Oldbear83 said:

---

Interesting passage, Coke Bear. I always interpreted that to note that we serve different functions but have the same value in the eyes of Christ.

The distinction for me is when someone whom I don't know asks me to speak for them. In the same way that I would be reluctant to vouch for someone I do not know as a professional reference, so it would seem strange to me to ask one of the Disciples or Christ's mother to speak for me. I can see asking a friend or pastor to speak for me, but I never saw praying to Mary as appropriate.

In any case, thanks for your courtesy and thoughts.

---

IIRC correctly, you have had some health/cancer issues in the past. We do not really know each other, but if you asked me to pray for you, I certainly would. I'm just as big as a jacked-up sinner on this board as anyone else, but I'd certainly pray for you.

Matthew 6:8 - " ... your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

No prayer goes wasted, even if I'm not the holiest person on the board, God wants us to communicate with him - to build that relationship with Him and the other members of the body of Christ.

Thanks again Coke Bear, good perspective and appreciated.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Thanks for your post, Coke Bear. But I am still concerned by one part of it:
"Mary's intercession does not make her a 'mini-Christ'. All prayers are brought before Jesus. She is simply bringing our prayers to Jesus."
Why is it necessary for Mary to bring someone's prayer to Jesus? And doesn't that make her an intercessor, when that role is reserved for Christ, who pleads for us to the Father?
I mentioned before that I agree with intercession, when I am aware of someone's need and pray to God through Christ on my own decision, but don't see it the same way if someone else asks me to intercede for them.

Again, thanks for your thoughts on this.

---

Forgive me, but I believe that we may both be getting wrapped around the axel on "intercession' and "being and intercessor."
I'm embarrassed that I don't understand why it would not be OK to ask for an intercessor. Maybe that my background influencing me.

Paul tells us that we should pray and intercede for one another in 1 Tim 1-5:

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

I know many Protestants key in on the mediator. We Catholics agree. All prayers are funneled to God thru Jesus. But people have to know what to pray for. I ask the saint to pray for me and my intercessions.
We see in Rev 5:8:

"The twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls of incense, which are the prayers of the saints"

The 24 elders are 'hearing' those prayers and presenting them to Jesus.

---

For me at least, it comes down to the reason for the intercession. For example, if I hear about a friend going through illness, loss of a job or some other trial or tragedy, I would bring them up before the Lord and ask HIs help. That is how I see intercession from a human behavior.

If someone I did not know, however, came to me and asked that I put in a word for them because I appear to be favored by God, that comes across as an attempt to manipulate the matter, the person asking me to tilt the scales in their favor, which would be inappropriate in that context.

Jesus acting as intercessor is different for two reasons. First, Christ has standing to ask for mercy that we do not deserve, and which we could not ask for ourselves. Second, and this is just me, I believe that when the Father and Son are together, so also is the Holy Spirit, and there is no way for an outcome except that which is rightly aligned with the Lord's Will.

I hope that makes sense.

---

But Mary does know you through your reverence and respect as well as via your requests for her prayers on your behalf, just as you know her through Holy Scripture. I often invoke the prayers of loved ones who have gone on before me. I know them just as they know me. It's all the same within the communion of saints.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Let's not make any "assumptions". What do you believe, and what evidence do you base it on? Even Pope Pius II (the same Pope who idolized Mary in his prayer above) who dogmatized the Assumption mentioned in his Munificentissimus Deus that Mary died and was buried in a tomb. Pope John Paul II also said she died a natural death.

---

The bolded statement is incorrect. Please try to read from authentic sources rather than use other non-polemic, anti Catholic literature.

In his apostolic constitution, Pope Pius II used the pharse, "having completed the course of her earthly life" to leave open the question on her death. Great scholars have debated both sides for centuries. The Eastern rites state that she went into dormition. Some have argued that she wanted to experience death, just like her son.

The Church has NOT ruled either way. We have not been provide this level of detail in the scriptures.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is true, then the Assumption could only have happened without Mary dying. Yet, the same Pope who dogmatized the Assumption referenced her death and so did Pope John Paul II. A lot of contradiction there from the supposedly infallible. What's needed is another unverifiable new tradition to work around this predicament.

---

Saint JPII made his statement during a General Audience. This is NOT a moment when he is speaking infallibly. He's entitled to his opinion. There is no contradiction here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I might kiss a picture of my loved ones - but I do not bow, pray to, make offerings to a picture or graven statue of them in a church, where we're supposed to love and worship God.

---

Do Asians bow toward one another, or one bow/kneel before a king or queen? This isn't worship, it's respect and honor.

What is wrong with praying to a saint? Praying does NOT equal worship. It means to ask or request. Just like when a lawyer says to the judge, "I pray to the court …" I am asking the saint for their intercession.

Please tell me where the Church says a to "make an offering to a picture or graven statue". I've never seen or heard of that before.

Catholics may kneel at the feet of a statue of a saint, but it doesn't mean that they believe or worship the marble, plastic, concrete, etc. is God. It means that they are requesting the saint to intercede for them. What about those decals on trucks with a cowboy kneeling to a cross? Are they worshiping some wood? I've seen Protestants kneeling before crosses. Are they idolators? No, of course not.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Jesus clearly said, "among those born of women". That obviously includes Mary.

---

Clearly Jesus is referring John being the greatest of the prophets. He just spent the previous 4 verses discussing those prophets. We'll have to agree to disagree here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- So, as long as it's not "divine worship", or elevating something to the level of God, then the worshiping of anything other than God, such as any idol, is ok? So, is it ok to bow, pray to, write poems about, sing hymns to, and make offerings to an idol, so as long as we say that the idol is UNDER God and we give God the glory for bestowing our beloved idol with all the qualities that are worthy of our praise? This technicality seems like just an ad hoc excuse to get away with worshiping what you want to worship. Do you honestly think God is going to be ok with this? Do you think Jesus/God really likes us coming to Him by proxy, instead of directly, and worshiping him by proxy, instead of directly?

---

I think your confused as to what worship is. Adoration is reserved for the Trinity alone. No Catholic should worship saints. You seem locked into this.

Bowing or kneeling before statues is not worship. I apologize for not having the ability to explain this better to you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I implore all Catholics to take a step back, and honestly look at this for what it really is. Did you read the excerpts from The Glories of Mary above? Can you honestly say that isn't idolatry?

---

First, The Glories of Mary, St Alphonsus Liguori was written in the 18th century in a defense of the Marian devotions with colorful language with accompanied the time. Being a book, written by an individual, not an offical teaching from the Magisterium, is does not contain the level of infallibility that you are asserting.

I haven't read the The Glory of Mary, but I can only assume that I could find solid commentary on the book and a defense of anything sounding heretical.

While I love Mary deeply, I have other Catholic books that I care to read that are more apologetical in nature.

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it isn't true.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Let's not make any "assumptions". What do you believe, and what evidence do you base it on? Even Pope Pius II (the same Pope who idolized Mary in his prayer above) who dogmatized the Assumption mentioned in his Munificentissimus Deus that Mary died and was buried in a tomb. Pope John Paul II also said she died a natural death.

---

The bolded statement is incorrect. Please try to read from authentic sources rather than use other non-polemic, anti Catholic literature.

In his apostolic constitution, Pope Pius II used the pharse, "having completed the course of her earthly life" to leave open the question on her death. Great scholars have debated both sides for centuries. The Eastern rites state that she went into dormition. Some have argued that she wanted to experience death, just like her son.

The Church has NOT ruled either way. We have not been provide this level of detail in the scriptures.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is true, then the Assumption could only have happened without Mary dying. Yet, the same Pope who dogmatized the Assumption referenced her death and so did Pope John Paul II. A lot of contradiction there from the supposedly infallible. What's needed is another unverifiable new tradition to work around this predicament.

---

Saint JPII made his statement during a General Audience. This is NOT a moment when he is speaking infallibly. He's entitled to his opinion. There is no contradiction here.

---

Yes, my statement was not precise. I am not Catholic, so I have to resort to outside sources. However, the source was Wikipedia and not "anti-Catholic literature". I checked the source by reading the Municifentissimus myself and verified it. I should have stated it this way: "Pope Pius II....cited in his Munificentissimus Deus a reference that alluded to Mary dying and being in a tomb.

In order for Pope Pius to build a case for the Assumption being dogma, he cited many traditions that were developed throughout history, and this was one he cited. However, this illustrates the fact that Mary's Assumption seemed to be based on various, differing traditions that appear to be based merely on folklore and pastoral proclamations rather than actual historical evidence such as eye witness testimonies or reports, like what we have for Jesus. And if the Pope was acknowledging the tradition where Mary died, it underscores the fact that it was possible for Mary to have died. But this can NOT be acknowledged at all, because in order for the Immaculate Conception to be true, the Assumption by necessity MUST be true ONLY if Mary did not die. The tradition that Mary voluntarily chose death to be like her son just doesn't have any substantive basis. And none of this has any scriptural basis - probably the most important point.

If Pope John Paul II was wrong in his opinion and thus fallible outside of ex cathedra statements, I just don't see how Catholics can believe that the same fallible Pope, or Popes, can never be wrong even in their ex cathedra statements. There just isn't any scriptural evidence for the belief that Popes can have discrete moments where infallibility is guaranteed. This belief, like many Catholic beliefs, arose by being self-generated and reinforced in circular argument fashion (i.e. we have the authority to declare what is true, and we declare this to be true, and we know it's true because we have the authority to say what is true).

Coke Bear: "Do Asians bow toward one another, or one bow/kneel before a king or queen? This isn't worship, it's respect and honor."

Actually, bowing before Royalty has always been a sign of submission. That's why it's against American protocol for a President or Ambassador to bow.

And speaking as someone with Asian in-laws, yes, bowing is often submission in business and formal settings (who bows less wins), and bowing to parents is also recognized as accepting their authority.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frodo: "All Scripture is the word of God including Paul . You can't just ignore Paul as you would like to."

Oldbear83: But I don't 'ignore Paul'. You know very well I have quoted him.

But you have ignored Christ when He contradicts Paul. That is unwise.

---

It wasn't me who originally said that Christ contradicts Paul. It was Oldbear83

Oldbear83 said:

---

Frodo: "Christ contradicts Paul"

Stop right there.

Scripture never contradicts itself. If you think it does, your interpretation is faulty.

This is why you should always seek more than one source.

---

YOU Stop right there, YOU are the one who said that Christ contradicts Paul. I simply gave you reasons why Christ's message does at times seem to contradict Paul. He was ministering to a different group of elect.


Oldbear83 said:
Frodo: "All Scripture is the word of God including Paul . You can't just ignore Paul as you would like to."

Oldbear83: But I don't 'ignore Paul'. You know very well I have quoted him.

But you have ignored Christ when He contradicts Paul. That is unwise.

539 AM, I posted this:

Yes, I mis-spoke and expected Frodo to confirm Scripture does not contradict itself, at which time we could discuss his interpretation of Scripture, which is the problem. Instead, he concurred.


I notice you have no concern about Frodo's statement or position.

Paul was a great servant of the Lord, but putting him above Christ, as Frodo does and you seem to agree with, leads to error in doctrine.

Pity you don't show such attention when Coke Bear or Sam explain their understanding of Scripture. While I disagree with the RC doctrines in many places, discussion is much better than dismissal or the bitter character seen in some posts of this thread.

You obviously missed it. But now you should be caught up.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I might kiss a picture of my loved ones - but I do not bow, pray to, make offerings to a picture or graven statue of them in a church, where we're supposed to love and worship God.

---

Do Asians bow toward one another, or one bow/kneel before a king or queen? This isn't worship, it's respect and honor.

What is wrong with praying to a saint? Praying does NOT equal worship. It means to ask or request. Just like when a lawyer says to the judge, "I pray to the court …" I am asking the saint for their intercession.

Please tell me where the Church says a to "make an offering to a picture or graven statue". I've never seen or heard of that before.

---

People who bow to others or to a king out of respect and honor for their wordly position or out of custom are not worshiping that person. But, if they were to place images and statues of that person in their church, and started bowing to that image in a manner of supplication as if that person held an elevated supernatural status such that they have the ability to hear them, do things for them in heaven, bless them, etc. and they give offerings and pray to that image/statue, then that is worship, and it is idolatry. I'm sorry - any attempt to deflect this away from what it really is, is just excuse making.

Nowhere in the bible are we instructed to pray to people who died, and nowhere are we told that they even have the ability to hear us. Praying to a "saint" is believing that a person who died has a supernatural ability to hear prayers like God. And that's assuming that the person actually did in fact go to heaven. What if they didn't? You'd be praying to someone in hell. We are not to pray to anyone but God/Jesus. Believing that a dead "saint" will effect results is giving that saint attributes that only God possesses. Nowhere are we told that a saint has the power to intercede for us. The bible explicitly tells us there is only ONE mediator between us and God, and that is Jesus Christ.

If the Church never officially said to make offerings to pictures or statues, clearly them NOT condemning it as idolatry despite their knowledge of its ubiquity is tacit approval.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Did Mary die? If she didn't have original sin, then she wouldn't have died.

---

Actually...

---

Let's not make any "assumptions". What do you believe, and what evidence do you base it on? Even Pope Pius II (the same Pope who idolized Mary in his prayer above) who dogmatized the Assumption mentioned in his Munificentissimus Deus that Mary died and was buried in a tomb. Pope John Paul II also said she died a natural death.

If the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is true, then the Assumption could only have happened without Mary dying. Yet, the same Pope who dogmatized the Assumption referenced her death and so did Pope John Paul II. A lot of contradiction there from the supposedly infallible. What's needed is another unverifiable new tradition to work around this predicament.

---

I believe she died and was taken to heaven, body and soul. I don't think Pius XII said she was buried, though some of his sources did.

---

It's not necessarily unbiblical to hold that belief. But what do you base it on? And how do you reconcile that with the dogma of Mary being sinless?

---

Regarding your earlier question, my understanding is that is death took on a new meaning for Mary in the same way it does for Christ and ultimately for all the saints. What was a punishment is now the source of resurrection. So like the Apostle Paul in the first chapter of Philippians, she wanted to leave earthly existence to be with Christ. But unlike Paul she would not have felt torn between the two. Death for her was an enrichment and nothing else.

I want to be courteous on this point, but I am not comfortable with the near-veneration of popes.

Some of the popes have been strong Christians and admirable leaders of the faith, but frankly there are some who were undeniably evil. Same as the Protestants, before you think I am selling them as morally superior. Humans by definition are fallable.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Did Mary die? If she didn't have original sin, then she wouldn't have died.

---

Actually...

---

Let's not make any "assumptions". What do you believe, and what evidence do you base it on? Even Pope Pius II (the same Pope who idolized Mary in his prayer above) who dogmatized the Assumption mentioned in his Munificentissimus Deus that Mary died and was buried in a tomb. Pope John Paul II also said she died a natural death.

If the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is true, then the Assumption could only have happened without Mary dying. Yet, the same Pope who dogmatized the Assumption referenced her death and so did Pope John Paul II. A lot of contradiction there from the supposedly infallible. What's needed is another unverifiable new tradition to work around this predicament.

---

I believe she died and was taken to heaven, body and soul. I don't think Pius XII said she was buried, though some of his sources did.

---

It's not necessarily unbiblical to hold that belief. But what do you base it on? And how do you reconcile that with the dogma of Mary being sinless?

---

Regarding your earlier question, my understanding is that is death took on a new meaning for Mary in the same way it does for Christ and ultimately for all the saints. What was a punishment is now the source of resurrection. So like the Apostle Paul in the first chapter of Philippians, she wanted to leave earthly existence to be with Christ. But unlike Paul she would not have felt torn between the two. Death for her was an enrichment and nothing else.

---

So essentially, Mary had to choose to die. But this has theological difficulties. Can a just God allow someone who is sinless that choice? If death is the punishment and wage of sin, it would not be just for someone who was sinless to pay for that wage. Jesus was sinless, but he took on all sin on himself, and thus his death satisfied God's justice as payment for sin. Mary's death, if she was sinless, was payment for something not owed, thus unjust.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Did Mary die? If she didn't have original sin, then she wouldn't have died.

---

Actually...

---

Let's not make any "assumptions". What do you believe, and what evidence do you base it on? Even Pope Pius II (the same Pope who idolized Mary in his prayer above) who dogmatized the Assumption mentioned in his Munificentissimus Deus that Mary died and was buried in a tomb. Pope John Paul II also said she died a natural death.

If the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is true, then the Assumption could only have happened without Mary dying. Yet, the same Pope who dogmatized the Assumption referenced her death and so did Pope John Paul II. A lot of contradiction there from the supposedly infallible. What's needed is another unverifiable new tradition to work around this predicament.

---

I believe she died and was taken to heaven, body and soul. I don't think Pius XII said she was buried, though some of his sources did.

---

It's not necessarily unbiblical to hold that belief. But what do you base it on? And how do you reconcile that with the dogma of Mary being sinless?

---

Regarding your earlier question, my understanding is that is death took on a new meaning for Mary in the same way it does for Christ and ultimately for all the saints. What was a punishment is now the source of resurrection. So like the Apostle Paul in the first chapter of Philippians, she wanted to leave earthly existence to be with Christ. But unlike Paul she would not have felt torn between the two. Death for her was an enrichment and nothing else.

---

So essentially, Mary had to choose to die. But this has theological difficulties. Can a just God allow someone who is sinless that choice? If death is the punishment and wage of sin, it would not be just for someone who was sinless to pay for that wage. Jesus was sinless, but he took on all sin on himself, and thus his death satisfied God's justice as payment for sin. Mary's death, if she was sinless, was payment for something not owed, thus unjust.

---

We all hope to be sinless by the grace of God. Mary just got there first, and only by grace.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: "Do Asians bow toward one another, or one bow/kneel before a king or queen? This isn't worship, it's respect and honor."

Actually, bowing before Royalty has always been a sign of submission. That's why it's against American protocol for a President or Ambassador to bow.

And speaking as someone with Asian in-laws, yes, bowing is often submission in business and formal settings (who bows less wins), and bowing to parents is also recognized as accepting their authority.

---

I guess it would be similar to when Paul says for "wifes to be submissive to their husbands." He is asking them to be under the mission of the husband.

Irrespective, this does not appear to be worshiping.

I used to deal with a good number of Chinese and Korean suppliers. I always slightly bowed out of respect.

Thank you for the correction. I learn something new everyday.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Did Mary die? If she didn't have original sin, then she wouldn't have died.

---

Actually...

---

Let's not make any "assumptions". What do you believe, and what evidence do you base it on? Even Pope Pius II (the same Pope who idolized Mary in his prayer above) who dogmatized the Assumption mentioned in his Munificentissimus Deus that Mary died and was buried in a tomb. Pope John Paul II also said she died a natural death.

If the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is true, then the Assumption could only have happened without Mary dying. Yet, the same Pope who dogmatized the Assumption referenced her death and so did Pope John Paul II. A lot of contradiction there from the supposedly infallible. What's needed is another unverifiable new tradition to work around this predicament.

---

I believe she died and was taken to heaven, body and soul. I don't think Pius XII said she was buried, though some of his sources did.

---

It's not necessarily unbiblical to hold that belief. But what do you base it on? And how do you reconcile that with the dogma of Mary being sinless?

---

Regarding your earlier question, my understanding is that is death took on a new meaning for Mary in the same way it does for Christ and ultimately for all the saints. What was a punishment is now the source of resurrection. So like the Apostle Paul in the first chapter of Philippians, she wanted to leave earthly existence to be with Christ. But unlike Paul she would not have felt torn between the two. Death for her was an enrichment and nothing else.

---

So essentially, Mary had to choose to die. But this has theological difficulties. Can a just God allow someone who is sinless that choice? If death is the punishment and wage of sin, it would not be just for someone who was sinless to pay for that wage. Jesus was sinless, but he took on all sin on himself, and thus his death satisfied God's justice as payment for sin. Mary's death, if she was sinless, was payment for something not owed, thus unjust.

---

We all hope to be sinless by the grace of God. Mary just got there first, and only by grace.

---

By what means of grace, if not through Jesus' sacrifice? Salvation before she was conceived? If that were true, then it was possible for God to save all of us that way, and He did not have to send His Son Jesus to be sacrificed on the cross. It would make Jesus' suffering, death, and resurrection completely superfluous and unnecessary.

I also need to point out that you still have the dilemma of an unjust payment for sin by a sinless person. Preconceptional grace does not solve it.

Quote:

---

Clearly Jesus is referring John being the greatest of the prophets. He just spent the previous 4 verses discussing those prophets. We'll have to agree to disagree here.

---

Your exegesis here is really bad. The previous four verses to Jesus saying "among those born of women" do NOTHING to suggest that "among those born of women" is only limited to prophets.

"When John's messengers had gone, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who are dressed in splendid clothing and live in luxury are in kings' courts. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.This is he of whom it is written,

"'Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way before you.'

I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."


In the following sentence, Jesus is talking about the "least in the kingdom" as being even greater than John. Jesus is clearly making the point that no matter how great or holy the greatest/holiest person in this world is, being the least in the kingdom will still make him even greater/holier than that person, thus illustrating how glorious the kingdom is compared to this life on earth, how it's on a completely different level. If Jesus isn't referring to ALL people on earth, then this loses its meaning completely.

To hold to your interpretation, it would involve an outright denial of the meaning of the words "among those born of women" and replacing it with the words "among all the prophets". There is absolutely nothing in the context of the previous four verses that justifies or necessitates that. It's puzzling how you came up with this. It appears to be nothing more than an attempt to justify the text according to what you already want to believe, instead of letting the plain meaning speak for itself.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yes, my statement was not precise. I am not Catholic, so I have to resort to outside sources. However, the source was Wikipedia and not "anti-Catholic literature". I checked the source by reading the Municifentissimus myself and verified it. I should have stated it this way: "Pope Pius II....cited in his Munificentissimus Deus a reference that alluded to Mary dying and being in a tomb.

---

I just checked the document. It contains the word 'tomb' 7 times. 5 of those times are quotes from Church fathers where they stated that she died and was assumed from the tomb. The other two were from Pius himself that Mary was "preserved free from the corruption of the tomb." As mentioned earlier, he left the question open. Either way, I'm not splitting hairs on whether she was died or not. The Church allows for either belief.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

In order for Pope Pius to build a case for the Assumption being dogma, he cited many traditions that were developed throughout history, and this was one he cited. However, this illustrates the fact that Mary's Assumption seemed to be based on various, differing traditions that appear to be based merely on folklore and pastoral proclamations rather than actual historical evidence such as eye witness testimonies or reports, like what we have for Jesus. And if the Pope was acknowledging the tradition where Mary died, it underscores the fact that it was possible for Mary to have died. But this can NOT be acknowledged at all, because in order for the Immaculate Conception to be true, the Assumption by necessity MUST be true ONLY if Mary did not die. The tradition that Mary voluntarily chose death to be like her son just doesn't have any substantive basis. And none of this has any scriptural basis - probably the most important point.

---

Why is this the case? Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven. They had original sin.

If God can preserve Mary from Original Sin, he could have allowed her to die or not.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If Pope John Paul II was wrong in his opinion and thus fallible outside of ex cathedra statements, I just don't see how Catholics can believe that the same fallible Pope, or Popes, can never be wrong even in their ex cathedra statements. There just isn't any scriptural evidence for the belief that Popes can have discrete moments where infallibility is guaranteed. This belief, like many Catholic beliefs, arose by being self-generated and reinforced in circular argument fashion (i.e. we have the authority to declare what is true, and we declare this to be true, and we know it's true because we have the authority to say what is true).

---

Yet, it was believed and practiced for nearly 2000 years. Can your belief system state that?

As you referred to, the Pope is only protected from teaching error when speaking on faith and moral and ex cathedra. He is protected by the Holy Spirit. John mentions in Chapter 21:12-15


12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you."


I still turn to Matt 16:18. If the Church taught something that was not true, then the Gates of Hades would have prevailed. It would have failed. It didn't. It is still here teaching the same teachings. Look at what happened when Aaron and the Hebrews made a Golden Calf. That worship happened ONE day and Moses put and end to that with the Levites killing 3000 that day. God would not allow the Church to go astray for 2000 years.

Finally, I will leave the words of Paul here in 1 Timothy 3:15

if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.


I'm not trying to ruffle feathers here, but the Catholic Church is the fullness of truth.

"the Catholic Church is the fullness of truth."

Not to kick the poor bird, but that statement is not true if you mean the Roman Catholic Church.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I want to be courteous on this point, but I am not comfortable with the near-veneration of popes.
Some of the popes have been strong Christians and admirable leaders of the faith, but frankly there are some who were undeniably evil. Same as the Protestants, before you think I am selling them as morally superior. Humans by definition are fallable.

---

I assume you are referring to living Popes, not necessarily those that have passed onto their heavenly reward.

To venerate means to "regard with great respect, revere. "

What do you mean specifically or what actions are you referring to in this "veneration"?

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I want to be courteous on this point, but I am not comfortable with the near-veneration of popes.
Some of the popes have been strong Christians and admirable leaders of the faith, but frankly there are some who were undeniably evil. Same as the Protestants, before you think I am selling them as morally superior. Humans by definition are fallable.

---

I assume you are referring to living Popes, not necessarily those that have passed onto their heavenly reward.

To venerate means to "regard with great respect, revere. "

What do you mean specifically or what actions are you referring to in this "veneration"?

---

Let me put it this way:


I have had the privilege to read the thoughts of some great Christian minds, notably and especially C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Billy Graham, and Carey Sayers. I have found them to be brilliant not only in their understanding of Scripture, but very effective in communicating God's Love and Law in their words.

But with that said, I would never consider any of them to be infallible in their opinion. For all my respect for their minds and work, they are in the end human, and their words, however eloquent, should not be confused for having the same authority as Scripture.

Popes, on the other hand, claim just that, to speak with the same authority as Peter or Paul when they speak ex cathedra. I mean no offense, but at the same time consider such action to be beyond their authority.

Quote:

---

I just checked the document. It contains the word 'tomb' 7 times. 5 of those times are quotes from Church fathers where they stated that she died and was assumed from the tomb. The other two were from Pius himself that Mary was "preserved free from the corruption of the tomb." As mentioned earlier, he left the question open. Either way, I'm not splitting hairs on whether she was died or not. The Church allows for either belief.

---

Again, how can the Church allow for the belief that she died, if she did not have original sin? As I stated earlier, the belief that she chose death on her own has theological problems.

Quote:

---

Why is this the case? Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven. They had original sin.

If God can preserve Mary from Original Sin, he could have allowed her to die or not.

---

We are not told that Enoch and Elijah never did die, or that they never will die (some believe they are the two witnesses in Revelation, who died), so this does not contradict the penalty of original sin. If we are told that Mary, however, did indeed die, then that definitively contradicts her being sinless.

If God can preserve Mary from orginal sin, then salvation for everyone was possible without the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus, thus rendering it superfluous and unnecessary.

Quote:

---

Yet, it was believed and practiced for nearly 2000 years. Can your belief system state that?

---

Appeal to tradition - the logical fallacy that than idea or practice is correct because people believed or practiced it for a long time.

Also, I should note, that the Catholic belief system and practice has not been consistent throughout those 2000 years. There was wide disagreement. And what's been dogmatized centuries after the start, did not even enter the minds of the earliest Catholic fathers. They would have had no idea of things like papal infallibility. So saying Catholicism has been practiced for 2000 years is misleading.

Quote:

---

As you referred to, the Pope is only protected from teaching error when speaking on faith and moral and ex cathedra. He is protected by the Holy Spirit. John mentions in Chapter 21:12-15

12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you."

---

Jesus is talking to the disciples. It is reading too much into it to say that this can extend to Popes. Why not extend it to all Christians, then?

And didn't the Catholic Church have to anathematize a Pope?!

Quote:

---

I still turn to Matt 16:18. If the Church taught something that was not true, then the Gates of Hades would have prevailed. It would have failed. It didn't. It is still here teaching the same teachings. Look at what happened when Aaron and the Hebrews made a Golden Calf. That worship happened ONE day and Moses put and end to that with the Levites killing 3000 that day. God would not allow the Church to go astray for 2000 years.

Finally, I will leave the words of Paul here in 1 Timothy 3:15

if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

I'm not trying to ruffle feathers here, but the Catholic Church is the fullness of truth.

---

I don't know why you believe this is necessarily true. Your reasoning is very flawed. If the Catholic Church is in serious error, Jesus' true church will still survive if people abandon those teachings - and people have. The problem with your thinking here is that you believe that only the Catholic Church and those under its authority defines the body of Christ. The body of Christ, the "church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth" that Paul spoke of, rather, is the whole body of believers, not just Catholics.

And I remind you again of the fact that the Catholic Church even had to anathematize a Pope.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"the Catholic Church is the fullness of truth."

Not to kick the poor bird, but that statement is not true if you mean the Roman Catholic Church.

---

The phrase the Roman Catholic Church may be a bit unintendedly pejorative and exclusionary. The Catholic Church contains (for simplicities sake) contains about 23 rites which fall into 6 major rites:

• Latin Also called the Western Rite. By far the largest which is based in Rome and probably as to why it monikered "Roman."
• Byzantine Eastern Catholism Albania, Greece, Russian, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Hungary
• Alexandrian Coptic and Ethiopian
• Antiochene Maronite and Syriac
• Armenian Armenia (and we know their numbers are dwindling due to the Turks after WWI and the genocide that is still happening. Please pray for them.
• Chaldean - East Syria

Each of the rites are valid and still have fidelity to the Pope. All of these rites are equal in dignity. No rite is superior to another.

They have different traditions and languages in performing the same functions.

This is why I always refer to it as the Catholic Church and not the RCC.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"the Catholic Church is the fullness of truth."

Not to kick the poor bird, but that statement is not true if you mean the Roman Catholic Church.

---

The phrase the Roman Catholic Church may be a bit unintendedly pejorative and exclusionary. The Catholic Church contains (for simplicities sake) contains about 23 rites which fall into 6 major rites:

• Latin Also called the Western Rite. By far the largest which is based in Rome and probably as to why it monikered "Roman."
• Byzantine Eastern Catholism Albania, Greece, Russian, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Hungary
• Alexandrian Coptic and Ethiopian
• Antiochene Maronite and Syriac
• Armenian Armenia (and we know their numbers are dwindling due to the Turks after WWI and the genocide that is still happening. Please pray for them.
• Chaldean - East Syria

Each of the rites are valid and still have fidelity to the Pope. All of these rites are equal in dignity. No rite is superior to another.

They have different traditions and languages in performing the same functions.

This is why I always refer to it as the Catholic Church and not the RCC.

---

I note you exclude the Baptists, Methodists and many other perfectly valid Christian denominations.

So I must reject the 'fullness of truth' claim as completely false and frankly hubris in its essence.

May I ask your opinion, Coke Bear, on the Baptist Christians in China, the Methodist missionaries in Syria, and the Lutheran believers in Ukraine, who are helping the victims of that terrible war?

Do they have the 'fullness of truth' in their hearts? Does the Holy Spirit dwell in them and work through them?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If God can preserve Mary from orginal sin, then salvation for everyone was possible without the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus, thus rendering it superfluous and unnecessary.

---

Not superfluous at all. Mary was redeemed by the death and resurrection of Christ, same as everyone else. Time doesn't have the same meaning for God that it does for us. At least that's my understanding. Coke Bear can probably explain it better.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Appeal to tradition - the logical fallacy that than idea or practice is correct because people believed or practiced it for a long time.

---

All of this is an appeal to tradition. The biblical canon itself is the product of tradition.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I don't know why you believe this is necessarily true. Your reasoning is very flawed. If the Catholic Church is in serious error, Jesus' true church will still survive if people abandon those teachings - and people have. The problem with your thinking here is that you believe that only the Catholic Church and those under its authority defines the body of Christ. The body of Christ, the "church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth" that Paul spoke of, rather, is the whole body of believers, not just Catholics.

---

All believers are under the authority of the Church. Not all are in communion with it.

Quote:

---

Not superfluous at all. Mary was redeemed by the death and resurrection of Christ, same as everyone else. Time doesn't have the same meaning for God that it does for us. At least that's my understanding. Coke Bear can probably explain it better.

---

Did you forget Mary was supposed to be sinless?

Quote:

---

All of this is an appeal to tradition. The biblical canon itself is the product of tradition.

---

The New Testament is actually testimony, not tradition.
Regardless, what does that have to do with the fallacy?

Quote:

---

All believers are under the authority of the Church. Not all are in communion with it.

---

But is the Catholic Church in communion with Jesus. That's what's under question.

Mary was not sinless, only Christ was. Mary was a good woman, but a sinner.

Please take the time to read this first post and vote in the poll if you haven't yet.

Mary was sinless because of Christ.

The fallacy would only apply if you were talking to someone outside the tradition, like an unbeliever or an apostate. Applying it here is like accusing a constitutional lawyer of appealing to the Constitution. The whole debate we're having is about interpreting a tradition.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mary was sinless because of Christ.

The fallacy would only apply if you were talking to someone outside the tradition, like an unbeliever or an apostate. Applying it this context is like accusing a constitutional lawyer of appealing to the Constitution. The whole debate we're having is about interpreting a tradition.

---

But not sinless because of Jesus' sacrifice, according to Catholic belief.

The fallacy is that 2000 years of Catholic belief and practice means it is more correct than a belief and practice that isn't as old.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mary was sinless because of Christ.

The fallacy would only apply if you were talking to someone outside the tradition, like an unbeliever or an apostate. Applying it this context is like accusing a constitutional lawyer of appealing to the Constitution. The whole debate we're having is about interpreting a tradition.

---

But not sinless because of Jesus' sacrifice, according to Catholic belief.

The fallacy is that 2000 years of Catholic belief and practice means it is more correct than a belief and practice that isn't as old.

---

It is because of Jesus' sacrifice, according to Catholic belief.