Question for Catholics: Did Mary die?

[aggieamy]

I'm a practicing cradle Catholic and was talking to DSD about the faith last night and we were talking about Mary. I thought that Mary never died - she just ascended into Heaven like Jesus but I can't find that anywhere. Maybe I'm not searching correctly because I'm not finding any Catholic sites that talk about it. If I'm wrong I want to know before I teach DSD anymore about it. Thanks so much.

[nono]

You can always just skip to the yellow box at the bottom...but I thought this was a pretty good read:

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

[nova147]

The Blessed Mother died, but then her body was assumed.

[K&Rs Mom]

The Blessed Mother died, but then her body was assumed.

 

:iagree: That's what I was taught too.

[aggieamy]

Thanks for the quick replies. Looks like I was only half right. I'll have to let DSD know that I did some research and correct what I told her.

[Spy Car]

I'm curious about the theology. If Mary, according to Catholic teachings (if I understand them correctly) was without sin (uniquely among the non-divine), and if death comes as a result of "sin" (which is a price Mary conceivably would not have to pay) how would she have/could have have "died". I'm sure there is an explanation, I just don't know what it is.

 

Bill

[Parrothead]

From the Catholic Digest Website: (Emphasis mine)

Your second question is one that has prompted theological speculation for centuries, but has not yet been answered in any definitive way. Some refer to the “blink” of death as Mary left this Earth and was assumed into heaven. Eastern Catholic liturgies refer to the “dormition” (“falling asleep”) of Mary. Th e Roman Church and Latin rites celebrate the Assumption but are silent on the question of whether she did in fact die, as we know death.

 

You speak generally of death as “punishment for sin,” but plants and animals die, even though they are incapable of sin. Hence sin and death, although clearly related for us humans, are not expressive of the full range of death-dealing possibilities. Mary, of course, was human. But because she was such a unique human person, some think that she deserved to be excluded from any experience — even a “blink” — of death. On the other hand, she did have human flesh and blood and she was subject to the effects of aging.

So why should she not have followed a natural path that would separate matter from spirit only to be joined again in risen glory?

 

As I said, centuries of speculation touch upon your question. Answer it for yourself and ask why you wanted the answer to be the one you prefer. Then ask what your answer tells you about yourself, as well as about the Mary you want her to be.

 

By William J. Byron, S.J.

 

Edited December 10, 2009 by Parrothead

[tdeveson]

I'm curious about the theology. If Mary, according to Catholic teachings (if I understand them correctly) was without sin (uniquely among the non-divine), and if death comes as a result of "sin" (which is a price Mary conceivably would not have to pay) how would she have/could have have "died". I'm sure there is an explanation, I just don't know what it is.

 

Bill

 

 

:lurk5:

[Faithr]

Mary was conceived without sin but she was still in need of salvation. I have heard the analogy used like this: There are two ways to save somebody who will stumble into a pit. You can fish them out after they have fallen or you can save them before they begin to fall. In Mary's case because she carried God the son in her womb, she got saved before hand.

 

I think people get the Assumption and the Ascension mixed up. It is due to poor catechesis which I am sorry to say is the normal state of catechism in the Catholic church. Something that really needs to be fixed!!

 

I always thought that 'falling asleep' as St. Paul uses it is a euphemism for death. He talks about the brothers who have fallen asleep in Christ. So Mary falling asleep would be a gentle way to say she died. But don't worry she reigns as Queen of Heaven!

[Harriet Vane]

I am not a Catholic, but I have fond memories of attending Mass with my great-grandmother throughout my childhood, and I still enjoy the occasional Mass as it is so different from the church I regularly attend. At one point, years ago, when I was heartsick over some dysfunctional practices at the church at which I was a member at the time, I attended Mass for a time as a soothing, spiritual break while I thought things through with regard to my church membership. I am absolutely NOT anti-Catholic

 

Speaking strictly from the perspective of the Bible text itself, and being wholly ignorant of Catholic teachings that are separate from the Bible, there is nothing at all in the Bible text that suggests or hints that Mary was either sinless or that she never died. The Bible is explicit and repetitive about Jesus' sinless state, and the Bible specifically speaks of others who ascended without dying (Enoch, Elijah). As such, this is one church teaching (about Mary) whose validity I question.

 

I hope this is not offensive--I do not mean it in an argumentative way at all but rather offering it as a different perspective. I would encourage you to dig through the New Testament and decide for yourself if this teaching is supported by the Bible text or not.

[Renee in NC]

I am not a Catholic, but I have fond memories of attending Mass with my great-grandmother throughout my childhood, and I still enjoy the occasional Mass as it is so different from the church I regularly attend. At one point, years ago, when I was heartsick over some dysfunctional practices at the church at which I was a member at the time, I attended Mass for a time as a soothing, spiritual break while I thought things through with regard to my church membership. I am absolutely NOT anti-Catholic

 

Speaking strictly from the perspective of the Bible text itself, and being wholly ignorant of Catholic teachings that are separate from the Bible, there is nothing at all in the Bible text that suggests or hints that Mary was either sinless or that she never died. The Bible is explicit and repetitive about Jesus' sinless state, and the Bible specifically speaks of others who ascended without dying (Enoch, Elijah). As such, this is one church teaching (about Mary) whose validity I question.

 

I hope this is not offensive--I do not mean it in an argumentative way at all but rather offering it as a different perspective. I would encourage you to dig through the New Testament and decide for yourself if this teaching is supported by the Bible text or not.

 

As the "ark of the New Covenant" Mary was sinless, much as the ark of the Old Covenant was perfect. Compare the things that the Israelites did for the Ark of the Covenant to the way that Catholics view Mary.

 

Catholics are not "sola Scriptura" as Protestants are, but I do not believe that any of the teachings of the Church go against Scripture. This is the major schism, is it not? Traditional Catholic interpretation of Revelations is very, very different than they way most Protestants view it, for example, and covers many of the things that you are questioning about Mary.

 

Here is a good place to learn about Catholic teachings and the Bible:

 

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

[asta]

(this has jack to do with scripture)

 

There are many Catholic families that pray for intercession through the different orders of Mary (Our Lady of Snows, Our Lady of Lourdes, Mary of Guadeloupe, etc.).

 

Within these families, someone (usually a woman) is responsible for *gathering* the prayers of families and friends and having sort of a "conversation" with Mary about who needs help with what. Usually, there is one person who does this in each generation, although sometimes it can skip (like a grandmother to a grand daughter).

 

In this sense, Mary isn't "dead"; Mary is simply "somewhere else". Having conversations.

 

 

a

[LMA]

I am not a Catholic, but I have fond memories of attending Mass with my great-grandmother throughout my childhood, and I still enjoy the occasional Mass as it is so different from the church I regularly attend. At one point, years ago, when I was heartsick over some dysfunctional practices at the church at which I was a member at the time, I attended Mass for a time as a soothing, spiritual break while I thought things through with regard to my church membership. I am absolutely NOT anti-Catholic

 

Speaking strictly from the perspective of the Bible text itself, and being wholly ignorant of Catholic teachings that are separate from the Bible, there is nothing at all in the Bible text that suggests or hints that Mary was either sinless or that she never died. The Bible is explicit and repetitive about Jesus' sinless state, and the Bible specifically speaks of others who ascended without dying (Enoch, Elijah). As such, this is one church teaching (about Mary) whose validity I question.

 

I hope this is not offensive--I do not mean it in an argumentative way at all but rather offering it as a different perspective. I would encourage you to dig through the New Testament and decide for yourself if this teaching is supported by the Bible text or not.

 

Actually Gabriel addresses the Blessed Virgin Mary as "Hail, full of grace." No one else in the NT was ever addressed this way. The Hail Mary is based on this verse.

 

Mary being assumed into heaven is Catholic dogma. Our Lord ascending into heaven was under His own power. Mary was taken up by our Lord's power and hence assumed. She did not ascend to heaven.

 

Louise

[Stacie]

Mary was conceived without sin but she was still in need of salvation. I have heard the analogy used like this: There are two ways to save somebody who will stumble into a pit. You can fish them out after they have fallen or you can save them before they begin to fall. In Mary's case because she carried God the son in her womb, she got saved before hand.

 

I think people get the Assumption and the Ascension mixed up. It is due to poor catechesis which I am sorry to say is the normal state of catechism in the Catholic church. Something that really needs to be fixed!!

 

I always thought that 'falling asleep' as St. Paul uses it is a euphemism for death. He talks about the brothers who have fallen asleep in Christ. So Mary falling asleep would be a gentle way to say she died. But don't worry she reigns as Queen of Heaven!

 

I've never heard before that Catholics believe Mary was conceived without sin. I know she conceived Jesus without sin, but is this a standard belief that she is also conceived without sin? I'm not Catholic, but have many friends and family who are and have never heard this.

[aggieamy]

Wow. I did not expect this much discussion on this thread. Very interesting.

 

I've never heard before that Catholics believe Mary was conceived without sin. I know she conceived Jesus without sin, but is this a standard belief that she is also conceived without sin? I'm not Catholic, but have many friends and family who are and have never heard this.

 

Ooh. This one I know. Yes, we do believe that she was concieved without sin. The Feast of the Immaculate Conception celebrates her conception, not Jesus.

[CAMom]

 

 

 

Ooh. This one I know. Yes, we do believe that she was concieved without sin. The Feast of the Immaculate Conception celebrates her conception, not Jesus.

 

So, if Mary was conceived without sin, wouldn't that make her parents sinless, too?

 

I've also always wondered why Mary would consider Jesus her Savior if she was sinless. Why would she need a Savior?

 

I attend a Presbyterian church but my questions are truly out of curiosity only.

[Daisy]

So, if Mary was conceived without sin, wouldn't that make her parents sinless, too?

 

I've also always wondered why Mary would consider Jesus her Savior if she was sinless. Why would she need a Savior?

 

I attend a Presbyterian church but my questions are truly out of curiosity only.

 

Yeh, I don't get it either, but I'm not Catholic. This thread has enlightened me further as to why I'm not Catholic. (I am NOT knocking Catholics. I've just never even heard this before).

 

Anyone have a link to a Catholic-perspective article with Scripture proofs on the topic? I'd love to read it.

[Caitilin]

I believe that the confusion comes from use of terminology. Mary's Immaculate Conception refers to her own being, at the moment of her conception, made special and sinless by a miraculous intervention of the Lord. It's not that the act of her parents in conceiving her was sinless (although that's true too, but it's also true of every sacramentally married couple acting in accordance with a proper understanding of marriage), but that she was specially created to be sinless, from the moment of her conception. :001_smile:

[Hedgehogs4]

I always thought that 'falling asleep' as St. Paul uses it is a euphemism for death. He talks about the brothers who have fallen asleep in Christ. So Mary falling asleep would be a gentle way to say she died. But don't worry she reigns as Queen of Heaven!

 

:confused:

 

How can this be proven in Scripture?

 

I come from a deeply devout Catholic family background, but my mother left the church when she began to read the Bible for herself. The New Testament speaks not a word about the state of Mary's soul, her death, her assumption into heaven and certainly not about her being the queen of heaven.

 

I was raised protestant and don't remember my Mom explaining to me where these teachings originate, so I'm wondering if you can point me in the right direction.

[Tracy in Ky]

:confused:

 

How can this be proven in Scripture?

 

 

It isn't proven by scripture at all--it isn't Biblical. But if I understand Catholic teaching correctly, they hold tradition as high or maybe even higher than scripture. So their doctrine doesn't have to be specifically Bible based, as long as it is held in their tradition.

 

Maybe a Catholic can chime in here and clarify in case I am confused...

[Harriet Vane]

 

Catholics are not "sola Scriptura" . . .

 

Thanks for the link--I will definitely peruse it.

 

For now, though, I will say that what I have quoted above truly is key. I have never been able to accept extra-biblical teachings from ANY denomination. Way too much room for error there--it makes more sense to me to compare all that I am taught to the Bible.

[elizabeth]

http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp This article explains why sacred scripture and tradition are interdependent in our view. The other major difference is that we do not read the Bible as if it is a literal or historical document. IMHO that is far more a profound difference than tradition and scriptural basis for our traditions.

[lionfamily1999]

n/m thanks for the responses.

Edited December 11, 2009 by lionfamily1999

[Caitilin]

I've heard that Catholics aren't *allowed* to read their Bible, except for particular scriptures that were chosen by 'the church.' Is there anything to that?

 

I'm hoping no one else will notice this since it's mid thread and I trust you, Elizabeth, to give it to me straight :)

 

This is false. :) We hear an old Testament reading, a Psalm, and an Epistle, and a reading from the Gospels every week at Sunday Mass. In addition, all the faithful are encouraged to deepen their own Faith through the prayerful reading of Scripture. :)

[elizabeth]

I have heard this before and know not where it originates but I can unequivocally state that it is untrue. We are encouraged to read the Bible well and often, it is a central part of our liturgy. Now I will also say this, we are not encouraged to home educate catechism class in preparation for Eucharist and Confirmation. I choose to do so because I truly feel that it is glib, superficial and devoid of meaningful analysis as it is presently taught in our diocese.

[Slartibartfast]

I only know of two people who did not "die" according to scripture and neither was Mary.

 

I am not Catholic though...sorry!

[Faithr]

Well, not to argue because it is too difficult to really discuss these things successfully on such a forum, but the Angel Gabriel did say Mary, full of Grace. So that's for starters. What does full of Grace mean? Also there is the whole thing about how some things were handed down through tradition and not put into the final assembly of the New Testament. The same body of Christians who chose the 4 gospels we have now as the divinely inspired tellings of Jesus Christ on earth, also maintained traditions about Mary. There was no sola scriptura back then. For one thing the very gospels were oral at first before being written down so that means that the gospels in a very real sense were part of the oral tradition that happened to have gotten written down! But not all got written down and placed into scripture but were handed on orally from generation to generation and recorded in places other than scripture.

[nono]

I've heard that Catholics aren't *allowed* to read their Bible, except for particular scriptures that were chosen by 'the church.' Is there anything to that?

 

 

Somebody better tell the folks who are printing up Roman Catholic versions of the Bible. :tongue_smilie:

[asta]

Goodness, there is a LOT of misinformation about Catholicism out there.

 

The Vatican has an awesome website, you know.

 

 

a

[dirty ethel rackham]

I've heard that Catholics aren't *allowed* to read their Bible, except for particular scriptures that were chosen by 'the church.' Is there anything to that?

 

I'm hoping no one else will notice this since it's mid thread and I trust you, Elizabeth, to give it to me straight :)

 

Oh, not this again. We are certainly allowed to read the Bible. In the past Catholics were discouraged from reading Bibles that did not have an imprimatur (basically approval from the church that they were without error.) There were translations that had what the Church considered doctrinal errors. Some were discouraged from studying the Bible without leadership from the Church, usually a priest.

 

However, at every single mass, during the Liturgy of the Word, selections from the Bible are read. During Sunday Mass, there is usually and Old Testament reading, an excerpt of a Psalm, a New Testament reading and a Gospel. Sometimes the first reading is not an OT reading, but that is not as common. During weekday masses, there is only one non-Gospel reading and a Psalm and a Gospel reading.

 

So it is a complete fallacy that Catholics are forbidden from reading the Bible. I have been involved in a fairly scholarly Catholic Bible Study for the past 7 years.

[Faithr]

There's a quote from St. Jerome who was the first person to translate the Bible into the Latin Vulgate (so that common folks could read it!!!) and he said: "Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." Look this up if you don't believe me.

 

I think the whole thing about Catholics not reading the Bible might come from England during the time of the Reformation. What happened was folks were getting their own printed version (Protestant version) and reading it as they were breaking away from the Church. So I think some Church officials responded by clamping down on people having these Protestant Bibles. I think it became illegal when the Catholics had control (whereas when the Protestants had control, saying Mass became illegal). Lots of crummy nasty things were done in God's name on both sides.

 

Strider, I had to chuckle at your response that you never believe stuff that is extra-scriptural because it is too easy to go astray. I think of all the hundreds of different Protestant sects that have popped up over the centuries all claiming different things and saying they are sola scriptura. We've got folks predicting the end of world and handling snakes and all kinds of things. The Catholic church is very orthodox in its beliefs. And as I tried to explain earlier all scripture was at one time oral tradition but some of it got written down and approved by the Church. That is how our Christian Bible came into existence. So you are saying that you trust that the Catholic Church got it right with one thing but you don't trust that it got right in other circumstances.

[unsinkable]

Somebody better tell the folks who are printing up Roman Catholic versions of the Bible. :tongue_smilie:

 

:lol:

 

Good one, nono! & Welcome!

 

Thanks for the chuckle...this thread makes my stomach hurt, otherwise.

[Tea Time]

Yeh, I don't get it either, but I'm not Catholic. This thread has enlightened me further as to why I'm not Catholic. (I am NOT knocking Catholics. I've just never even heard this before).

 

Anyone have a link to a Catholic-perspective article with Scripture proofs on the topic? I'd love to read it.

 

 

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap080400.htm

 

Scroll to the bottom for the link back to the home page for Biblical support on a variety of other topics.

 

I'm not sure what you consider "proofs" from scripture to be like, so this may not help you much. You are not going to find a verse that gives this doctrine in simplistic terms. This site outlines the doctrine logically with scripture support, and it gives the history of how these truths came to be understood by the Church. You will have to follow the logic of the argument for it to make sense to you. The Bible is not a "how to" manual nor is it a "quick facts on what to believe" book. At least not to the Catholic Church.

[Harriet Vane]

There's a quote from St. Jerome who was the first person to translate the Bible into the Latin Vulgate (so that common folks could read it!!!) and he said: "Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." Look this up if you don't believe me.

 

Wonderful quote. Thanks for sharing.

 

I think the whole thing about Catholics not reading the Bible might come from England during the time of the Reformation. What happened was folks were getting their own printed version (Protestant version) and reading it as they were breaking away from the Church. So I think some Church officials responded by clamping down on people having these Protestant Bibles. I think it became illegal when the Catholics had control (whereas when the Protestants had control, saying Mass became illegal). Lots of crummy nasty things were done in God's name on both sides.

 

There are multiple places/peoples in history that have departed from biblical truth and restricted the reading of the Bible for the common people. My experience with the Catholic church, limited though it is, has never reflected that, though--my dear, dear grandmother and the many Catholics with whom I have had friendship treasure the Bible. In our context, at this time in America, I agree that Catholics do not have a policy of forbidding the reading of the Bible.

 

Strider, I had to chuckle at your response that you never believe stuff that is extra-scriptural because it is too easy to go astray. I think of all the hundreds of different Protestant sects that have popped up over the centuries all claiming different things and saying they are sola scriptura.

 

I agree. I have run into extra-biblical teaching in each and every major denomination I have studied ranging from teaching that is NOT found in the Bible to teaching that is irrationally literal. Protestant, Catholic, etc.--we are all fallible human people who read out of each of our own unique mindset. I am sure that I am probably wrong in some of my opinions as well--I do my best to keep it all straight by comparing what I am taught to what I read in the Bible.

 

We've got folks predicting the end of world and handling snakes and all kinds

of things.

 

The wide diversity of thought is precisely why careful Bible study is necessary, without prooftexting or quoting out of context.

 

The Catholic church is very orthodox in its beliefs. And as I tried to explain earlier all scripture was at one time oral tradition but some of it got written down and approved by the Church. That is how our Christian Bible came into existence.

 

Yep. There were standards for what was included and what was not, though. A fabulous book on this topic is The Making of the New Testament, by Arthur G. Patzia.

 

So you are saying that you trust that the Catholic Church got it right with one thing but you don't trust that it got right in other circumstances.

 

Absolutely. Every human institution contains error, whether Protestant or Catholic or other. We do our best to figure it out comparing all that we learn to the Bible.

 

 

Some thoughts included above.

[lionfamily1999]

I have heard this before and know not where it originates but I can unequivocally state that it is untrue. We are encouraged to read the Bible well and often, it is a central part of our liturgy. Now I will also say this, we are not encouraged to home educate catechism class in preparation for Eucharist and Confirmation. I choose to do so because I truly feel that it is glib, superficial and devoid of meaningful analysis as it is presently taught in our diocese.

I'm sorry, I really didn't think anyone would notice the question (except you, since I quoted you)... It's so rare that folks notice my posts, but I should've known better.

 

I can understand wanting to separate those from at home. Thanks for answering :)

Oh, not this again. We are certainly allowed to read the Bible. In the past Catholics were discouraged from reading Bibles that did not have an imprimatur (basically approval from the church that they were without error.) There were translations that had what the Church considered doctrinal errors. Some were discouraged from studying the Bible without leadership from the Church, usually a priest.

 

However, at every single mass, during the Liturgy of the Word, selections from the Bible are read. During Sunday Mass, there is usually and Old Testament reading, an excerpt of a Psalm, a New Testament reading and a Gospel. Sometimes the first reading is not an OT reading, but that is not as common. During weekday masses, there is only one non-Gospel reading and a Psalm and a Gospel reading.

 

So it is a complete fallacy that Catholics are forbidden from reading the Bible. I have been involved in a fairly scholarly Catholic Bible Study for the past 7 years.

Again, I'm sorry.

[Teri in VA]

I've heard that the verb tense used in 'Hail Mary, full of grace' denotes that Mary had always been full of grace.

 

(full disclosure: I'm non denom with maybe a toe in the Tiber.) ;)

[Tea Time]

I'm sorry, I really didn't think anyone would notice the question (except you, since I quoted you)... It's so rare that folks notice my posts, but I should've known better.

 

 

 

I notice your posts!!! :D

 

It is good to get out your questions. How else can we set things straight if people are afraid to ask questions or wonder "out loud"? We may not all agree, but at least we can learn how to communicate better, right? At least we can keep trying.

[lionfamily1999]

I notice your posts!!! :D

 

It is good to get out your questions. How else can we set things straight if people are afraid to ask questions or wonder "out loud"? We may not all agree, but at least we can learn how to communicate better, right? At least we can keep trying.

It was one of those questions that, if it's wrong (as it was), could be (and probably was) very offensive. I don't like asking those questions, lol, but I really thought I could slip it in and finally get an answer.

 

:lol:

 

Oh, and thanks for reading my posts :p

[Renee in NC]

It isn't proven by scripture at all--it isn't Biblical. But if I understand Catholic teaching correctly, they hold tradition as high or maybe even higher than scripture. So their doctrine doesn't have to be specifically Bible based, as long as it is held in their tradition.

 

Maybe a Catholic can chime in here and clarify in case I am confused...

 

2 Thessalonians 2:15 (KJV for acceptance)

 

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

 

This site is good:

 

http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

 

Here is the gist:

 

In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

 

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

 

[VA6336]

...can be found here: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/10/do-whatever-he-tells-you-the-blessed-virgin-mary-in-christian-faith-and-life

 

The article begins with a joint statement by a commission of Evangelicals and Catholics together, then goes into an Evangelical statement and the Catholic response. It is an excellent conversation and I think would be highly suited for many who have posted here.

 

On the topic of Mary, the Catholic Church teaches that she was born without sin (of her parents Anne and Joachim), conceived Jesus as a virgin and that she "died" as a virgin. Whether her body actually died as you and I will is a point that the Church has no official position on. We do not know. They do teach that her body was assumed into heaven as Jesus' was.

 

The Catholic Church has always been concerned about the translation of the Scriptures which is why there may be some confusion about the accuracy of any particular translation. Just as you might translate a Latin phrase one way, I might translate it another. The two translations might appear to mean the same thing, but upon further reflection, their true meaning might differ. Thus, the emphasis on which Bible may or may not have an accurate translation certainly has merit for anyone who reads them.

 

If you're curious to read more about Mary from both a Protestant (Evangelical) viewpoint and a Catholic one, the article really is very good!

[Teri in VA]

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.

 

An interesting verse...the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

Scott Hahn wrote some awesome books on Catholicism.

[Renee in NC]

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.

 

An interesting verse...the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

Scott Hahn wrote some awesome books on Catholicism.

 

Scott Hahn's story of conversion is pretty amazing. I think as a devout Protestant who converted the the Catholic Church, he can bring an easier to understand perspective on different Church teachings.

[DB in NJ]

Nevermind. Strider said it better, and I'm in a mood tonight.

[FlockOfSillies]

Hi Amy,

 

Here's a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Part One, paragraph 966):

 

"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation (emphasis mine) in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

 

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition

you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were

joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God

and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.

 

-----------------------------------------

I hope that answers your question. (ETA: I can see, though, in re-reading it, how it might not be clear. It says she was taken body and soul, but sort of dances around the actual death part.) Either way, it is certainly part of Roman Catholic teaching, but like 90% of the Church's teachings on Mary, it is nowhere found in the Bible.

 

What I've never understood, as a former cradle Catholic myself, is why such crucial teachings are absent from the Bible. If Mary really was free from original sin, and was a virgin her whole life, and was taken up body and soul to be the "Queen of Heaven" to mediate before God on behalf of sinners, why didn't Jesus and the gospel writers say anything about her to remove all doubt and debate? This is the part where I get accused of being "anti-Catholic," but really I'm just anti-false-teaching in all its forms.

Edited December 11, 2009 by FlockOfSillies

[Avila]

What I've never understood, as a former cradle Catholic myself, is why such crucial teachings are absent from the Bible. If Mary really was free from original sin, and was a virgin her whole life, and was taken up body and soul to be the "Queen of Heaven" to mediate before God on behalf of sinners, why didn't Jesus and the gospel writers say anything about her to remove all doubt and debate? This is the part where I get accused of being "anti-Catholic," but really I'm just anti-false-teaching in all its forms.

 

Not to pick on you or any of the other people calling out the Catholic teachings as false, but if the Bible were really the only important thing to understand and be a Christian, why didn't Jesus just hand them out himself? Why didn't he write it and hand it out on the street corners?

 

All the time Paul and the other apostles were teaching, there was no New Testament. Things were being written and collected, but it was definitely not in book form. It was collected as a liturgical document for liturgical use within the church to be understood and interpreted by the church. If it were all up to the Holy Spirit to interpret it within the hearts of individual believers, why is he failing so miserably and letting so many people completely misconstrue it and come to completely different understandings of the same words?

 

It would be easier if Jesus wrote a pamphlet that answered every possible question and handed them out himself, but he didn't. He certainly could have. But he chose not to. He chose to leave a church instead.

 

Not every true thing is written in the Bible.

[Renee in NC]

Not to pick on you or any of the other people calling out the Catholic teachings as false, but if the Bible were really the only important thing to understand and be a Christian, why didn't Jesus just hand them out himself? Why didn't he write it and hand it out on the street corners?

 

All the time Paul and the other apostles were teaching, there was no New Testament. Things were being written and collected, but it was definitely not in book form. It was collected as a liturgical document for liturgical use within the church to be understood and interpreted by the church. If it were all up to the Holy Spirit to interpret it within the hearts of individual believers, why is he failing so miserably and letting so many people completely misconstrue it and come to completely different understandings of the same words?

 

It would be easier if Jesus wrote a pamphlet that answered every possible question and handed them out himself, but he didn't. He certainly could have. But he chose not to. He chose to leave a church instead.

 

Not every true thing is written in the Bible.

 

:iagree:

 

:hurray:

[milovany]

Not to pick on you or any of the other people calling out the Catholic teachings as false, but if the Bible were really the only important thing to understand and be a Christian, why didn't Jesus just hand them out himself? Why didn't he write it and hand it out on the street corners?

 

...

 

It would be easier if Jesus wrote a pamphlet that answered every possible question and handed them out himself, but he didn't. He certainly could have. But he chose not to. He chose to leave a church instead.

 

Not every true thing is written in the Bible.

 

One question I've asked recently is that if the Bible is supposed to be this sole source of our faith, why isn't it mentioned in the Bible? I.e., why is there no mention of this "book to come" if it's supposed to be the thing we solely rely on for all questions of faith. If sola scriptura were truly a Christian doctrine, wouldn't it be mentioned in the "scriptura" to which the phrase refers? Anyway, just a comment as this speaks volumes to dh and I.

[milovany]

If it were all up to the Holy Spirit to interpret it within the hearts of individual believers, why is he failing so miserably and letting so many people completely misconstrue it and come to completely different understandings of the same words?

 

 

And this is what led us down the path away from Protestantism -- the struggle I went through with whether or not women should wear headcoverings (which is just an example, really, not necessarily THE issue eveyrone needs to concern themselves with). As a result, we are becoming part of the Orthodox church, not the Roman Catholic church, but the idea is the same. So many people can come to so many different conclusions and it was just aggravating to not understand why. I'm also not criticizing individual protestant believers! Just commenting on our path this past year.

[dangermom]

I read the First Things article, but it didn't address my question that I could tell, so here goes.

 

So, I know that Catholic doctrine says that Mary was born without original sin. OK, so far so good. But you folks seem to be saying that she was also sinless, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Does that mean that Mary is also believed to never have committed any sin during her lifetime? I had thought that being without original sin would mean that you were born innocent, but why would it follow that you could not commit sin after that?

[nova147]

DH, who is studying Catholic theology at a graduate level, tells me the Church has no stance on whether Mary died or not. Only that she was assumed into heaven. Apparently, St. Thomas Aquinas said she did not die. But the Church has no official stance on it.

 

On the "full of grace", the Greek (kecharitomene) is a perfect passive participle. Since I haven't studied Greek (or any other foreign language) since college, I had to look up what that means. A participle is a verb acting like an adjective (that rung a bell somewhere deep in my brain!). The perfect passive is literally translated into English as "having been ____" - in this case, "having been graced". I have also heard that this indicates Mary was graced from the beginning, in other words saved by Christ before His incarnation (which is mind boggling, but then, we are talking about God!).

 

FlockofSillies - I have wondered myself why we, as Catholics, say as much as we do about Mary, given how little is said in Scripture regarding her and her life. But my understanding of this is that most Marian doctrines have developed in protection of our beliefs about Christ. For example, the doctrine of Mary as Mother of God developed against heresies suggesting Jesus BECAME God at some point in His life. But the Church declares her Mother of God, indicating that He was God from conception. Other Marian doctrines follow similar logic.

 

A good place to ask questions about Catholicism is forums.catholic.com. Lots of great information there!