|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/17/2007 5:29:13 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11610
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
quote:
Its an attribute of her deity, the terms "Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven" elevate her deity. And also only a deity can hear the hearts of people in their prayers. There must be a 1000 people praying to Mary at any given time, how can she hear all their prayers. They made her equal to Christ by saying she is sinless, and also by saying she is a Co-redeemer and Mediatrix
PRAYING TO THE SAINTS AND MARY
THE PERPETUAL DISCUSSION ON THE SINLESS MARY
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/17/2007 7:43:38 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1375
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
If the tradition was passed orally for the first few hundred years, I would assume that is where it would have worked it's way in, and pretty early at that. The point I am trying to make with this is that when stuff isn't written down, it isn't really reliable enough to build doctrine out of. It's way too easy to mess it up. All it would have taken was one person to come up with it, and one person of like mind to listen. A lot of the Old Testament was oral. But in any case, the Apostle Paul did tell the Church to keep the Tradition of the Apostles as well as the epistles. It is good we keep the epistles, but are we going to tell the Apostle Paul, sorry, you're wrong, we can't keep the Tradition of the Apostles.
_____________________________
St. Athanasius the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/17/2007 8:16:31 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 1100
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
Not at all! I'm just going to tell him that I can't verify that those traditions made it to me untainted; that too many of them aren't supported by the epistles, so that lends credence to my concerns. My faith is in Christ, not man. (And, like it or not, those who passed the tradition were no more than men...)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/17/2007 10:11:25 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1093
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
Sort of like those that wrote the letters, poetry, history, law, and wisdom literature we call scripture.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/17/2007 10:27:57 PM
|
|
|
Waiter
Posts: 15
Joined: 3/15/2007
Status: offline
|
Except the ones in the bible are inspired by God, and He promised us His Word will be kept intact.
If one does not believe in the bible then he/she does not believe in God but man, some actually believe in dirt.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/17/2007 10:36:41 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 1100
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unworthyseraphim
Sort of like those that wrote the letters, poetry, history, law, and wisdom literature we call scripture.
Yeah, sort of but 1 difference... Difference being that God tells me those ones were inspired by none other than Himself... Just a wee bit of a difference, mind ya'!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/18/2007 12:15:45 AM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1375
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
So the tradition which Paul told the Church to keep were not inspired by God?
_____________________________
St. Athanasius the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/18/2007 3:40:47 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 1100
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
I believe that he was told to keep the tradition, but history and a look at the church, it's beliefs, it's interraction with the world, and it's current teachings show that somewhere very early fallible people got their sticky little fingers involved.
The "Tradition" of todays church has no resemblance to what that tradition was in Pauls time... It's like trying to compare wheat and pomegranites...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/18/2007 5:05:00 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1093
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
"The "Tradition" of todays church has no resemblance to what that tradition was in Pauls time... It's like trying to compare wheat and pomegranites..."
How do you know this? How do you know you even have a correct understanding of how the tradition is supposed to "look like" as it is encountered and lived out in principle? If your understanding of what what the Tradtition is and how it is supposed to work is misinformed your rejection of what came after the apostolic age would be equally as unfounded.
It's a tough nut to crack...this being sure who is right and what can be trusted. It was difficut in ancient times and doublely so in our own. This is what St. Vincent of Lerin had to say circa 434 on the issue:
quote:
(1) I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy. And the answer that I receive is always to this effect; that if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord's help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly, that is, by the authority of God's Law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
(2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.
(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.
(4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.
On the particular point in question on this thread, the Assumption of Mary, it is absolutely certain that this belief was taught anciently, openly (among baptized believers), frequently persistantly and was beleived by all from the western coasts of Ireland to Greece to Ethiopia to Babylon to Bombay....everywhere the Christian faith had been taken.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/18/2007 7:36:04 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1375
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
I believe that he was told to keep the tradition, but history and a look at the church, it's beliefs, it's interraction with the world, and it's current teachings show that somewhere very early fallible people got their sticky little fingers involved. Not that he was told, but rather, told the Church to keep it.
As far as sticky little fingers, the same argument can apply to the written word. Why do we have so many bible versions today? So I believe you do have a point. But there is certainly one that is correct, and the others are not. Since the scripture says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, I trust the Church has the correct Tradition, which includes the written.
I keep saying things like, which includes the written or epistles, because the Church doesn't see the Tradition as one, and the scripture as another. The Holy Scripture is part of the Tradition, not apart from it.
quote:
The "Tradition" of todays church has no resemblance to what that tradition was in Pauls time... It's like trying to compare wheat and pomegranites... How do you know?
As I have read the history of the Church, this particular Tradition is found in all the ancient groups. This alone is evident that it is very ancient. It is older than the great schism of 1054 AD. It is even much older than other groups who have broken off, hundreds of years before this. This proves that the RCC had nothing to do with it, because it is hundred of years before them when they had communion with the others.
_____________________________
St. Athanasius the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/18/2007 7:37:55 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 1100
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
Like I said, the corruption happened very early. Just like the game of 'telephone' I used for an example in an earlier post: You can have four hundred players. Three hundred and ninety nine of whom can retain and recite the exact phrase perfectly, and only one isn't up to the task. This is just a case of that guy being the second or third guy in the circle...
It doesn't mesh with Scripture... I can't figure out why that is so difficult to see. It's a very pleasant idea, and I suppose it was due to someone deciding that Mary didn't get the recognition he thought she should have gotten. Not to mention that his own ego would have been bolstered by possibly getting his name into lights...
You have shown precedence in the OT on two occaisions. I agree, because it is written there! You have shown that there could be a correlation to the ark in heaven in The Revelation of John. (Though it doesn't fit into the context where it is written, it could be seen that way if you really stretch, and fail to look at a couple of concepts that would be involved if it meant what you think it it does.) It is readily apparent that it is likely a case of someone searching scripture afterwards to try to justify something, and coming up with that correlation because the idea seems to mesh.
I guess my main focus is this:
Why is maintaining something like this so bloody important to do? Especially in light of the FACT that maintaining the actual earthside functions of the church, as set forth by Jesus Christ and the apostles, have been thrown into the trash? Why was this done? I do not know... Who did it? I do not know... All I know is that the sheep are not having their needs met, and everyone who has been placed in positions of elevated 'servanthood' are living like kings. (There isn't a single bishop or cardinal who has missed a meal due to a lack of resources in a LONG, LONG time!) Until your church can see fit to do as Jesus told them to do, the exaltation of someone He Himself publicly put down, can't be justified.
The Catholic Tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. Yet it doesn't say to feed the hungry? It doesn't say to protect the weak and disadvantaged? It doesn't say to cast aside your earthly 'stuff' and follow Him? This Catholic Tradition really doesn't put much stock into the teachings of it's supposed head, does it...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/18/2007 8:20:35 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1375
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
Like I said, the corruption happened very early. How do you know this?
quote:
It doesn't mesh with Scripture... What doesn't? Where does it contradict the Holy Scripture?
quote:
Why is maintaining something like this so bloody important to do? Because if it is in the Tradition, which includes the written word, why not?
quote:
Especially in light of the FACT that maintaining the actual earthside functions of the church, as set forth by Jesus Christ and the apostles, have been thrown into the trash? Why was this done? What fact? Where? When?
quote:
I do not know... Who did it? I do not know... If you don't know, why did you say, "in light of the FACT", when you don't know?
quote:
All I know is that the sheep are not having their needs met, and everyone who has been placed in positions of elevated 'servanthood' are living like kings. (There isn't a single bishop or cardinal who has missed a meal due to a lack of resources in a LONG, LONG time!) True that many have their needs met, but not sure why this is wrong.
But also, there are countless who have suffered heavy persecution. In fact, as a Church, the Orthodox Church, I think, has suffered the most persecution. But nevertheless, she continues to triumph.
quote:
Until your church can see fit to do as Jesus told them to do, the exaltation of someone He Himself publicly put down, can't be justified. Put down? Who? His Mother? Why would He contradict a fact that she was going to be called, Blessed?
quote:
The Catholic Tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. Yet it doesn't say to feed the hungry? It doesn't say to protect the weak and disadvantaged? It doesn't say to cast aside your earthly 'stuff' and follow Him? This Catholic Tradition really doesn't put much stock into the teachings of it's supposed head, does it... I can't speak for the RCC, because for one, I am not from the RCC. And second, it is not the scope of this thread anyway.
_____________________________
St. Athanasius the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/18/2007 9:20:05 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11610
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yet it doesn't say to feed the hungry? It doesn't say to protect the weak and disadvantaged? It doesn't say to cast aside your earthly 'stuff' and follow Him? This Catholic Tradition really doesn't put much stock into the teachings of it's supposed head, does it...
Scripture says this, clearly. One doesn't need Tradition to find this--we have the recorded words of Jesus telling us to do these things.
I am not sure what your last sentence means, Papa.
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/18/2007 9:38:08 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 1100
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ps103
quote:
Yet it doesn't say to feed the hungry? It doesn't say to protect the weak and disadvantaged? It doesn't say to cast aside your earthly 'stuff' and follow Him? This Catholic Tradition really doesn't put much stock into the teachings of it's supposed head, does it...
Scripture says this, clearly. One doesn't need Tradition to find this--we have the recorded words of Jesus telling us to do these things.
I am not sure what your last sentence means, Papa.
I'm thinking that your signature applies to this one...
The supposed head is Jesus Christ. The Tradition doesn't follow as there are too many with unmet needs and the 'clergy', while following these 'Traditions' aren't doing what Christ told them to do. I'm saying that these things ARE in scripture. but, even though they are in scripture, the Traditions obviously must refute these scriptural teachings somewhere because those are being neglected while trivial garbage like the supposed 'assumption of Mary' is seen as something with some sort of value.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/18/2007 9:54:20 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1093
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Catholic Tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. Yet it doesn't say to feed the hungry? It doesn't say to protect the weak and disadvantaged? It doesn't say to cast aside your earthly 'stuff' and follow Him? This Catholic Tradition really doesn't put much stock into the teachings of it's supposed head, does it
Do you include also perhaps St. John of San Francisco who spent a huge part of his life taking care of orphans, who went barefoot half the time, wore the paper hats children made him when celebrating the Divine Liturgy, who was transfigured sometimes in prayer, who slept maybe 2 hours a night, and was found dead on his knees where he had died at prayer.
Maybe you meant one of the Patriarchs of Constantinope who were hung by the Turks over the centuries when they needed to vent a little,
Maybe you mean the former patriarch of Serbia who was forced to walk a 100 miles in his underwear by the Nazis to be loaded on a train to Dachau.
Maybe you mean Bishop Nicholai of Ochrid who spent five years at Dachau and several more years harrassed by the Communists before being allowed to come to the US and teach as monk at an Orthodox seminary.
Maybe you mean one of the hundreds of bishops martyred by the Soviets..like Patriarch Tikhon.
Maybe you missed some of this teaching in your encounters with the Tradition:
This is the mark of Christianity--however much a man toils, and
however many righteousnesses he performs, to feel that he has done
nothing, and in fasting to say, "This is not fasting," and in
praying, "This is not prayer," and in perseverance at prayer, "I
have shown no perseverance; I am only just beginning to practice
and to take pains"; and even if he is righteous before God, he
should say, "I am not righteous, not I; I do not take pains, but
only make a beginning every day."
St. Macarius the Great
or this
An old man was asked, 'How can I find God?' He said, 'In fasting,
in watching, in labours, in devotion, and, above all, in
discernment. I tell you, many have injured their bodies without
discernment and have gone away from us having achieved nothing.
Our mouths smell bad through fasting, we know the Scriptures by
heart, we recite all the Psalms of David, but we have not that
which God seeks: charity and humility.'
Apophthegmata Patrum
or this
Do not be surprised that you fall every day; do not give up, but
stand your ground courageously. And assuredly, the angel who
guards you will honour your patience.
St. John of the Ladder
or this
God descends to the humble as waters flow down from the hills into
the valleys.
St. Tikhon of Voronezh
Almsgiving heals the soul, fasting withers sensual desire; prayer purifies the intellect and prepares it for contemplation (of the things of God)….St. Maximos the Confessor (First Century on Love no. 79)
Feeding the hungry is a greater work than raising the dead. St. John Chrysostom
He who gives alms in imitation of God does not discriminate between the wicked and the virtuous, the just and the unjust, when providing for men's bodily needs. St. Maximos the Confessor (First Century on Love no. 24)
I have need of one hundred grams of bread a day, and God blesses it. He blesses those hundred grams, but not one gram more. So if I take 110 grams, I have stolen 10 grams from the poor. St Cosmas Aitilos, a great martyr and preacher in Asia Minor
No one can say, "I am poor and hence I have no means of giving alms." For even if you cannot give as the rich gave their gifts into the temple treasury, give two farthings as the poor widow did, and from you God will consider it greater gift than the gifts of the rich. And if you do not have as much as two farthings? You can take pity on the sick and give alms by ministering to them. And if you cannot do event this? You can comfort your brother by your words. "A good word is better than the best of gifts." Abba Dorotheos
A man who has two coats or two pair of shoes, when his neighbor has none, is a thief.. St. Basil the Great (4th century)
The bread you do not use is the bread of the hungry. The garment hanging in your wardrobe is the garment of the person who is naked. The shoes you do not wear are the shoes of the one who is barefoot. The money you keep locked away is the money of the poor. The acts of charity you do not perform are the injustices you commit. St. Basil the Great
Whereas we receive benefactions from God every minute, we ourselves don’t benefactor even once our neighbor. Saint Basil the Great
"If you help a poor person in the name of the Lord, you are making a gift and at the same time granting a loan. You are making a gift because you have no expectation of being reimbursed by that poor person. You are granting a loan because the Lord will settle the account. It is not much that the Lord receives by means of the poor, but He will pay a great deal on their behalf. 'They who are kind to the poor lend to the Lord' [Prov. 19:17]" St. Basil the Great
There is your brother, naked and crying! And you stand confused over choice of floor covering. St. Gregory of Nyssa (4th Century)
Is this a part of the Tradition that the Church got wrong...muddled up some how? Do the sayings of theses bishops, priests, and monastics across 2000 years belong to the Tradition you say has forsaken the ancient way?
Now I cannot speak for what Rome teaches of the character of her bishops, and doubtless not all Orthodox bishops are saints like the ones included above...but it is best to know whereof you speak. Orthodox bishops do not teach luxury as the faith.
Count the martyrs of the last 400 years and tell me how many were Orthodox, how many were bishops, priests, and monastics. By the time you reach 35 or 40 million it should become clear the what the tradition is that the Orthodox Catholic Church holds most dear.
I also have to ask how are you in a position to know what is or isn't trivial or grabage concerning the Tradtion whether it is the Tradition as understood by Rome, or the by the Orthodox or by the Non Chalcedonians? You want to assign value on the basis of your notions of utility...what was the use of Jesus fixing breakfast for Peter on the Sea of Gallilee...He could have just had a conversation with him...and if he wanted to feed him why not just bring a loaf and hunk of cheese from town...that would have been much more efficient...what was the use of that? What was the use of St Paul shaking a snake off into the fire...it would have been more kind to let the poor beast go would it not...but even so what is the use in recording that detail...why not just say he got snake bit and didn't die or get sick? the Life of the Spirit in the Church is not resolvable or reducible to conditions of mere utility.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/18/2007 10:02:46 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11610
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
Well, Papa, an in-depth discussion of this would throw the thread hopelessly off-topic and would hardly be confined to a discussion of the Catholic church.
But, let me ask you this: if I were to hold to the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, what would this require of me? Attendance at church on a day of obligation? It would in no way absolve me of my duty to the poor, and I know of no one who would claim otherwise. Every Christian, be he Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant or some off-brand I do not even know of is *required* to look after those (deserving) poor, especially those of "the household of the faith," or he is worse than an infidel.
If you are somehow saying that those who follow Tradition are doing so in lieu of their obligation to those less fortunate, I urge you google "Catholic Charities" and "St. Vincent de Paul." These are only two orginazations, but they are both very large, both help anyone who asks regardless of church affiliation, and both are funded in part through individual's giving through their local churches, as I understand it.
If you are thinking that poverty and inequity can somehow be stamped out, remember the words of our Lord: The poor will be with you always. However hard we work, there will always be those in need, so we will always need to give and look after them.
This has no relation that I can see to Tradition or lack of it, in any way, and certainly no relation to the Assumption of Mary.
Christian Duty and Tradition are not mutually exclusive.
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/18/2007 10:19:07 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 1100
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
Like I said, the corruption happened very early. How do you know this? Because the farce is so widespread.quote:
quote:
It doesn't mesh with Scripture... What doesn't? Where does it contradict the Holy Scripture? I didn't say it contradicts, I said it doesn't mesh. Or more clearly: (I wish typing more slowly had the same affect as speaking more slowly.) In light of the things taught in scripture, it doesn't make any sense.quote:
quote:
Why is maintaining something like this so bloody important to do? Because if it is in the Tradition, which includes the written word, why not? Because if you concur that the written word is part of this 'Tradition', Why isn't the WHOLE thing being followed, but only the 'convenient' parts are getting done?quote:
quote:
Especially in light of the FACT that maintaining the actual earthside functions of the church, as set forth by Jesus Christ and the apostles, have been thrown into the trash? Why was this done? What fact? Where? When? The fact that the sheep aren't being fed. All over the world. Since a LONG time ago. quote:
quote:
I do not know... Who did it? I do not know... If you don't know, why did you say, "in light of the FACT", when you don't know? I say it because I have no way to tell who screwed it up or why, all I know (from the fruit) is that it WAS screwed up! (Remember that Jesus said we would know them by their fruit? I'm not sure if He said we would know them by anything else, but I don't believe so... Maybe He said we'd know them by their reverence of His mother! That must be it, and I missed it in the Scripture! That's gotta be it!)quote:
quote:
All I know is that the sheep are not having their needs met, and everyone who has been placed in positions of elevated 'servanthood' are living like kings. (There isn't a single bishop or cardinal who has missed a meal due to a lack of resources in a LONG, LONG time!) True that many have their needs met, but not sure why this is wrong. Adjust them glasses, Sparky! A lot of the sheep are NOT having their needs met. With that optical deficiency being clarified, the wrongness is obvious. (While one has needs, there is no right for anyone to be getting fat.) quote:
quote:
Until your church can see fit to do as Jesus told them to do, the exaltation of someone He Himself publicly put down, can't be justified. Put down? Who? His Mother? Why would He contradict a fact that she was going to be called, Blessed? LOL He didn't... I call her blessed! (Amongst many, many others... prophecy fulfilled.) Matthew 12:47-48.. rightly divide, my man...quote:
quote:
(corrected)The Tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. Yet it doesn't say to feed the hungry? It doesn't say to protect the weak and disadvantaged? It doesn't say to cast aside your earthly 'stuff' and follow Him? This Tradition really doesn't put much stock into the teachings of it's supposed head, (Christ) does it..? I can't speak for the RCC, because for one, I am not from the RCC. And second, it is not the scope of this thread anyway.
I wasn't talking about the RCC, I was talking about those who teach the assumption of Mary.
If those organizations did put the divinely expected weight into ALL of the Tradition, they would follow All of it. It IS within the scope of this thread in that it is offered as a witness to the CREDIBILITY of the source of that particular teaching... (Man... That's an effective set of blinders you're sporting!)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/18/2007 10:29:10 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 1100
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
Don't get me wrong, there were MANY people of the Orthodox/RCC sects. who did great good for many people. This is the exception, rather than the rule, though.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/18/2007 10:32:03 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1375
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Dear Papa-san, we are only discussing one topic here, the "Assumption of Mary", not others. Why do some put more emphasis on one belief than others, like feeding the hungry, is a different topic that has merits. But that is not the topic here.
_____________________________
St. Athanasius the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/18/2007 10:32:15 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11610
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
How about this, Papa: how about you start a new thread (not specifiying the Catholic church, as new Catholic threads cannot be started without permission) outlining your concerns?
I would suggest Morality and Ethic folder as the proper venue.
Now, let us get back to the topic at hand, okay?
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/18/2007 10:39:52 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 1100
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
Dear Papa-san, we are only discussing one topic here, the "Assumption of Mary", not others. Why do some put more emphasis on one belief than others, like feeding the hungry, is a different topic that has merits. But that is not the topic here.
I'm only attesting to the viability of the witness.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/18/2007 10:42:19 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11610
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
Topic! Please!
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/19/2007 11:16:47 AM
|
|
|
mariadreamer
Posts: 331
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: va
Status: offline
|
If I can bodly summarize what papa-san seems to be coming from, it seems that one either submits to the whole "Tradition" and everything it teaches, including Assumption of Mary, or one just tossed the whole idea of "Tradition" in the garbage. Hence all this discussion of the Holy Tradition, a lot hinges on what one understands to be that "Holy Tradition". It's very easy for me to say "Assumption of Mary? Rediculous! That makes no sense, that's traditions of men. Someone just made it up. I know better than that." It's much harder to have the humility to say my personal perception can be wrong and there's something bigger than myself here.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
Don't get me wrong, there were MANY people of the Orthodox/RCC sects. who did great good for many people. This is the exception, rather than the rule, though.
Maybe when you start your new thread in Morality, you can show us how you arrived at the underlined statement?
_____________________________
Christ is risen from the dead,
by death He has trampled down death,
and on those in the tombs bestowing life!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/19/2007 3:15:04 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 1100
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
Close, but not quite on the mark. Only the things that aren't covered by scripture. As to the underlined sentence, I shall gladly do so once I get around to that thread, but until then, just start looking in newspapers and on the news, and it'll become abundantly clear in RAPID fashion!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Assumption of Mary? - 3/19/2007 3:38:18 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11610
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
So let's drop that part of the discussion in this thread, as it is off topic, and we can discus it when you start your M&E thread.
Back to the topic of the Assumption of Mary:
quote:
This topic is neverending. So as to help keep things from constantly bein | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
