 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
twiggymoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 38 |
| First Name: | Twiggymoo | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nazarene, Free Methodist, Baptist..Romeward bound |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 8th, 2007 03:08 pm |
|
| I was having discussion with my son who is a pentecostal about the assumption of Mary into heaven. Since it is not clearly in the Bible, he asked how I knew this. I said well she was assumed after the Bible was written. He said if this were important enough, it would be in the Bible.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 8th, 2007 05:06 pm |
|
Hmmm. The Reformation happened after the bible was written, and the Pentecostals came into existence around the year 1900. If those events were so important, don’t you think they ought to be in the bible, too?
David
|
|
|
twiggymoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 38 |
| First Name: | Twiggymoo | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nazarene, Free Methodist, Baptist..Romeward bound |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 9th, 2007 02:09 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: [size=Hmmm. The Reformation happened after the bible was written, and the Pentecostals came into existence around the year 1900. If those events were so important, don’t you think they ought to be in the bible, too?
David]
David,
I see the point you are making. However, I was looking for other details in history that could bolster my position besides just saying "the church says so" - which I can accept but would be unconvincing to a Protestant.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 9th, 2007 02:27 pm |
|
twiggymoo wrote: I see the point you are making. However, I was looking for other details in history that could bolster my position besides just saying "the church says so" - which I can accept but would be unconvincing to a Protestant.
Unfortunately, there is no "historical" evidence that was not written by the Church. Secular historians would not have written about a widow in Ephesus (or possibly Jerusalem), and Christian historians and writers were all members of the Church, as were all Christians for the first millennium.
Catholic Answers points out that while the remains of the saints are venerated, there is no city that claims the remains of Mary. It also mentions Matthew 27.52-53 as evidence of the possibility of bodily assumption. Scripture doesn't mention it, but Catholic Answers points out that other early Christian writers spoke of their bodily assumption.
Catholics United for the Faith quotes the early Fathers in reference to Mary's Assumption.
Frankly, these examples are not likely to impress a Protestant who rejects the writings of the early Church. Perhaps the most impressive argument is a simple one: Scripture is about Jesus, not Mary. The Acts of the Apostles are about the apostles, not Mary. Protestants have always rejected claims that Peter founded the church at Rome because it's not mentioned in scripture, and yet Peter's tomb and remains have been found in Rome. Historically churches were built over the graves of the saints, and St. Peter's is built directly on top of the tomb of St. Peter, exactly where it historically should be. And yet there is no church anywhere that claims to be built over the remains of Mary.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2429 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 9th, 2007 04:52 pm |
|
The fact is that the Assumption is a tradition of the Church; therefore it stands or falls on the authority of the Church. Rick’s comments show the futility of non-biblical arguments from the Catholic side. My own experience, and that of many others whom I have known, is that Marian doctrines are always the last ones a person comes to accept. The answer, twiggymoo, is to convince him of the authority of the Church. This is why I took the position I did: your son’s argument is unreasonable, and he had better come up with a better one if he is going to maintain sola scriptura.
That said, an approach I often use is that 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 8:11 apply equally to us and to Mary. The only difference is that Mary’s soul, owing to her dignity as mother of God, was reunited with her body before the end of the world.
David
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 278 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 9th, 2007 11:48 pm |
|
I would counter by asking who was the divinly inspired author of the contents page of the bible.
If there isnt one, then one cannot reject the idea that the writings of the early church fathers are not also scripture. One of the inherant faults of Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) theology is that someone must first define "what the bible is". If that person (or persons) don't have the charism of infallibility the they can't even rule out the Da Vinci Code as possibly being part of the bible.
If there is an authority that claims infallibility in defining what the bible is, then surely that authority (the Catholic Church) can also make a judgement on Mary's Assumption, for it, like the bible is a Tradition of the Church
____________________
NB: 'DrDave' is a nickname from college not and indication of academic achievement.
|
|
|
steppenwolf1218
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | Abingdon, Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Dennis | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 10th, 2007 01:40 am |
|
twiggymoo wrote: I was having discussion with my son who is a pentecostal about the assumption of Mary into heaven. Since it is not clearly in the Bible, he asked how I knew this. I said well she was assumed after the Bible was written. He said if this were important enough, it would be in the Bible.
One possibility to counter is to say that neither Paul nor Peter's martyrdom were recorded in the Bible either. One is hard pressed to find an original source of these events other than in the Roman Martyrology. Yet we believe these to be true nonetheless. Also, Luke ends Acts with Paul still spreading the Gospel in Rome. He does not mention Paul's execution. This suggests that Luke authored Acts prior to that event. If that is the case then it would put Acts in the 60's rather than the 90's as has been supposed. That being the case, then it is entirely possibly that Mary was still alive thus lending creedence to your intial reply to your son. Further the only other works in the New Testament that were written after Acts were Revelations and the Gospel of John. Neither of these two books would have had cause to mention such an event as Mary's Assumption. Although Revelation 12 might hold some water (forgive the pun on the text ref. there).
Most Protestants have problems with Mary. They downplay her importance because they fail to understand fully the scriptures they hold so dearly. With refusals to believe in the Immaculate Conception and the sinless nature of Mary it is no wonder they have major issues with the Assumption. Surpringsly though, even though they refuse to believe themselves, the two reformation figures they most commonly point to did in fact hold true most of the Marian doctrines namely Martin Luther and John Calvin. I would doubt that most Protestants today even realize that.
I was going to hesitate posting this next reason because I thought it to be too surface level but often the surface and the obvious are the best reasons. Often I will scold apologists and fundalmentalists for surrounding themselves with so many words that they fail to see the Word before them. I almost fell into that trap tonight myself. A thought suddenly struck me and I opened up my copy of Scott Hahn's Hail Holy Queen. I reread his last portion of the book entitled A Concluding Unapologetic Postscript. In it he cautions about using apologetics as an offensive weapon. If you think about it, using it to attack really betrays the very thing it is you are defending which is our Faith. Apologetics is an explanation of our Faith and that is all. It should never be used argumentively.
Hahn tells about the visit he had with his former professor shortly after his conversion. His professor, a Calvinist, was naturally quite dismayed over Hahn's conversion. The two had an apologetic argument over the doctrines of the Church with Hahn winning all of them until his professor queried him about the Assumption. Hahn admitted at the time that he could not produce any real evidence for the silence of the Church about the Assumption for the first 5 centuries. Feeling beaten, he retired for the evening. The next day was the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. In that Mass, Hahn heard a homily that impressed him fully. During that homily the priest asked a similiar question that I hesitated asking you here. Namely, if you were the Son of God wouldn't you have honored your mother by assuming her into heaven body and soul? Most protestants will probably dismiss that reason with a wave of their hand but they most likely won't argue it. Why? What would that say about Jesus if they did? What would that say about how Jesus felt about motherhood? Just something to think on and perhaps use to gently persuade your son to consider the possiblilty.
Take care
Dennis
____________________
Logic demands explanations. God defies explanations yet God is logical and it is logical to believe in God. Therein lies the conundrum for the atheist.
|
|
|
twiggymoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 38 |
| First Name: | Twiggymoo | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nazarene, Free Methodist, Baptist..Romeward bound |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 10th, 2007 09:48 am |
|
Cajunrick, David, Dennis,
Thank you for your responses. I hope to have further discussions with my son about this topic and will try to put it all together as you all presented; there is so much here. My prayer is that not only he, but my whole family will see the richness of the Catholic faith.
Don
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 10th, 2007 03:01 pm |
|
Hi,
I was having discussion with my son who is a pentecostal about the assumption of Mary into heaven. Since it is not clearly in the Bible, he asked how I knew this.
You know this because the Church tells you so.
I said well she was assumed after the Bible was written.
That is correct. However, she was assumed before the Bible was put together by the Church. Presumably, the Church could have added this into the Bible.
He said if this were important enough, it would be in the Bible.
Not necessarily.
There are many Catholic doctrines which are not directly stated in the Bible. The Bible contains all Catholic doctrines either directly stated or implied. And the Bible tells us that the Church is our authority (Matt 18:17) and that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15).
Unlike Protestant Doctrine, the Catholic Church does not require that a doctrine be directly stated in the Bible. Also unlike Protestant doctrine, all Catholic doctrines are consistent with the Bible. No Catholic doctrine violates Bible Teaching as do the doctrines of Sola Scriptura (2 Thess 2:15) and Sola Fide (James 2:24) the pillars of the Protestant faith.
What I'm trying to say is, if it is important for our salvation it is taught by the Church in accordance with the Word of God which is contained in Her Traditions by Word (Sacred Tradition) and Epistle (Sacred Scripture).
So, is Mary's assumption important for our salvation?
Yes.
If so, how?
She is evidence that God is faithful to His promises. God's faithful one will never see corruption (Psalms 15:10).
If Enoch, Elijah, and Moses were worthy to be assumed into heaven body and soul, how much more the Woman who loved God more than any human being that ever existed.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 10th, 2007 03:27 pm |
|
Hi again,
However, I was looking for other details in history that could bolster my position besides just saying "the church says so" - which I can accept but would be unconvincing to a Protestant.
Details in history?
Lets try this:
1. We know assumption into heaven is possible because Enoch, Elijah and Moses were assumed into heaven according to the Bible:
Genesis 5:24
And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
2 Kings 2:11
And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
Jude 1:9
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
2. And we also know that assumption into heaven is possible because we are awaiting what Protestants call the Rapture.
1 Thessalonians 4:17
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
3. And we also know that assumption into heaven is possible because St. Paul went to heaven and came back again:
2 Corinthians 12:2
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.
4. And presumably, the dead who rose when Jesus died on the Cross were also caught into heaven since there is no record they were returned to their graves:
Matthew 27:52
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
5. And Jesus said that some would not taste death:
Matthew 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Presumably, your son does not believe that Mary is in hell. Can he give one reason why we should not believe that she has been caught up into heaven?
He can believe whatever he wants but he has no Biblical support to believe what he believes. In other words, the Bible does not say that Mary was not assumed into heaven.
But the Bible does show a Woman, clothed with the Sun, the Mother of Jesus Christ, was seen in Heaven:
Revelation 12:1
And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
So, our belief squares with Scripture perfectly. We have plenty of Biblical reasons to believe that the Mother of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was assumed into heaven:
CCC #966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
GoFisher
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 111 |
| First Name: | Kathy | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Mth Cng Prs UM sang@RC Ep UM (MDiv) Word-Faith Charismatic-RC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 18th, 2007 07:17 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: [Reformation... after the bible was written, and the Pentecostals... year 1900.... so important ... be in the bible, too? David] That is so hilarious, I had to write a HA HA HA here.  We could think of many things that are accepted by tradition that are not in The Bible.
The way folks were baptized is not described in The Bible. First Century Jews were baptized in the following way: the one to be cleansed would walk into the moving water ("living" water is a hebraism for moving water, so for e.g., the Dead Sea is not used) and would squat down with his hands stretched out straight in front of him. The one overseeing the baptism (including John the baptizer) would ensure that the person's entire head had been covered, and would scoop up some water to put on the head of the person to ensure that every hair was wet. Then the person would stand up on his own.
Baptismal areas in The Temple were connected to the local source of moving water to meet the requirements for living water. Baptism (including those 3,000 baptized at one time after Peter preached) was done before you entered the temple at every Sabbath and Holy Day (Yom Kippur, etc.).
Also, remember St. John says, there is no room on earth to write all the things that Our Lord Jesus did on earth while He was here as a man. Another pastor preached that when we pray in tongues we access the mighty works that He did as we praise The Lord for it without knowing what we say (but merely getting an interpretation of the general idea and a picture in your Spirit / mind's eye of it).
Actually, according to a non-charismatic priest, Queen / Mother MARY IS the first CHARISMATIC. I thought he was referring to Mother Mary being there at Pentecost, but he was referring to her espousal by The Holy Spirit. I wonder if he could also refer to her Immaculate Conception, since The Holy Spirit must have been involved in that miracle.
All of these CHN forum are really helpful, especially while I am numb or in a state of shock after the holidays from being "picked on" by my family. I did not know they were anti-Catholic until recently.
OF COURSE, I really wanted to say, the first 3,121 Jewish Christians were all pentecostal or charismatic or Spirit-filled. Folks don't see that the Pentecostal movement in 1900 was a return to charisma, not a brand new thing. Here is how I got the number 3,121 = Queen Mary + 120 disciples + 3,000 disciples saved after Peter's post-Pentecost speech under the boldness and power of The Holy Spirit.
Last edited on Thu Jan 18th, 2007 07:32 pm by GoFisher
____________________
Love, hear + obey God: go fish! (me)
+ The Word became flesh... (St. John 1:14)
Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. (St. Jerome)
+ Follow Me... fishers of men. (St. Matthew quotes The Lord Jesus)
|
|
|
GoFisher
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 111 |
| First Name: | Kathy | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Mth Cng Prs UM sang@RC Ep UM (MDiv) Word-Faith Charismatic-RC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 18th, 2007 07:45 pm |
|
Cajunrick wrote: "Protestants have always rejected claims that Peter... Rome."
We should avoid using over-arching (stereotypical) terms such as always and never. That sentence you wrote using "always" is a blanket statement, and it is also not true.
When I was in the ministry inquiry process in The United Methodist Church, my pastor-sponsor showed me a framed certificate that showed a list of all the pastors ordained before him and who he succeeded. He explained that it shows how his ordination is valid because he was in apostolic succession all the way back to Peter, via the Anglican priest John Wesley.
____________________
Love, hear + obey God: go fish! (me)
+ The Word became flesh... (St. John 1:14)
Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. (St. Jerome)
+ Follow Me... fishers of men. (St. Matthew quotes The Lord Jesus)
|
|
|
GoFisher
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 111 |
| First Name: | Kathy | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Mth Cng Prs UM sang@RC Ep UM (MDiv) Word-Faith Charismatic-RC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 18th, 2007 07:46 pm |
|
By the way, the answer to the Assumption of Mary sources is found in "oral tradition".
____________________
Love, hear + obey God: go fish! (me)
+ The Word became flesh... (St. John 1:14)
Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. (St. Jerome)
+ Follow Me... fishers of men. (St. Matthew quotes The Lord Jesus)
|
|
|
AD
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| First Name: | AL | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist Pentacostal Non Denominational |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 12:20 am |
|
Here I am, Trying to understand the catholic faith once again
Several people, mentioned the fact the Mary was sinless while she lived on
earth. Did I hear that right? Is that what you believe ?
Last edited on Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 12:21 am by AD
|
|
|
CajunRick
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 12:33 am |
|
AD wrote: Here I am, Trying to understand the catholic faith once again Several people, mentioned the fact the Mary was sinless while she lived on earth. Did I hear that right? Is that what you believe ?
Yes, Catholics, Orthodox, and Oriental Christians believe Mary was without sin. So did Martin Luther.
|
|
|
AD
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| First Name: | AL | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist Pentacostal Non Denominational |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22nd, 2007 01:23 am |
|
| Thanks Rick, I will admit tally have to chew on that one for a good while but none the less, Thanks for the reply
|
|
|
Current time is 09:33 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
