|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/27/2007 1:02:01 AM
|
|
|
rgmorga
Posts: 23
Joined: 2/21/2007
Status: offline
|
I believe it is written in 1Timothey (correct this if I am wrong about the scripture), "It is the glory of G-d to conceal a thing, but to the noble of Kings to search it out."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/27/2007 2:41:04 AM
|
|
|
rgmorga
Posts: 23
Joined: 2/21/2007
Status: offline
|
How could the Mother Mary appear to Joan of Ark if she had not ascended?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/27/2007 5:14:17 AM
|
|
|
staphisol
Posts: 2
Joined: 12/20/2006
Status: offline
|
What does Catholicisim teach on the "Catholic Tradition" about disregarding Scripture about Mary?
Why do people (the RCC members) disregard the upholdings of the Catholic Catechism?
I mean, If they believe in the CCC, won't they refer to it??
Do they believe that it still upholds the BASIC beliefs of their FAITH?
I want the Catholics to explain their views about the CCC and what it teaches about Mary.
I mean, if I am RCC today. I am expected to raise my kids in a certain way.
I KNOW what this means.
How DARE you people lie in the way that you are.
I grew up RC and I know EXACTLY what the CCC says.
Shame, shame....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/27/2007 6:21:16 AM
|
|
|
Lew
Posts: 16
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
He took Enoch and Elijah into heaven without them ever tasting death (2 Kings 2:11; Hebrews 11:5); he raised many righteous Jews from the dead at Jesus' resurrection (Mt 27:52-53), and He has promised to rapture up both living and dead believers at the end of time (1 Thess 4:16-17). Why wouldn't Jesus do the same for His Mother, the woman whom He is bound to honor by His own Law? As we have seen, Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Why would God allow this sacred Ark to rot in the grave? It is not fitting that the body which was sanctified to bear God Incarnate should see corruption. So God took the New Ark into heaven, where we see her in Revelations 11:19-12:1
We know about enoch and elijah because it appears in the bible and was recorded. For Mary it obviously isnt high on gods list to let us know about her Assumption so why not accept gods personal gift to you. Jesus Christ. Dont dilute the salvation he offers. Its not 20% mary purity and 70% jesus purity 10% peter gatekeeping...
its 100% JESUS!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/27/2007 8:52:06 AM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1084
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
Wouldn't really know about the CCC since I am Orthodox Catholic. We are not in communion with Rome nor have we been for 1000 years. We do believe in the catching away of the Holy Mother of God after her dormition.
"We know about enoch and elijah because it appears in the bible and was recorded. For Mary it obviously isnt high on gods list to let us know about her Assumption"
But He did let us know in the Bible..in Revelation, the Woman clothed with the sun is Mary, the Blessed Theotokos.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/27/2007 7:11:55 PM
|
|
|
CalRed
Posts: 165
Joined: 12/20/2006
Status: offline
|
The "woman clothed with the sun" in Revelations is the Church, not Mary. Read the entire chapter. It does not refer to Mary. That is a far out belief of the RCC.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/27/2007 7:43:18 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1084
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
So you are saying the "Church" gave birth to Christ...how....ummm..."odd" is that?
I've read the whole chapter and so has the Church since the day the Apostle John sent it out to be read. The only way that woman can represent the Church is if she is also Mary who stands as an image of the Church. If she is not Mary you have the Church giving birth to Christ. And it makes no sense to interpret the woman figuratively, the child she bore literally then make the mom figurative again because you just are afraid to admit all the implications that come to bear if the woman is Mary.
So the traditional understanding of who the woman is you reject a priori because it is something you don't want to believe because that puts you too close to "Catlick" territory.
And speaking of Catlick...how many times do I have to say that I am not a member of the RCC...Im OCC (EOC). If it is just a crazy RCC belief then why is it believed by all the ancient communions Orthodox, Coptic, other NonChalcedonian (Armenians, Syrians, Malankara) as well as Rome? Some of these communions haven't had any formal fellowship with Rome or Orthodoxy for 1500 years or more. Yet you persist in saying it is just some bizarre belief exclusive to Rome. It is not. It is a belive that is common the ancient Church and to all the ancient communions. The innovation is the utter denial of it by children of the Reformation a few hunderd years ago.
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/27/2007 10:25:13 PM
|
|
|
gatolover
Posts: 544
Joined: 6/23/2006
Status: offline
|
Dear unworthyseraphim,
quote:
So the traditional understanding of who the woman is you reject a priori because it is something you don't want to believe because that puts you too close to "Catlick" territory.
Do ya really think that might be it??!! 
BTW, I agree...it is bizarre to insist the Woman clothed with the sun in Revelation is the "church" who supposedly gave birth to Christ. Unfortunately, sometimes you just have to shake your head at the refusal to recognize the incoherency in some arguments which appear to be offered for argument's sake.
For the record, I have never licked my gato, though I have been called a Catlicker in days gone by.
Peace of Christ in everyone's Lenten journeys.
gatolover...not "licker"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 2/28/2007 12:08:13 PM
|
|
|
marquez_1
Posts: 56
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
|
Calred, i think you got a little off topic. But i agree with everything you say. I saw in another thread that someone said this could possibly be describing EVE.
My question is what people think about the "alleged" apparitions of Mary, from Juan Diego to the modern 20th century apparitions.
I know only THREE have been 'authenticated' by the RCC, (Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe), but after I read the events of these I cant help but notice how everything Mary supposedly says seems to contradict Scripture.
I want to see other people's thoughts on this subject, and then I'll expand on my opinions.
Thanks
_____________________________
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is!"
"There are no such things as coincidences, only divine appointments from God"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/1/2007 12:40:23 AM
|
|
|
CalRed
Posts: 165
Joined: 12/20/2006
Status: offline
|
In Catholic tradition, there are many reported occurrences of Mary, angels, and/or saints appearing and delivering a message from God. It is likely that at least in some of these cases, the people were genuinely seeing something supernatural. While some of what is seen in various places is perhaps the work of charlatans, other apparitions were apparently authentic. However, with that said, an apparition being authentic does not mean it is a message from God or a genuine appearance of Mary, an angel, or a saint. Scripture declares that Satan and his demons masquerade as angels of light (2 Corinthians 11:14-15). Satanic deception is just as possible an explanation for the apparitions.
The only way to determine whether an apparition is a "lying wonders" or a genuine message from God is to compare the apparition with Scripture. If the teachings that are attached to these apparitions are contrary to the Word of God, the apparitions themselves are then Satanic in nature. A study of the teachings of Our Lady Fatima with its "Miracle of the Sun" is a good example.
You can check that out here:
Here
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/1/2007 1:28:07 PM
|
|
|
marquez_1
Posts: 56
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
|
Thats was one my points Cal, the Fatima apparition. I read through that story the other day and couldnt belive that it would be accepted by the church. They say the Sun "danced around in the sky". Maybe it might have been a bright light dancing around, how could they clearly say the "sun" danced around in the sky.
The other things that really bothered me is the dialog that the "angel of peace" is reported saying to the children:
"Make of everything you can a sacrifice and offer it to God as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and in supplication for the conversion of sinners. In this way, you will draw peace upon your country. I am its Guardian Angel, the Angel of Portugal. Above all, accept and bear with submission the sufferings which the Lord will send you."
Also notice what "Mary" is reported in this conversation:
[Lucia asks]"‘Shall I go to Heaven too?’
[Mary says}‘Yes, you will.’
[Lucia]‘And Jacinta?’
[Mary]‘Also.’
[Lucia]‘And Francisco?’
[mary]‘Also, but he will have to say many Rosaries.’
Now what does praying the rosaries have to do with going to heaven!!?
Another quote from Mary:
‘Are you willing to offer yourselves to God to bear all the sufferings He wants to send you, as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and for the conversion of sinners?’
Isnt that the reason Jesus was Sacrificed, for our sins??? Was Jesus' sacrifice not enough, that these children must also suffer for reparation of sins?
Another quote:
‘Yes, I will take Jacinta and Francisco soon, but you, Lucy, are to stay here some time longer. Jesus wishes to make use of you in order to make Me known and loved. He wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. To whoever embraces this devotion, I promise salvation; those souls will be cherished by God, as flowers placed by Me to adorn His throne.’
-----
'Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say often to Jesus, especially whenever you make a sacrifice: O Jesus, it is for love of Thee, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.’
Why does Mary keep insisting that they sacrifice themselves for conversion of sinners?
"Saint Joseph will come with the Child Jesus, to give peace to the world. Our Lord will come to bless the people. Our Lady of the Rosary and Our Lady of Sorrows will come also.’"
-----
‘Pray, pray very much, and make sacrifices for sinners, for many souls go to Hell because they have no one to make sacrifices and pray for them.’
-----
‘Continue to pray the Rosary in order to obtain the end of the war. In October, Our Lord will come as well as Our Lady of Sorrows and Our Lady of Mount Carmel, and Saint Joseph will appear with the Child Jesus in order to bless the world. God is satisfied with your sacrifices, but He does not want you to sleep with the rope. Wear it only during the day.’
----
‘I shall cure some, but others no, because Our Lord does not trust them.’
----
Does anyone else beside me see everything "mary" says contradicts what the scriptures say?
_____________________________
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is!"
"There are no such things as coincidences, only divine appointments from God"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/1/2007 11:51:08 PM
|
|
|
CalRed
Posts: 165
Joined: 12/20/2006
Status: offline
|
In reference to the assumption of Mary and actually most all the other Catholic doctrines, do you ever wonder why those who are debating you very seldom ever quote scripture? The entire religion seems to be based on the "traditions of man" and not on scripture.
With such a great Bible to follow I can never understand why it is necessary to seek out things to believe that are not Biblical...
The so-called "assumption of Mary" takes a great deal of imagination and speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/2/2007 11:07:42 AM
|
|
|
marquez_1
Posts: 56
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline
|
Yeah its like i posted before, Catholics have a tendency to always just "Fill in the gaps" even if there is no biblical foundation behind it. Examples would be assuption of mary, purgatory, penance, woman clothed with the sun, and other doctrine found in the Catechism.
Its like if I said, well Jesus did this that and this after his ressurection. There is no biblical proof about "this that and this", but since John says "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." I am surprised the Catholic church hasnt come up with something to fit into this time.
Its like I say, some things are just meant to remain a mystery. If Mary died or didnt die, it doesnt really matter. The most important thing is that Jesus DID die, and DID come back to life in bodily form, NOT A SPIRIT. Lets say these apparitions really are Mary, are there any reports of her being touched or interacting physically with this world?(Please correct me if im wrong). Even if she has appeared that would mean she appeared spiritually as a GHOST, meaning she did not assume in full body, meaning she died just like everyone else.
But the thing with the Catholics is, there is not enough to make a strong argument on either side of the story. Since when do we make doctrine out of something that has reasonable doubt?
_____________________________
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is!"
"There are no such things as coincidences, only divine appointments from God"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/2/2007 11:58:03 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1342
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CalRed
Many scholars, theologians and philosophers think they understand the Bible but they really don’t.. How do you know your understanding of scripture is right and theirs wrong?
_____________________________
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? - 3/3/2007 4:29:09 AM
|
|
|
staphisol
Posts: 2
Joined: 12/20/2006
Status: offline
|
We know because THE WORD (Scripture) will never defy itself.
The only time that SCRIPTURE (The WORD; that was ALWAYS according to Gen.) says to seek Wisdom outside of itself is to COMPARE ITSELF TO SCRIPTURE (itself).
Thats not so hard to get for ME.
I mean, if you need to check yo'self, check it with the WORD.
Which the BIBLE tells us to caompare ALL things to.
This is very easy for me.
However, I DO have a big problem in "checking" things with a belief system that makes it's own rules up as the years go by only to suit itself... 
Sigh....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/3/2007 2:46:52 PM
|
|
|
CalRed
Posts: 165
Joined: 12/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
quote:
ORIGINAL: CalRed
Many scholars, theologians and philosophers think they understand the Bible but they really don’t.. How do you know your understanding of scripture is right and theirs wrong?
In regards to the assumption of Mary, my interpretation of the scriptures is adequate and proper. The scriptures say NOTHING about this so-called assumption so anyone who reads that into it is dead wrong and anyone who adds to the scriptures will have to face God one day and explain why!
Augustine, Jerome and many other early church leaders felt the same way about scripture. This has changed through the years by MAN-----not God!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/4/2007 12:09:33 AM
|
|
|
CalRed
Posts: 165
Joined: 12/20/2006
Status: offline
|
Anyone reading the 12th chapter of Revelations and not understanding it is the church John is referring to simply doesn't know scripture. It is relating the prophecy of the church being fulfilled. It is NOT about Mary or an assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/4/2007 12:25:45 AM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1342
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
So the Church came before Christ, and also gave birth to Christ? How can Christ be the foundation if the Church was already established?
_____________________________
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? - 3/4/2007 1:10:45 AM
|
|
|
CalRed
Posts: 165
Joined: 12/20/2006
Status: offline
|
You certainly can't be accused of trying very hard to study scriptures, especially Revelation. I will give you a start and you can take it from there.
This chapter starts out as a description of the church of Christ and of Satan, under the figures of a woman and of a great red dragon. The emblem of a woman, the mother of believers, was seen by the Apostle in his vision, in heaven. She was clothed with the sun, justified, sanctified, and shining by union with Christ, the Sun of Righteousness. The moon was under her feet, she was superior to the reflected and feebler light of the revelation made by Moses. On her head was a crown of twelve stars; the doctrine of the gospel, preached by the twelve apostles. This is a crown of glory to all true believers; as in pain to bring forth a holy family; desirous that the conviction of sinners might end in their conversion.
The dragon is a known emblem of Satan, and his chief agents, or those who govern for him on earth which at that time was the pagan empire of Rome, the city built upon seven hills. Having ten horns, divided into ten kingdoms. Having seven crowns, representing seven forms of government. Drawing with his tail a third part of the stars in heaven, and casting them down to earth while persecuting and seducing the ministers and teachers. Trying to crush the Christian religion but in spite of the opposition of enemies, the church brought forth a manly issue of true and faithful professors, in whom Christ was truly formed anew, even the mystery of Christ---that Son of God who should rule the nations, and in whose right his members partake the same glory. God protected this blessed offspring.
The attempts of the dragon proved unsuccessful against the church, and fatal to his own interests. The seat of this war was in heaven; in the church of Christ, the kingdom of heaven on earth. The parties were Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and his instruments. The strength of the church is in having the Lord Jesus for the Captain of their salvation. Satan and his angels will not win this war because Michael and his angels will prevail. These verses are promises that the church will prevail because of Christ and His power.
Surely you have had bible study on revelation? If so then I feel certain you know that this does not refer to or have anything to do with an assumption of Mary. Remember this is Christ's vision He gave to John.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/4/2007 3:28:50 AM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1084
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
".She was clothed with the sun, justified, sanctified, and shining by union with Christ, the Sun of Righteousness. The moon was under her feet, she was superior to the reflected and feebler light of the revelation made by Moses. On her head was a crown of twelve stars; the doctrine of the gospel, preached by the twelve apostles. This is a crown of glory to all true believers; as in pain to bring forth a holy family; desirous that the conviction of sinners might end in their conversion."
Sounds exactly like Mary to me.
She still gave birth to the manchild...Chirst...it's Mary...our mother...given to us by Christ from the Cross.
And yes, I've studied the book of Revelation....and seen any number of interpretations of it. They don't make as much sense as the Orthodox one which fits both the text and the tradition.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/4/2007 9:05:18 AM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1342
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear CalRed, how can the Church give birth to Christ?
Thru out scripture, the Church is always represented as the Bride or Body of Christ, never His Mother.
Also, the last verse talks about her seed. Who is her seed, which keep the commandments of God? The Church again?
There is no consistency if you believe the woman is the Church.
_____________________________
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? - 3/4/2007 11:12:14 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
I think I might have finally got it figured out...
It's got to be written in Vaticanus...
I'm pretty sure that manuscript is simply a work in progress. I'll bet that somewhere there is a palimsest leaf that describes this 'historical fact'. This will be revealed at some future time, once the people who would be able to fairly and reasonably examine the authenticity of this document have been taken away... At that point, it won't matter what was written there in 1951 because nearly everyone remaining on the planet will be enthralled by the all inclusive Church of Love...It'll all be good, because it is written in 'scripture'.
Hmmm... Makes sense... I guess this is why they refuse to let the manuscript be examined. I'll bet this is revealed in Matthew 29... Written there in Big ole uncials: Sinless Mary, mother of that guy who got killed, was taken to heaven on a golden chariot before 28,000 witnesses in shining robes..."
(Hey, can't I write fiction too?!?)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/5/2007 10:14:00 AM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
I'll keep praying for those foolish enough to read what's not there... Mary was another human being, used in a MIGHTY way by God, yet still NO MORE than just another one of us. If God was to have taken the vessel He used for the birthing of His Son to heaven, He would have made a point to let us know this clearly, as he did with the OT prophets that were taken thus. To try to add this many centuries after the time she would have finished her earthly life is absolutely preposterous. You seem to not really care that the assertion that Mary was sinless does nothing but take away from the fact that it was Jesus who managed to live sinless. By saying she did as well, is to make it possible for anyone to do it. This is NOT possible. But I cease and desist from talking to the tree... I just pray that those who believe this will wake up before it's too late.
As I have alluded to earlier, the Catholic church runs on it's own agenda, and that agenda has nothing to do with Christ's teachings. Maybe some of these things are used, but the agenda is simply to have the congregation financially support the monolith in the manner in which it wants to be supported... glittering finery and palacial spaces. (Who cares that millions are starving, the pope has his rings and robes, that is all that truly matters!)
The pompous idiocy that allows people to fall for this farce is amazing. But they do... by the millions. Proof that ignorance is bliss to those who don't think for themselves.
< Message edited by Papa-san -- 3/5/2007 10:20:24 AM >
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
