Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

Then there is the doctrinal mess over limbo: What's the Deal with Limbo?.

It's not official doctrine yet it is still considered a possibility. The Catholic church has changed it from being "common doctrine" to "a possibly theological hypothesis." Hmmm...Christ's church on earth cannot make up its mind on this and has even changed its mind. The whole subject seems very messy. I also don't see a clear understanding of the Bible's teaching of what happens to our souls when we die. The majority Biblical interpretation is that when a person dies on earth, if they are a believer their soul goes straight to heaven; if they are not a believer, their soul goes to a holding place of torment but not yet hell. Hell comes after the resurrection of the dead and judgment. Then those not in Christ will be cast into the Lake of Fire with Satan and the demons for eternity. No one goes straight to hell. There is also no holding place for believers who have no done penance for their sins (i.e. Purgatory). If you are in Christ, your sins have already been forgiven. As Paul wrote, "to be absent from the body, is to be at home with the Lord (i.e. in heaven)" Penance, is not required in Scripture.

So the Catholic church hopes and is encouraged that all unbaptized children will end up in heaven but still entertains the hypothetical possibility that they will be denied the "beatific vision" and linger in a place known as limbo. This quandary exists because the Catholic church believes baptism is necessary for salvation.

 

[Valletta]

This quandary exists because the Catholic church believes baptism is necessary for salvation.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

I have highlighted the portion of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that you seem to either be missing or don't understand. If you want to accurately represent Catholic teaching then please quote the Catechism.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
Do you know if the BIBLE says "There is NONE righteous NO NOT ONE" Rom 3?

It does. And the Bible speaks of a number of righteous people.

all true

Do you know if the Bible says that Jesus said “My God, my God, why hast thou abandoned me?"

Mark 15:34 or Matt 27:26 -- which do you prefer?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
I think we both know that not one NT text calls Mary "The ark of the covenant"

I think we both know that not one NT text calls God the "Holy Trinity."

I think we both know that the Bible support for Trinity is
ONE God Deut 6:4
In THREE persons Matt 28:19

Which explains why sola-scriptura denominations like Baptists and Adventists use the Bible alone to establish/define/sustain the doctrine of the triune Godhead with brand new Bible students. Only the Bible -- is all that is needed to make the case.

Not the topic of this thread but interesting

 

[BobRyan]

I never ask for that to be proven... (A) member of the Roman Catholic Church accepts this as true based on the subjective declaration of their Church, which asserts and assumes their own authority in teaching it' own dogma for it's members. So it is ok there is no proof or evidence in that members mind.

Raymond E. Brown: Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.


I have no issue with that ( I think it a error to do) but to each his own...

very good post Bill

 

[Valletta]

BobRyan said:
I think we both know that not one NT text calls Mary "The ark of the covenant"

I think we both know that the Bible support for Trinity is
ONE God Deut 6:4
In THREE persons Matt 28:19

Which explains why sola-scriptura denominations like Baptists and Adventists use the Bible alone to establish/define/sustain the doctrine of the triune Godhead with brand new Bible students. Only the Bible -- is all that is needed to make the case.

Not the topic of this thread but interesting

It's not explicitly in the Bible, it's a leap from the text. And I want to be clear, knowledge of the Assumption comes from the deposit of the faith that was complete with the death of the last Apostle.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

BobRyan said:
I think we both know that not one NT text calls Mary "The ark of the covenant"

I think we both know that the Bible support for Trinity is
ONE God Deut 6:4
In THREE persons Matt 28:19

Which explains why sola-scriptura denominations like Baptists and Adventists use the Bible alone to establish/define/sustain the doctrine of the triune Godhead with brand new Bible students. Only the Bible -- is all that is needed to make the case.

Not the topic of this thread but interesting

It's not explicitly in the Bible, it's a leap from the text.

Interesting how "satisfying" the explicit bible support for the triune Godhead is for many 100's of millions of Christians as we see it here -
ONE God Deut 6:4
In THREE persons Matt 28:19


your response amounts to "well even so - no matter those scriptures - I would still reject the doctrine of the trinity if I did not have a council statement affirming those Bible details as one God in Three Persons" - is less than convincing. It is hard to see how you even get that one to fly since you are left to imagine the scenario you suggest.

And I want to be clear, knowledge of the Assumption comes from the deposit of the faith that was complete with the death of the last Apostle.

If you have the Apostle John expressing the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary in a reliable first century statement - feel free to post it.

Raymond Brown is an example of a Catholic scholar that writes on the subject of historicity of certain doctrines, that agrees with the observation that there is no reliable historicity in first century sources, for certain marian doctrines , and they are also not derived from the NT text. This one in particular relies on the later century sources, traditions alone.

 

[Valletta]

BobRyan said:

BobRyan said:
I think we both know that not one NT text calls Mary "The ark of the covenant"

I think we both know that the Bible support for Trinity is
ONE God Deut 6:4
In THREE persons Matt 28:19

Which explains why sola-scriptura denominations like Baptists and Adventists use the Bible alone to establish/define/sustain the doctrine of the triune Godhead with brand new Bible students. Only the Bible -- is all that is needed to make the case.

Not the topic of this thread but interesting


Interesting how "satisfying" the explicit bible support for the triune Godhead is for many 100's of millions of Christians as we see it here -
ONE God Deut 6:4
In THREE persons Matt 28:19


your response amounts to "well even so - no matter those scriptures - I would still reject the doctrine of the trinity if I did not have a council statement affirming those Bible details as one God in Three Persons" - is less than convincing. It is hard to see how you even get that one to fly since you are left to imagine the scenario you suggest.



If you have the Apostle John expressing the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary in a reliable first century statement - feel free to post it.

Raymond Brown is an example of a Catholic scholar that writes on the subject of historicity of certain doctrines, that agrees with the observation that there is no reliable historicity in first century sources, for certain marian doctrines , and they are also not derived from the NT text. This one in particular relies on the later century sources, traditions alone.

You make it sound like Raymond Brown has come up with some great revelation. What he means by "historicity" is up for debate. But think about it, the fact is that it is no revelation that there is not an eyewitness in the first century that saw Mary enter Heaven.
There is a hierarchy of revealed truths in the Church, and as I've said so many times we come to a deeper understanding of the Word of God as time passes. While our focus is rightly on Jesus, some of the truths about Mary's role in salvation history only eventually became more fully understood. The bishops eventually did come to understand the Assumption, and after feast days like Christmas and Easter were chosen feast days for Mary were chosen, first in the East. Knowledge of the Assumption has been passed down not from eye witness accounts, not from any specific Bible account, but much through the beautiful liturgy.