of you to do that on this thread with the dogmatic stand you have taken on sticking to topics. I feel like I am beating a dead horse with you. Perhaps if I say it enough times in enough different ways you will understand.

Blessings.

 

Why thanks Rufus. I don't know it all yet and expect to grow deeper in understanding of his Church that is the fullness of the truth so I really do appreciate your prayers. It is quite apparent that when even Catholic priests go off the deep end like Martin Luther and others that I can be decieved to. It is only by his grace in the good soil of his Church that this growth will occur in a controlled manner.

By the way when you figure out who created the doctrine of the Assumption out of Thin Air, let me know. We know who created Lutheranism, Calvinism, Mormanism, Seventh day adventism, Budhaism, Mohamedism, Presbyterianism, Armenianism, etc. etc. But I cannot find one definite source for each the the Catholic doctrines. That indicates to me that the go back a bit farther than the 1600's.


Blessings to you also and the same for you.

 

contains more than most RCC's understand.

I will not take the TIME or SPACE on this forum to document my statements. But I COULD!

</font>[/QUOTE]What exactly is your objection to this statement?

 

contains more than most RCC's understand.

I will not take the TIME or SPACE on this forum to document my statements. But I COULD!

rufus </font>[/QUOTE]You have taken enough time and space with your handwaving already. Pius XII did not create the doctrine of the Assumptoin. He dogmatized it. You do not comprehend the difference between dogma and doctrine. Further how can you possibly know that in humani Generis Pius XII was thinking of the Assumption with that quote. Especially since there was a considerable tradition, including worldwide celebration of the feast of the Assumption, even in many Anglican Chruches (interesting, that would have had to have been a part of their liturgy before 1700). There was just not much tradition on the issue before the 5th century. So it is quite clear that the DOCTRINE existed, though it was not dogma, long before Pius XII was on the face of this planet. The issue is not Humane Generis if your claim above that people digressed when they started talking about the Biblical support for the Assumption. Your issue is did Pius XII create it out of THIN AIR. It is very clear that he did not. Now once again if you want to start that thread on who did we can.

 

Here is an interesting site. It contains many documents with regard to Pius XII's declaration of the assumption. One in particular goes through the history of the dogma. Now if Pius XII had created it out of "THIN AIR" then how could it have a history?

http://www.petersnet.net/browse/3305.htm\\\

Blessings Ruf.

 

Hi rufus,

You said, "I take the 66 Books of the Bible to be the ONLY WORD OF GOD!"

Can you show me in Scripture where it says that all Christian doctrine must be stated explicitly in the 66 books of your Bible?

If you want for us to adhere to Sola Scriptura, you need to show us where Sola Scriptura is taught in the Bible, else you are advancing an unBiblical doctrine, are you not?

God bless,

Carson

 

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary can be supported with Scripture.

"Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. 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" (Rev 11:19-12:2).

As John portrays the appearance of the ark of the covenant in a display of theophany, the ark turns out to be none other than New Ark of the New Covenant: Mary, the Woman prescribed in Genesis 3:15, who is in heaven, body (feet, head, etc.) and soul - and crowned as Queen.

As The Ark held the Decalogue, the Manna, and Aaron's Staff, so Mary held the Word of God, the Bread from Heaven, and our High Priest in her womb for 9 months.

It is Mary who serves as the archetype of Israel and the New Israel, the Church, she who is mother of all Christians (see also John's depiction of the Crucifixion in John 19:26-27) as the Church is the mother of all Christians.

"Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus" (Rev 12:17).

Our Protestant brothers and sisters can disagree all they want with this interpretation of John's Apocalypsis (I don't mind if they disagree; that's their job it seems), but they must admit that there is no Scriptural support for the Assumption by way of their private interpretation. They cannot say that "there is no Scriptural support for the Assumption" at all.

There is. There it is.

 

Carson, I don't see anything about Mary at all in there. Call us blind if you want, but I think you are hallucinating. You are definately adding to scripture.

Where does it say, "Mary rose bodily to Heaven" like it says about Enoch, or Elijah ? No confusion there, you are left with no doubt.

But scripture is silent on Mary. You can only make up stories.

Mariloatry does nothing but take power away from Jesus. It is the biggest lie the RCC has put forth.

 

Curtis, must you be so consistently nasty?

Is this your idea of witnessing?

 

Isn't it disrespectful to Jesus to make up lies about his earthly mother ?

Isn't that quite nasty ?

 

Holding a different interpretation is not the same as "making up lies".

Please, do not attempt to continue to defend your rude and unpleasant behavior. It is not Christ-like by any stretch of the imagination.

 

I don't think I am rude, you do. That is you'r problem. Back to the subject...

Is the reason you call it "assumption", because you can't prove it with scripture, so you have to "assume" it happened ?

Don't call it a translation issue. Don't change the sublect with the tired "rude Curtis" stuff. Admit your doctrine cannot be located in scripture.

 

Carson offered Scripture to support it.

Please respond to the Scripture directly.

 

Nope. I didn't see her. Not once.

BTW, the Church is the bride of Christ, not the mother of Christians. God's children could not be their own offspring. We will be joint-heirs with Christ. His equal. His bride.

But that's another thread, ain't it ?

Mariolatry is designed by Satanm himself, and I'm sure he laughs with glee everytime someone calls out to Mary, thinking she hears them.

You're right. I detest mariolatry with every fiber of my being. Lies. You cannot prove it from scripture, neither can Carson.

And as long as I see the word "prots" here, your complaints about me being rude are moot.

 

Ruf,

Bye,
Nice not haveing a dialogue with you.

"The Bible said nothing about Mary's death, burial, or Assumption. "

I will try to make my point again. The bible talks about martyrdoms and yet stephen's is the only one recorded. So does that mean there were none othres? The statement above says that the actual event of Mary's death, burial, and Assumption was not recorded in scripture or elsewhere specifically. Does that mean it didn't happen. There are no altar calls in the Bibie. Do you ever go up front for them. There are no wedding cerimonies in the Bible. Have you been to one. Noone puts a ring on anyone's finger after they have married in the Bible. Do you where one?

Nice not having a real dialogue with you. Perhaps someday the hardness of your heart will be loosed by God. I can't do it, except through prayer. You can be assured of them.

Blessings.