Posted: 8/10/2026 8:08:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Bishop3][Edited]
|
I believe that Jesus saves. I called on the name of the Lord and He rescued me. Jesus is Lord. The Holy Spirit is my witness. I do expect a certain population to agree with this Pope's statement. However, *I do not believe an 'assumption of Mary' (dogma) is a legitimate matter of faith for salvation: “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 willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.” (Munificentissimus Deus, §§44–45) Pope Pius XII, 01 November 1950. --- *The inspired Scripture consistently presents salvation as centered on Jesus Christ, received by grace through faith. Look here: Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” ~ Paul the Lord's Apostle < Have you considered Jesus? John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” ~ Jesus the Apostle and High Priest of our confession < Romans 10:9 “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” ~ Paul the Lord's Apostle < Acts 16:31 “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” ~ Paul and Silas, the Lord's Apostles < Acts 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” ~ Peter the Lord's Apostle < 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,... ~ Paul the Lord's Apostle < The gospel Paul received and preached centers on Christ’s death for our sins, burial, and resurrection according to the Scriptures. No Marian dogma is included. Jesus defines eternal life in terms of knowing the Father and the Son. John 17:3 ... This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. ~ Jesus < The New Testament /New Covenant never lists belief in Mary’s bodily assumption (or any parallel teaching) as a condition of salvation. The “faith once for all handed down to the saints” was complete. Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. Love God, love people, shine, shine His Light (Jesus is the Light of the world. Maranatha |
USMC 85-'93 Amphibious YAT-YAS
|
May I ask, what do you think the "Assumption of Mary" means? And what makes you think it contradicts this? *The inspired Scripture consistently presents salvation as centered on Jesus Christ, received by grace through faith. I'll give you something to at least start with: Assumed into heaven means she was taken into heaven by God. She was brought to heaven. Not to be confused with Jesus Ascending into heaven under His own power. He went to heaven. |
Give me that old time religion
|
Originally Posted By Gullskjegg: May I ask, what do you think the "Assumption of Mary" means? And what makes you think it contradicts this? *The inspired Scripture consistently presents salvation as centered on Jesus Christ, received by grace through faith. I'll give you something to at least start with: Assumed into heaven means she was taken into heaven by God. She was brought to heaven. Not to be confused with Jesus Ascending into heaven under His own power. He went to heaven. Is this the Catholic definition?: '...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.' What does this mean to you? Did Mary the mother of Jesus die? Or did God take her body and soul without having died? Or did God just take her? All I know is this: Jesus saves. I called and He answered. I trust Him. Are you and I in lock-step that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved? That Jesus is the Savior of the world? My focus and eyes are fixed on Him. He is the center. 'Make love your aim', my daughter and I love to share that quote. On a side note: Please pray for my mother, she is in the hospital again. I start back full time today with my job too. Lots of pressing issues. Have a good day today and thanks for your response. |
USMC 85-'93 Amphibious YAT-YAS
|
Originally Posted By Bishop3: Is this the Catholic definition?: '...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.' What does this mean to you? Did Mary the mother of Jesus die? Or did God take her body and soul without having died? Or did God just take her? On a side note: Please pray for my mother, she is in the hospital again. I start back full time today with my job too. Lots of pressing issues. Originally Posted By Bishop3: Originally Posted By Gullskjegg: May I ask, what do you think the "Assumption of Mary" means? And what makes you think it contradicts this? *The inspired Scripture consistently presents salvation as centered on Jesus Christ, received by grace through faith. I'll give you something to at least start with: Assumed into heaven means she was taken into heaven by God. She was brought to heaven. Not to be confused with Jesus Ascending into heaven under His own power. He went to heaven. Is this the Catholic definition?: '...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.' What does this mean to you? Did Mary the mother of Jesus die? Or did God take her body and soul without having died? Or did God just take her? On a side note: Please pray for my mother, she is in the hospital again. I start back full time today with my job too. Lots of pressing issues. I don't know if she died or not, the Church has never declared either way. Only that from the earliest days of the Church has it been said she was assumed into heaven. There was not a trace of her body left behind. And this doesn't detract from Jesus, it glorifies Him. Did it detract from the power of God when Elijah was assumed into heaven? Of course, brother, will continue to pray for your mother. |
Give me that old time religion
|
This is a good read on the subject: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-assumption-of-mary-in-history |
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
149283
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By wswartzendruber: Finally! A thread where I get to side with Bishop3! The problem here for Anglican is that the Eastern Churches have taught the Dormition of Mary for as just about as long as there are records. It just never caught on in the West. The Dormition is actually a far more detailed teaching. The whole issue just never reached any level of controversy or dispute to warrant the whole Church to weigh-in. Vatican I corrected a "lost" understanding and thus helped preserve ancient Church teaching. So, as Rome uniquely right to never make special note of this for a thousand plus years? - Edit. Oops, I got my Dogma timelines cornfabulated. Vatican I dogmatizer the Immaculate Conception. - |
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which Trump is always right.
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
|
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: The problem here for Anglican is that the Eastern Churches have taught the Dormition of Mary for as just about as long as there are records. It just never caught on in the West. The Dormition is actually a far more detailed teaching. The whole issue just never reached any level of controversy or dispute to warrant the whole Church to weigh-in. Vatican I corrected a "lost" understanding and thus helped preserve ancient Church teaching. So, as Rome uniquely right to never make special note of this for a thousand plus years? The problem for us isn't the teaching itself. That is not controversial at all. Our objection is mandating it as a required article of faith. As soon as you do that, we're looking for you to show us in the Scriptures where it is obligatory. |
|
Originally Posted By wswartzendruber: The problem for us isn't the teaching itself. That is not controversial at all. Our objection is mandating it as a required article of faith. As soon as you do that, we're looking for you to show us in the Scriptures where it is obligatory. Originally Posted By wswartzendruber: Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: The problem here for Anglican is that the Eastern Churches have taught the Dormition of Mary for as just about as long as there are records. It just never caught on in the West. The Dormition is actually a far more detailed teaching. The whole issue just never reached any level of controversy or dispute to warrant the whole Church to weigh-in. Vatican I corrected a "lost" understanding and thus helped preserve ancient Church teaching. So, as Rome uniquely right to never make special note of this for a thousand plus years? The problem for us isn't the teaching itself. That is not controversial at all. Our objection is mandating it as a required article of faith. As soon as you do that, we're looking for you to show us in the Scriptures where it is obligatory. Matthew 16:19 RSV [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 18:18 RSV [18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. |
|
Originally Posted By wswartzendruber: The problem for us isn't the teaching itself. That is not controversial at all. Our objection is mandating it as a required article of faith. As soon as you do that, we're looking for you to show us in the Scriptures where it is obligatory. Originally Posted By wswartzendruber: Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: The problem here for Anglican is that the Eastern Churches have taught the Dormition of Mary for as just about as long as there are records. It just never caught on in the West. The Dormition is actually a far more detailed teaching. The whole issue just never reached any level of controversy or dispute to warrant the whole Church to weigh-in. Vatican I corrected a "lost" understanding and thus helped preserve ancient Church teaching. So, as Rome uniquely right to never make special note of this for a thousand plus years? The problem for us isn't the teaching itself. That is not controversial at all. Our objection is mandating it as a required article of faith. As soon as you do that, we're looking for you to show us in the Scriptures where it is obligatory. Because it defines the nature of God and the context with which He came to us. When someone takes aim at Mariology, it's Jesus who they hit. In this case, how would someone argue the assumption of Mary is false? That it's impossible for God? That she wasn't worthy? That the Church lied? The implications of any of those arguments to be true would diminish God. |
Give me that old time religion
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
149284
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By wswartzendruber: The problem for us isn't the teaching itself. That is not controversial at all. Our objection is mandating it as a required article of faith. As soon as you do that, we're looking for you to show us in the Scriptures where it is obligatory. Originally Posted By wswartzendruber: Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: The problem here for Anglican is that the Eastern Churches have taught the Dormition of Mary for as just about as long as there are records. It just never caught on in the West. The Dormition is actually a far more detailed teaching. The whole issue just never reached any level of controversy or dispute to warrant the whole Church to weigh-in. Vatican I corrected a "lost" understanding and thus helped preserve ancient Church teaching. So, as Rome uniquely right to never make special note of this for a thousand plus years? The problem for us isn't the teaching itself. That is not controversial at all. Our objection is mandating it as a required article of faith. As soon as you do that, we're looking for you to show us in the Scriptures where it is obligatory. I doubt it ever would have been proclaimed that way had Protestantism not been a thing. In a very important way, it helped draw a clear line of demarkation. And, to be completely honest, some of the wailing and screeching it has produced, often accompanied with outright disrespect to Mary? Well, it reminds me of those old moves where demons are exposed. So, I think it's doing something very right. |
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which Trump is always right.
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
|
Originally Posted By MolonLabeFBHO: Matthew 16:19 RSV [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 18:18 RSV [18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Originally Posted By MolonLabeFBHO: Matthew 16:19 RSV [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 18:18 RSV [18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Explain how this relates to the assumption of Mary. Originally Posted By Gullskjegg: Because it defines the nature of God and the context with which He came to us. When someone takes aim at Mariology, it's Jesus who they hit. In this case, how would someone argue the assumption of Mary is false? That it's impossible for God? That she wasn't worthy? That the Church lied? The implications of any of those arguments to be true would diminish God. Can you prove this accusation? Where is the canonical documentation of Mary's assumption? Christ was not about "secret teachings", so if the CC knows of its canonical documentation, it needs to reveal it. Just because God can do this doesn't prove that He actually did. The documentation, where is it? |
|
Originally Posted By MolonLabeFBHO: Matthew 16:19 RSV [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 18:18 RSV [18] Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. The backdrop of binding and loosing was the practice of the Pharisees in doing so. If we were to backport the Catholic Church's current stance on the matter to the Pharisees, it would suppose that the Pharisees presumed the authority to bind and loose the requirements for participating in God's covenant with Israel. My study on the matter has not indicated that they ever supposed to have any such authority. Originally Posted By Gullskjegg: Because it defines the nature of God and the context with which He came to us. When someone takes aim at Mariology, it's Jesus who they hit. In this case, how would someone argue the assumption of Mary is false? That it's impossible for God? That she wasn't worthy? That the Church lied? The implications of any of those arguments to be true would diminish God. 1. I'm not here to argue the assumption is false. 2. I'm not here to argue it's impossible for God. 3. I'm not here to argue she wasn't worthy. 4. And I am certainly not here in some feeble attempt and diminish God. I find it extremely improbable for the acceptance of these matters, however true they may be, to be so critically important with St. John having so little to say about them. She had almost certainly been assumed by the time he wrote his gospel and even more so his first epistle. |
 The Dormition Icon Is it required? I don't know. Do I believe it happened? Yes. |
Put not your trust in princes, in sons of men in whom there is no salvation.
 Will Rejecting Marian Dogmas Send You To Hell? |
|
I mean the OP denies the Christian faith passed down that is explicitly found in Sacred Scripture, why wouldn’t he also deny the Christian faith passed down by Sacred Tradition. It just follows that it would be the case. Just a note, sola scriptura is a novel and heterodoxical creation not found in historic Christianity. |
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
149291
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By brianm: I mean the OP denies the Christian faith passed down that is explicitly found in Sacred Scripture, why wouldn’t he also deny the Christian faith passed down by Sacred Tradition. It just follows that it would be the case. Just a note, sola scriptura is a novel and heterodoxical creation not found in historic Christianity. It's definitely an odd disconnect to believe that the Church that was so wholly wrong on the Eucharist, Baptism, and other sacraments somehow accurately preserved and maintained all the right scripture for all those years but got literally everything else wrong as well. |
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which Trump is always right.
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
|
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: It's definitely an odd disconnect to believe that the Church that was so wholly wrong on the Eucharist, Baptism, and other sacraments somehow accurately preserved and maintained all the right scripture for all those years but got literally everything else wrong as well. Disputed books like Jude were included in the canon by the Catholic Church largely because they were cited/used by early trustworthy Church writers, the same writers that attested to apostolic teachings like real presence in the Eucharist and baptismal regeneration. Without those Catholic attestations the evidence for Jude’s (and other books) authenticity is rather dismal. Trusting those men’s assurance on authorship and orthodoxy of books, then labeling them fabricators when they pass on other apostolic teaching is entirely hypocritical and inconsistent. People tend to label the entire problem (among other issues) of denying the historical, traditional and authoritative structure that produced the Bible as corrupted, yet accepting the Bible itself, as the ‘Protestant dilemma.’ |
|
Originally Posted By wvfarrier: We are told in no uncertain terms that salvation is through Jesus Christ by the will of GOD. We are further told that it is idolatry to worship anyone else. Period. I never knew that Blessed Mary was able to absolve us of our sins. I have never heard of a Catholic asking her to do that. Huh! Also your idolatry argument is old and busted and has been for a long while. Do you have anything new you despise about the Catholic Church? Maybe some fresh new insight or idea on what we do wrong? Let us know! |
Romani ite domum! Hail Caesar!
|
It's not taught in scripture, and the early church fathers did not speak to it. It might have happened, but we can't say with certainty. |
Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out.
General education should not be mere job training, but training in how to be fully human.
General education should not be mere job training, but training in how to be fully human.
|
Originally Posted By -Obsessed-: Why even argue about such silly trivial matters? If you ask questions the Bible isnt asking youll always get the wrong answer. There are plenty of things that are black and white to keep you busy the rest of your life, so why go hunting in the gray? I hear you. So, why contend for the faith then? I do love to study the Bible (Scriptures) usually daily unless my attention is drawn elsewhere by some distraction. I love the Word of God and I desire to seek His face. When I study the Bible, and meditate on His Word prayerfully He reveals Himself to me personally. The Holy Spirit ministers truth to my spirit (He is my Teacher). God wants to have friendship/ fellowship with you. When I'm quiet and still in my spirit and acknowledging His presence; I listen for Him. I've been made alive in Him. Job 12:22 ... He reveals mysteries from the darkness And brings the deep darkness into light. ~ Job Proverbs 20:27 The spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord, Searching all the innermost parts of his being. Daniel understood this: Daniel 2:22 ... It is He who reveals the profound and hidden things; He knows what is in the darkness, And the light dwells with Him. The prophet understood this: Jeremiah 33:3 ‘Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know.’ Psalms 25:14 The secret of the Lord is for those who fear Him, And He will make them know His covenant. 1 Corinthians 2:10 ...For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. Matthew 10:26-27 “Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops. ~ Jesus Luke 8:17 ...For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light. ~ Jesus The Apostle Paul's prayer for the body of Christ, a snippet: see Ephesians 1:17 ...that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. Being born again or born from above is experiential, like a child being born anew and seeing for the first time. A child grows in knowledge and experience. I believe Jesus wants to disclose Himself to you personally. I want to know Him more. As far as an 'assumption of Mary' being the center of my faith I can't say that it has drawn me at all. I haven't seen anything in the inspired Scripture leading me to her. I want to know why some believe it is a requirement of faith (belief)? Now, to know God one must believe who Jesus is. Jesus is Lord. John 3:35-36 ... The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” ~ Jesus the Apostle and High Priest of our confession Help me understand why an 'assumption of Mary' is a required matter of faith for any believer? Be blessed in the strong name of Jesus! Have a wonderful day and behold His wonderment! 
|
USMC 85-'93 Amphibious YAT-YAS
|
Originally Posted By MRW: It's not taught in scripture, and the early church fathers did not speak to it. It might have happened, but we can't say with certainty. I believe it's pretty clear logically in scripture, implicitly to a fairly high degree, along with being a tradition across the Apostolic churches. With certainty scripture speaks to Mary as the New Ark, holier than the Ark of the Old Covenant as she was the true Ark of Christ, the Theotokos. We see in Psalm 132 a prophecy of our Lord's ascension, along with His ark. 'Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified. ' Which we later see in Apocalypse 11 and then 12, written by John after the death and/or assumption. It seems a logical writing from someone who was entrusted with her, following such an event. Not to mention the complete lack of Marian relics at any point in history, or even records of historical fakes. Which speaks to the reason the tradition was passed through the Fathers with little defense of the tradition, as it wasn't being attacked and therefore no need for apologetics. Historically we have it in liturgies across many different Rites, both East and West, which implies an earlier singular source. Here is a quote from a mid 4th century saint, Epiphanius, "Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death." Lastly, because Christ promised His Church would not fail and that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide her in all truth, I believe it to be true because Holy Mother Church says so. |
Give me that old time religion
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
149297
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By brianm: Disputed books like Jude were included in the canon by the Catholic Church largely because they were cited/used by early trustworthy Church writers, the same writers that attested to apostolic teachings like real presence in the Eucharist and baptismal regeneration. Without those Catholic attestations the evidence for Jude’s (and other books) authenticity is rather dismal. Trusting those men’s assurance on authorship and orthodoxy of books, then labeling them fabricators when they pass on other apostolic teaching is entirely hypocritical and inconsistent. People tend to label the entire problem (among other issues) of denying the historical, traditional and authoritative structure that produced the Bible as corrupted, yet accepting the Bible itself, as the ‘Protestant dilemma.’ Originally Posted By brianm: Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: It's definitely an odd disconnect to believe that the Church that was so wholly wrong on the Eucharist, Baptism, and other sacraments somehow accurately preserved and maintained all the right scripture for all those years but got literally everything else wrong as well. Disputed books like Jude were included in the canon by the Catholic Church largely because they were cited/used by early trustworthy Church writers, the same writers that attested to apostolic teachings like real presence in the Eucharist and baptismal regeneration. Without those Catholic attestations the evidence for Jude’s (and other books) authenticity is rather dismal. Trusting those men’s assurance on authorship and orthodoxy of books, then labeling them fabricators when they pass on other apostolic teaching is entirely hypocritical and inconsistent. People tend to label the entire problem (among other issues) of denying the historical, traditional and authoritative structure that produced the Bible as corrupted, yet accepting the Bible itself, as the ‘Protestant dilemma.’ This also reminds me of the nonsense where some 19th Century Germany protestant decided that he'd found the "real" site of Christ's tomb, because, of course it couldn't be where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was built. It's an absolute disregard for the simple fact that Church in Jerusalem has direct continuity to those events. If you don't trust its institutional memory, you should probably have very good reason. Instead, the default assumption is that that the burden of proof is on the Church. |
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which Trump is always right.
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
|
Originally Posted By Bishop3: As far as an 'assumption of Mary' being the center of my faith I can't say that it has drawn me at all. I haven't seen anything in the inspired Scripture leading me to her. Nothing anywhere states that you are the arbiter of truth, that your personal, emotion centered ‘feeling’ of being drawn to something is any indication of its veracity. Likewise, as I’ve already stated, there are many things explicitly found in scripture that ARE established teachings of the Christian faith that your personal feelings either don’t draw you to or you reject outright. Demonstratively that’s a lousy litmus test. So why then would doctrines of faith found in sacred tradition passed on by and undisputed by the pillar and bulwark of the truth be any different. You are standing entirely outside a glorious and ancient building built by a King. You deny what the caretakers say about how it was built, who built it, you dispute if the blue prints are correct, what materials make up the foundations and who lives on the first floor. Why would we expect you to accept what they then say is on the second floor? |
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
149302
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By wswartzendruber: It might be worth considering why Protestants are so mistrusting. I think Genesis 3 addresses this quite adequately. |
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which Trump is always right.
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
|
Originally Posted By Gullskjegg: Honest question, how has breaking off from the Catholic Church helped what is now called the Anglican Church? That question supposes that Anglicanism would have been better off if Henry VIII had never schismed. That's something we can't really gauge because that's not how history played out. But I do think we can determine that the English schism motivated the Council of Trent. Today, we have something of a situation where each ideology has split from a mainline liberal practice that is the majority into a conservative response that is the minority. In the case of Anglicanism, that response is roughly 85% of the global communion. In England alone, there are now close to 116 congregations, all of which started up in the past six years and none of which are under Canterbury's (insane) jurisdiction. Anglicanism may not be as healthy as many would like, but we also look around at the rest of Protestantism and see sinking ships everywhere. We're getting by for now, but there is much to be done. EDIT: I sometimes wonder if our preservation isn't because we didn't cast off the episcopate. Even if we made mistakes in executing succession (as you all have determined), we still sought to maintain it. |
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
149309
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By wswartzendruber: That question supposes that Anglicanism would have been better off if Henry VIII had never schismed. That's something we can't really gauge because that's not how history played out. But I do think we can determine that the English schism motivated the Council of Trent. Today, we have something of a situation where each ideology has split from a mainline liberal practice that is the majority into a conservative response that is the minority. In the case of Anglicanism, that response is roughly 85% of the global communion. In England alone, there are now close to 116 congregations, all of which started up in the past six years and none of which are under Canterbury's (insane) jurisdiction. Anglicanism may not be as healthy as many would like, but we also look around at the rest of Protestantism and see sinking ships everywhere. We're getting by for now, but there is much to be done. EDIT: I sometimes wonder if our preservation isn't because we didn't cast off the episcopate. Even if we made mistakes in executing succession (as you all have determined), we still sought to maintain it. Originally Posted By wswartzendruber: Originally Posted By Gullskjegg: Honest question, how has breaking off from the Catholic Church helped what is now called the Anglican Church? That question supposes that Anglicanism would have been better off if Henry VIII had never schismed. That's something we can't really gauge because that's not how history played out. But I do think we can determine that the English schism motivated the Council of Trent. Today, we have something of a situation where each ideology has split from a mainline liberal practice that is the majority into a conservative response that is the minority. In the case of Anglicanism, that response is roughly 85% of the global communion. In England alone, there are now close to 116 congregations, all of which started up in the past six years and none of which are under Canterbury's (insane) jurisdiction. Anglicanism may not be as healthy as many would like, but we also look around at the rest of Protestantism and see sinking ships everywhere. We're getting by for now, but there is much to be done. EDIT: I sometimes wonder if our preservation isn't because we didn't cast off the episcopate. Even if we made mistakes in executing succession (as you all have determined), we still sought to maintain it. How does that work in terms of real estate, though? You can run off with your congregations, but doesn't the Church of England own the buildings? The Catholic Church has had time to rebuild its own Churches in Ireland and England after the Protestants took the old ones over. But what was done to the monasteries is one of histories great tragedies. |
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which Trump is always right.
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
|
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: How does that work in terms of real estate, though? You can run off with your congregations, but doesn't the Church of England own the buildings? The Catholic Church has had time to rebuild its own Churches in Ireland and England after the Protestants took the old ones over. But what was done to the monasteries is one of histories great tragedies. The Anglican Network in Europe (our English counterpart) is probably really hurting, but Anglicanism today is much bigger than England. Many of the worldwide provinces never actually schismed at the domestic level, they simply declared that Canterbury no longer had any authority over them, so they kept their property. On the domestic front, the ACNA has done much better than the other Protestant schisms with regards to property. We got the Church of the Ascension in Pittsburg: Attached File We also recently built St. Peter's Anglican Cathedral:  Attached File The ACNA has an eleven year jump on the ANIE and the ladder is probably never going to get any CofE property in court. |
|
Originally Posted By wswartzendruber: It might be worth considering why Protestants are so mistrusting. Mistrusting of the historic Christian faith as passed down from Christ and his Apostles to the Church, carried in deposit through writings and tradition led by the Holy Ghost? The 'why' is legion. Bishop here gives his personal feelings as a guidepost. Though that is itself probably a lie, since he adheres to almost exactly the 'conclusions' some evangelical groups teach without mixing say another protesting group's heterodox teachings like Reformed Calvinism. It would be impossible to come to his exact novel conclusions independently without leaning on previous interpretations taught to him. It follows if, in their hubris, they call doctrines established at the infancy of our faith fabrications, they would also call that remarkable institution and chain of disciples that carried our faith through all manners of adversity themselves facricators. Yet the pinnacle product of those very 'fabricators,' the canonization of the New Testament of Holy Scripture is somehow, to them, their lone pure, untainted, and entirely unquestionable product. (speaking of modern protesters, overlooking the few Protestants that did in fact question it, like Luther.) |
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
149311
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
Very timely Matt Fradd video. Is the Assumption of Mary Biblical and Ancient? (William Albrecht vs Pastor Samuel Farag) | Ep. 591 |
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which Trump is always right.
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
|
Originally Posted By brianm: Mistrusting of the historic Christian faith as passed down from Christ and his Apostles to the Church, carried in deposit through writings and tradition led by the Holy Ghost? The 'why' is legion. Bishop here gives his personal feelings as a guidepost. Though that is itself probably a lie, since he adheres to almost exactly the 'conclusions' some evangelical groups teach without mixing say another protesting group's heterodox teachings like Reformed Calvinism. It would be impossible to come to his exact novel conclusions independently without leaning on previous interpretations taught to him. It follows if, in their hubris, they call doctrines established at the infancy of our faith fabrications, they would also call that remarkable institution and chain of disciples that carried our faith through all manners of adversity themselves facricators. Yet the pinnacle product of those very 'fabricators,' the canonization of the New Testament of Holy Scripture is somehow, to them, their lone pure, untainted, and entirely unquestionable product. (speaking of modern protesters, overlooking the few Protestants that did in fact question it, like Luther.) I have spared no bluntness in responding to his bizarre and completely personal doctrines. But when he (and people like him) think of the Catholic Church, they aren't thinking about Trent nor are they thinking about Vatican II. Most Protestants don't even know what either of those are. The Catholic Church of today must be that same organization that effectively sold indulgences and there is no way such an institution could ever possibly reform. As an example, Protestants I talk to today are completely surprised to learn that Catholics read the Scriptures aloud in the Mass. Now this has obviously always been the case, but that's not their perception of things at all. All they can see is the institution they believe spiritually abused their predecessors, and the only thing they believe they can trust are the Holy Scriptures. And any interpretation this obviously untrustworthy institution provides must certainly be false. Now are they wrong? Obviously! But for something to be wrong doesn't make it unexpected nor does it necessarily make it unreasonable. Now Catholics, meanwhile, seem apprehensive about acknowledging any past fault at all. I would simply remind them that the Council of Trent convened for a reason, and it wasn't because everything was fine. |
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
149312
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By wswartzendruber: I have spared no bluntness in responding to his bizarre and completely personal doctrines. But when he (and people like him) think of the Catholic Church, they aren't thinking about Trent nor are they thinking about Vatican II. Most Protestants don't even know what either of those are. The Catholic Church of today must be that same organization that effectively sold indulgences and there is no way such an institution could ever possibly reform. As an example, Protestants I talk to today are completely surprised to learn that Catholics read the Scriptures aloud in the Mass. Now this has obviously always been the case, but that's not their perception of things at all. All they can see is the institution they believe spiritually abused their predecessors, and the only thing they believe they can trust are the Holy Scriptures. And any interpretation this obviously untrustworthy institution provides must certainly be false. Now are they wrong? Obviously! But for something to be wrong doesn't make it unexpected nor does it necessarily make it unreasonable. Now Catholics, meanwhile, seem apprehensive about acknowledging any past fault at all. I would simply remind them that the Council of Trent convened for a reason, and it wasn't because everything was fine. Originally Posted By wswartzendruber: Originally Posted By brianm: Mistrusting of the historic Christian faith as passed down from Christ and his Apostles to the Church, carried in deposit through writings and tradition led by the Holy Ghost? The 'why' is legion. Bishop here gives his personal feelings as a guidepost. Though that is itself probably a lie, since he adheres to almost exactly the 'conclusions' some evangelical groups teach without mixing say another protesting group's heterodox teachings like Reformed Calvinism. It would be impossible to come to his exact novel conclusions independently without leaning on previous interpretations taught to him. It follows if, in their hubris, they call doctrines established at the infancy of our faith fabrications, they would also call that remarkable institution and chain of disciples that carried our faith through all manners of adversity themselves facricators. Yet the pinnacle product of those very 'fabricators,' the canonization of the New Testament of Holy Scripture is somehow, to them, their lone pure, untainted, and entirely unquestionable product. (speaking of modern protesters, overlooking the few Protestants that did in fact question it, like Luther.) I have spared no bluntness in responding to his bizarre and completely personal doctrines. But when he (and people like him) think of the Catholic Church, they aren't thinking about Trent nor are they thinking about Vatican II. Most Protestants don't even know what either of those are. The Catholic Church of today must be that same organization that effectively sold indulgences and there is no way such an institution could ever possibly reform. As an example, Protestants I talk to today are completely surprised to learn that Catholics read the Scriptures aloud in the Mass. Now this has obviously always been the case, but that's not their perception of things at all. All they can see is the institution they believe spiritually abused their predecessors, and the only thing they believe they can trust are the Holy Scriptures. And any interpretation this obviously untrustworthy institution provides must certainly be false. Now are they wrong? Obviously! But for something to be wrong doesn't make it unexpected nor does it necessarily make it unreasonable. Now Catholics, meanwhile, seem apprehensive about acknowledging any past fault at all. I would simply remind them that the Council of Trent convened for a reason, and it wasn't because everything was fine. That last sentence seems about as nonsensical as the claims you admit are nonsensical. Trent addressed and anathematized abuses pointed out by Luther every bit as much as it addressed and anathematized the heresies Luther and others later promulgated. Any Catholic who claims otherwise is as ignorant of Church history as those "Catholics" (who never seem to actually as much as belong to a Parish) who appear all over the internet and say all sorts of crazy things, which usually amount to the faith equivalent of a "fudd" gun owner. |
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which Trump is always right.
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
|
Trent convened to investigate, debate and address the heresies brought forth out of the various Protestant revolutions. If the myriad of novel cults of personality that sprung up simply wanted to address the localized abuses of indulgences, these groups would now have been in the Catholic faith. Yet they brought forth such a variety of grievances against the orthodoxy of the Christian faith once their machinations had been set loose that one can not say mere reconciliation was their motive, but total upheaval of the apostolic faith. |
|
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: Any Catholic who claims otherwise is as ignorant of Church history as those "Catholics" (who never seem to actually as much as belong to a Parish) who appear all over the internet and say all sorts of crazy things, which usually amount to the faith equivalent of a "fudd" gun owner. This is probably a fair response. I likewise have to remember that the Orthodox I've encountered in real life (both Eastern and Oriental) are nothing like Orthobros. |
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
149320
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By wswartzendruber: This is probably a fair response. I likewise have to remember that the Orthodox I've encountered in real life (both Eastern and Oriental) are nothing like Orthobros. Originally Posted By wswartzendruber: Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: Any Catholic who claims otherwise is as ignorant of Church history as those "Catholics" (who never seem to actually as much as belong to a Parish) who appear all over the internet and say all sorts of crazy things, which usually amount to the faith equivalent of a "fudd" gun owner. This is probably a fair response. I likewise have to remember that the Orthodox I've encountered in real life (both Eastern and Oriental) are nothing like Orthobros. One of the more interesting byproducts of Trent is the modern seminary system. So many of the early reformers were priests, and so many said such ridiculous things (especially Zwingli) that the Church was all like, "yeah, we need to establish some kind if uniform minimum standard here. How did that guy slip through?" |
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which Trump is always right.
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
|
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: One of the more interesting byproducts of Trent is the modern seminary system. So many of the early reformers were priests, and so many said such ridiculous things (especially Zwingli) that the Church was all like, "yeah, we need to establish some kind if uniform minimum standard here. How did that guy slip through?" I start "The Anglican Way of Theology" on August 24th. I have been warned that I am about to go through the wringer. |
|
Originally Posted By wswartzendruber: This is probably a fair response. I likewise have to remember that the Orthodox I've encountered in real life (both Eastern and Oriental) are nothing like Orthobros. I don't think the bro's go to Church. Our Priest hammers home that humility is the path to reconciliation with God, and pretty much forbids us from online debate. I wonder if Catholic Priests speak to the same ends? I'm not holding it against the Church, but I've been told in GD that those outside of communion with Rome will not be saved. |
Put not your trust in princes, in sons of men in whom there is no salvation.
|
Originally Posted By Kalahnikid: I don't think the bro's go to Church. Our Priest hammers home that humility is the path to reconciliation with God, and pretty much forbids us from online debate. I wonder if Catholic Priests speak to the same ends? I'm not holding it against the Church, but I've been told in GD that those outside of communion with Rome will not be saved. Originally Posted By Kalahnikid: Originally Posted By wswartzendruber: This is probably a fair response. I likewise have to remember that the Orthodox I've encountered in real life (both Eastern and Oriental) are nothing like Orthobros. I don't think the bro's go to Church. Our Priest hammers home that humility is the path to reconciliation with God, and pretty much forbids us from online debate. I wonder if Catholic Priests speak to the same ends? I'm not holding it against the Church, but I've been told in GD that those outside of communion with Rome will not be saved. One of the masses I went to this past weekend had a homily on social media and the addictive feelings it gives you. Part of it was about arguing and picking/getting drug into arguments online. The other side of that, which wasn't discussed, was evangelization via internet and media. That wasn't the focus of his homily, though. |
Why is the sky blue?
What makes the green grass grow?
What makes the green grass grow?
|
Originally Posted By Kalahnikid: I don't think the bro's go to Church. Our Priest hammers home that humility is the path to reconciliation with God, and pretty much forbids us from online debate. I wonder if Catholic Priests speak to the same ends? I'm not holding it against the Church, but I've been told in GD that those outside of communion with Rome will not be saved. Originally Posted By Kalahnikid: Originally Posted By wswartzendruber: This is probably a fair response. I likewise have to remember that the Orthodox I've encountered in real life (both Eastern and Oriental) are nothing like Orthobros. I don't think the bro's go to Church. Our Priest hammers home that humility is the path to reconciliation with God, and pretty much forbids us from online debate. I wonder if Catholic Priests speak to the same ends? I'm not holding it against the Church, but I've been told in GD that those outside of communion with Rome will not be saved. I’ve met a number of wanna be Orthobros visiting at my parish. Evangelical Protestants, all extremely conservative. The one that really stands out talked up the cultural war issues incessantly, but not one word about faith or Christ. I think I drove him away, which is fine with me. Dude said anyone not a Republican isn’t a Christian. I shocked the heck out of him when I told him I knew a number of Orthodox who voted Dem due to care for the poor issues. It had never occurred to him. Poor feller was just flabbergasted. |
|
Originally Posted By brianm: Nothing anywhere states that you are the arbiter of truth, that your personal, emotion centered ‘feeling’ of being drawn to something is any indication of its veracity. Likewise, as I’ve already stated, there are many things explicitly found in scripture that ARE established teachings of the Christian faith that your personal feelings either don’t draw you to or you reject outright. Demonstratively that’s a lousy litmus test. So why then would doctrines of faith found in sacred tradition passed on by and undisputed by the pillar and bulwark of the truth be any different. You are standing entirely outside a glorious and ancient building built by a King. You deny what the caretakers say about how it was built, who built it, you dispute if the blue prints are correct, what materials make up the foundations and who lives on the first floor. Why would we expect you to accept what they then say is on the second floor? Originally Posted By brianm: Originally Posted By Bishop3: As far as an 'assumption of Mary' being the center of my faith I can't say that it has drawn me at all. I haven't seen anything in the inspired Scripture leading me to her. Nothing anywhere states that you are the arbiter of truth, that your personal, emotion centered ‘feeling’ of being drawn to something is any indication of its veracity. Likewise, as I’ve already stated, there are many things explicitly found in scripture that ARE established teachings of the Christian faith that your personal feelings either don’t draw you to or you reject outright. Demonstratively that’s a lousy litmus test. So why then would doctrines of faith found in sacred tradition passed on by and undisputed by the pillar and bulwark of the truth be any different. You are standing entirely outside a glorious and ancient building built by a King. You deny what the caretakers say about how it was built, who built it, you dispute if the blue prints are correct, what materials make up the foundations and who lives on the first floor. Why would we expect you to accept what they then say is on the second floor? I will not dismiss the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life. Jesus is the Baptizer of the Holy Spirit and fire. Precious is the gift of the Holy Spirit. I might remind you that the Lord Jesus Christ is a real man, Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. And what you discredit as 'feelings' I can agree with. Because, God is not a feeling. Tell me then, how do you receive anything from God? Do we receive by faith? However, I can tell you that Jesus felt it all, a real man. He humbled himself, felt what I feel and He got the whole experience. He understands the emotions or feelings that I have too (He hasn't left me). He is the Living Word of God and I trust Him. As far as being drawn to God, you might need to know and believe that God will draw men to Himself. John 6:44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." ... ~ Jesus 1 John 1:3 “what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.” The joy of the Lord is my strength. Jesus is the Son of God. I encourage you, if you want to get to know Him. To follow Him, we are to deny self and take up our cross. John 12:32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” ~ Jesus I'm here with my mom at the rehab (skilled nursing center) and need to go home. Thank you for your prayers. God bless you. |
USMC 85-'93 Amphibious YAT-YAS
|
Originally Posted By Bishop3: I will not dismiss the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life. Jesus is the Baptizer of the Holy Spirit and fire. Precious is the gift of the Holy Spirit. Originally Posted By Bishop3: I will not dismiss the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life. Jesus is the Baptizer of the Holy Spirit and fire. Precious is the gift of the Holy Spirit. There are those that will claim this very thing, yet still dismiss the Holy Spirit at every turn. They dismiss His role in the guidance of the Catholic Church. They dismiss His role in the Sacrament of Baptism. They dismiss His role in the Eucharist. There are few things revealed about the Holy Spirit they will NOT dismiss. I might remind you that the Lord Jesus Christ is a real man, Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. No need to tell me. Some even deny the very flesh of His Most Holy Sacrament without evidence nor reason except by that ancient bewildered denial of “how can he…?” And what you discredit as 'feelings' I can agree with. Because, God is not a feeling. Tell me then, how do you receive anything from God? Do we receive by faith? I commend you for agreeing and encourage you to put it into action. However, I can tell you that Jesus felt it all, a real man. He humbled himself, felt what I feel and He got the whole experience. He understands the emotions or feelings that I have too (He hasn't left me). He is the Living Word of God and I trust Him. Ok. As far as being drawn to God, you might need to know and believe that God will draw men to Himself. Now Bishop, I can not permit you to twist your own words, let alone mine, to try and wiggle out of your own conundrum. To quote you: “…I can't say that it has drawn me at all.” The “it” in the statement being the Assumption of Mary. The implication being that the “draw” would be an element you, personally, could tell if that had occurred. So what would draw you would be the doctrine, but you indicate by “feel” that it hasn’t. This has absolutely nothing to do with John 6:44, and is incredibly disingenuous to retroactively insist that it is. It does show how modern Protestant hermeneutics work. Reminds me of the other thread where one member linked a passage in John 6 and a completely unrelated verse in a completely different book because both meantion “eating.” The joy of the Lord is my strength. Jesus is the Son of God. I encourage you, if you want to get to know Him. To follow Him, we are to deny self and take up our cross. I encourage you to research what Christians believed from the beginning of His Church, not reading INTO scripture that which was taught to you by men of no authority. I'm here with my mom at the rehab (skilled nursing center) and need to go home. Thank you for your prayers. God bless you. I pray the best for your mom and you. |
|
Originally Posted By Bishop3: I hear you. So, why contend for the faith then? I do love to study the Bible (Scriptures) usually daily unless my attention is drawn elsewhere by some distraction. I love the Word of God and I desire to seek His face. When I study the Bible, and meditate on His Word prayerfully He reveals Himself to me personally. The Holy Spirit ministers truth to my spirit (He is my Teacher). God wants to have friendship/ fellowship with you. When I'm quiet and still in my spirit and acknowledging His presence; I listen for Him. I've been made alive in Him. Job 12:22 ... He reveals mysteries from the darkness And brings the deep darkness into light. ~ Job Proverbs 20:27 The spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord, Searching all the innermost parts of his being. Daniel understood this: Daniel 2:22 ... It is He who reveals the profound and hidden things; He knows what is in the darkness, And the light dwells with Him. The prophet understood this: Jeremiah 33:3 ‘Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know.’ Psalms 25:14 The secret of the Lord is for those who fear Him, And He will make them know His covenant. 1 Corinthians 2:10 ...For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. Matthew 10:26-27 “Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops. ~ Jesus Luke 8:17 ...For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light. ~ Jesus The Apostle Paul's prayer for the body of Christ, a snippet: see Ephesians 1:17 ...that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. Being born again or born from above is experiential, like a child being born anew and seeing for the first time. A child grows in knowledge and experience. I believe Jesus wants to disclose Himself to you personally. I want to know Him more. As far as an 'assumption of Mary' being the center of my faith I can't say that it has drawn me at all. I haven't seen anything in the inspired Scripture leading me to her. I want to know why some believe it is a requirement of faith (belief)? Now, to know God one must believe who Jesus is. Jesus is Lord. John 3:35-36 ... The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” ~ Jesus the Apostle and High Priest of our confession Help me understand why an 'assumption of Mary' is a required matter of faith for any believer? Be blessed in the strong name of Jesus! Have a wonderful day and behold His wonderment! Originally Posted By brianm: There are those that will claim this very thing, yet still dismiss the Holy Spirit at every turn. They dismiss His role in the guidance of the Catholic Church. They dismiss His role in the Sacrament of Baptism. They dismiss His role in the Eucharist. There are few things revealed about the Holy Spirit they will NOT dismiss. No need to tell me. Some even deny the very flesh of His Most Holy Sacrament without evidence nor reason except by that ancient bewildered denial of “how can he…?” I commend you for agreeing and encourage you to put it into action. Ok. Now Bishop, I can not permit you to twist your own words, let alone mine, to try and wiggle out of your own conundrum. To quote you: “…I can't say that it has drawn me at all.” The “it” in the statement being the Assumption of Mary. The implication being that the “draw” would be an element you, personally, could tell if that had occurred. So what would draw you would be the doctrine, but you indicate by “feel” that it hasn’t. This has absolutely nothing to do with John 6:44, and is incredibly disingenuous to retroactively insist that it is. It does show how modern Protestant hermeneutics work. Reminds me of the other thread where one member linked a passage in John 6 and a completely unrelated verse in a completely different book because both meantion “eating.” I encourage you to research what Christians believed from the beginning of His Church, not reading INTO scripture that which was taught to you by men of no authority. I pray the best for your mom and you. Thanks for the kind words. As far as an 'assumption of Mary' being the center of my faith I can't say that it has drawn me at all. I haven't seen anything in the inspired Scripture leading me to her. You know who is twisting words, you are. My faith isn't necessarily a 'feeling' at all. Yes, Jesus is a real man. The 'it' refers to my faith. Here I've quoted 'it' for you again above. The Holy Spirit is my Teacher. I ask How do you receive anything from God? You can discount my faith in this forum all you want. For me, I know that my faith pleases Him. Hebrews 11:6 ..."And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. So to be clear 'it' is meant as a matter of my faith, not my feelings. I will meditate on His Word today and for edification; for the posterity: John 6:44-45 ..." No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. ~ Jesus the Apostle and High Priest of our confession. Love God, love people, and shine, shine His Light (Jesus is the Light of the world). Maranatha |
USMC 85-'93 Amphibious YAT-YAS
|
One could not knowingly and freely reject the dogmas of the faith without committing a grave sin and incurring excommunication. A rejection of the teachings of the Church is a rejection of Christ Himself. Hence, it is necessary to ascent ones will to the teachings of Christ's church. This is evident when Christ says, "he that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth the him that sent me." Luke 10:16 And elsewhere our Lord says in Matthew 18:17, "... if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as a heathen and publican." So it's a loaded question, is belief in Mary's assumption necessary for salvation? Yes, because the Church has dogmatized it, and rejection of a dogma is heresy and heresy is a mortal sin and mortal sin seperates you from God. Obviously, this opens a whole host of theological questions but this is the Catholic teaching. |
|
Originally Posted By Bishop3: You know who is twisting words, you are. My faith isn't necessarily a 'feeling' at all. Yes, Jesus is a real man. The 'it' refers to my faith. Here I've quoted 'it' for you again above. The Holy Spirit is my Teacher. I ask How do you receive anything from God? You can discount my faith in this forum all you want. For me, I know that my faith pleases Him. Hebrews 11:6 NASB1995 ..."And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. So to be clear 'it' is meant as a matter of faith, not my feelings. I will meditate on His Word today. For edification, for the posterity: John 6:44-45 ..." No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. ~ Jesus the Apostle and High Priest of our confession. Love God, love people, shine, shine His Light (Jesus is the Light of the world. Maranatha “As far as an 'assumption of Mary' being the center of my faith I can't say that it has drawn me at all. I haven't seen anything in the inspired Scripture leading me to her.” Understanding syntax can be difficult in any situation, be it ancient texts or something you yourself just wrote. Which is why deriving doctrine from a self neutered form of scripture and one’s meager abilities without the aid of traditional apostolic teaching can be so dangerous to one’s theology. I am reading Eusebius’ Church History and to see so many fall so quickly outside the Catholic faith so soon after our Lord departed from His children, while using scripture as a basis for their heresies…what hope would you or I have without the sacred tradition secured by the Church through the Holy Spirit. But anyway… Attached File I do not wish to harp on you further as I have nothing more to add, except to point out that for someone so insistent to somehow link John 6:44 to your statement AND and as someone usually apt to quote any and all bits of scripture, related or not, to the matter you are attempting to discuss, you conspicuously left that verse absent from your original post. I comprehend your original statement and it is completely understandable if you wrote something in a manner you did not mean to convey or if you recant of it now that you’ve examined it. But you can not gaslight me into thinking you intended to tie it to John 6:44, which would NOT make sense in the context of your statement anyhow…sorry. This would have been let go out of charity if not for trying to double down, but so it will be with this post. |
|
I wish to add that I do not question your very obvious love for our Lord or the eagerness of your faith in Him. That much is clear. What I am asserting, with all charity, is that much of what you believe about the Christian faith and what Jesus wanted and instructed His followers to adhere and attest to, is not correct in light of historic, orthodox, apostolic witnesses. To reject that is to reject the fullness of the truth and the means of grace Jesus intended for us. |