Mary who died in 43AD or who died in 48AD or who died in 53AD or who died in 63AD or who died after the last book of the NT was written or who never died. Mary who died in the place of Jerusalem or who in the place in the place of Ephesus or who never died. Mary whose death was by God (e.g. Moses) or whose death was natural (e.g. old age) or whose death was by murder or who never died. Who was assumed immediately after death or who was assumed the following night or who was assumed three days after death or who was assumed seven months after death or who was assumed without death. From the above account Catholics can be 100% historically certain that Mary went bodily into heaven on August 15th because Eugenio Pacelli claimed in 1950AD that the 1st century Apostles deposited this as historical fact to the Roman Catholic Church.
Are you kidding me? He was leader of the inquisitions and also wrote that horrific Jesuit Oath of Induction. Read it. It still is on the books and is still being used! 😈🔥👹☠
@@Revelation18-4 no offense, but he was never an inquisitor. He was jailed by the inquisitors. I've been a Jesuit for 23 years, took all the vows, been a superior, been the director of a work, made the full 30 day exercises twice... The oath you're referring to was a hoax made up by enemies of the Jesuits. I encourage you to research a bit more.
I pray that you get acknowledgment by the Catholic Church even from the pope himself. I don’t think they are aware at how much you are doing for the church. In this day of RUclips you are reaching far more people than they realize. God bless you and thank for being one of the reasons I’ve came back to the church.
@@twitherspoon8954what is this the 100ad Roman Senate? You got to be more original than that, it's The year of our Lord 2023..But followers always follow, and the weak, and confused, are the ones who follow so what's new, because this claim sure as shit is not..
@@thenazarenecatholic Are you denying that the literal worship of human sacrifice is the core tenet of Christianity? You know, that cross and John 3:16... Christians believe that God sent one of his sons to be tortured and killed as a sacrificial offering (a practice adopted from Paganism). They worship this human sacrifice as part of a ritual intended to appease a god. In Christian theology, atonement refers to the forgiving of sin by using Jesus as the human sacrifice. Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it: Romans 8:32 "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all." 1 Corinthians 5:7 "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." Romans 3:25 "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement." Romans 5:8 "God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us." Hebrews 10:10 "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."
@@twitherspoon8954youre being overly fececious and you misrepresent our position by not then explaining what the sacrifice was for. Youre a disingenuous critic and all you want to do is argue. We praise God for his sacrifice to save humanity, to take on the punishment of man. Cannibalism? You mean the eucharist? Its symbolic and literal, but no person is being hurt in the process of recieving it.
I struggle with this a lot. I understand and agree that we can and should venerate the Blessed Mother of Jesus, but that line by Trent, “Mary’s role is not to attract vain attention to herself, but to always lead people to her son, Jesus Christ” I find difficult to understand. I think there are a lot of Catholics who don’t center their salvation on Mary or put her on equal footing to Christ. That said, I just took a trip up towards Wisconsin with my Protestant wife and Catholic family (my side) to the Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help. The statuary, the Catholic shops, the shrine itself, intercessory prayers to the Virgin Mary, and emphasis on the visionary of the shrine, all scared the wits out of my wife. I tried explaining how and why Christ is at the center using my knowledge obtained by Trent’s videos and yet there wasn’t much wiggle room left to see Jesus. To her, it was all praise given to Mary alone with the added bandaid of, “through Mary, to Christ”. Lastly, I so badly want to return to the sacraments and show my wife that Christ is truly at the center of it all. That the saints are alive and witnessing everything that happens on earth. That’s the best I could offer her, yet her heart was hardened by the experience. Pray for us, brothers and sisters in Christ.
Praying for you, brother. Frankly, I do think this sort of thing shows a massive problem. For instance, consider the morning consecration: "My Queen, my Mother! I give myself entirely to thee, and to show my devotion to thee I consecrate to thee this day, my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my whole being without reserve, Wherefore, good Mother, as I am thine own, keep me, guard me, as thy property and possession." This prayer encourages the faithful to offer themselves to Mary as their property, possession--to give their whole being to Mary. Just saying "and through her to Christ", as you say, is a poor bandaid--you could justify just about any act of worship to a creature like that. Now, one might say "well you don't have to pray that prayer and can disagree with it because it's not infallibly taught by the magisterium." True, but even non-infallible teaching is said to be protected from being harmful to souls. But I don't see how this sort of prayer can be anything other than harmful to souls, and the kind of devotion it issues forth seen in the Shrine you visited.
❤🙏🏼❤️ my wife is Protestant also (non- denominational to be specific) and IF she ever converted this would be the last bridge to cross. Very difficult for Protestants to understand/ get on board with.
Here is The TRUE Savior YaH The Heavenly FATHER (Genesis 1) HIMSELF was Who they Crucified/Pierced for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF” From the Ancient Egyptian Semitic: "Yad He Vav He" is what Moshe (Moses) wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3) Ancient Egyptian Semitic Direct Translation Yad - "Behold The Hand" He - "Behold the Breath" Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
Why don't you read Anne Catherine Emmerich or Mary of Agreda .....download it from the internet....the assumption is there .....actually dictated to these people by Jesus Himself..... So don't worry about humans today giving you their theories .
Here is The TRUE Savior YaH The Heavenly FATHER (Genesis 1) HIMSELF was Who they Crucified/Pierced for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF” From the Ancient Egyptian Semitic: "Yad He Vav He" is what Moshe (Moses) wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3) Ancient Egyptian Semitic Direct Translation Yad - "Behold The Hand" He - "Behold the Breath" Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
The assumption of Mary is one of the most good and beautiful truths we know! As a protestant convert of 15years, it was something that I merely assented to for a long time (based on "if they're right about the real presence, apostolic succession, etc, then they're probably right about this too.") But this year, when it finally sank in - wow. Praise to the Queen of Heaven! And Glory to God who makes all things possible. Having said that, this is a tough one to argue. Of all doctrines, it seems to most clearly enuniciate our confidence in Holy Tradition. Thanks for the good work, Trent.
@@gunsgalore7571 I'm currently affiliated with the PCA, the Presbyterian Church in America. My views are too high church to be labeled Presbyterian, so I just go by high church Protestant.
@@ianpardue2615 Is it common for high church Protestants to believe in the assumption? I ask this solely for my own education... I thought it was just Catholics and Orthodox who believed in this.
@@gunsgalore7571 Within high church Protestantism, it is usually seen as an opinion that is neither required for salvation, nor forbidden to hold to, since the Holy Scriptures don't clearly allude to it. Depending on the church as well. Me and my padre don't see eye to eye about Mary. He accuses me of trying to lead the Reformed Church either to Rome or into Lutheranism and Anglicanism. My views on blessed Mary are: I hold to both the perpetual virginity and the bodily assumption of the Mother of God. I also hold to the belief that she was free from personal sin. I see evidence for in Luke 1, Revelation 12, and from the New Eve title that was given to her by St Justin Martyr and St Irenaeus of Lyons. I agree with the Queen of Heaven and the Mother of the Church titles (Revelation 12:1, 17). I honor Mary under the title of Our Lady of La Leche, since I see evidence for that title from art from the second century, and from Psalm 22:9, Luke 11:26-27, and Hebrews 2:17. That is all.
My uber secular town happens to have so many Mass offerings today that there's just no excuse to miss this Holy Day of Obligation. 🩵 Headed for the 12:15 myself, hail Holy Queen, pray for us. 🙏 📿
Trent, As I have been watching your videos lately, I have found that you have improved greatly in your speaking and debating skills. I am a Protestant with a video request. It’s based around Mike Winger’s videos since I found that your rebuttal to his videos on Catholicism revolved around explaining Catholic Doctrine rather than showing what Mike Said is somehow incorrect. Mike Even made a video addressing this. I would really like to see a reboot of examining Mike Winger’s videos on Catholicism. His videos played an instrumental videos in my journey to understanding Catholicism. (If you are interested in this, I’d like to note that I remember his first video being more of a regular sermon, and his later videos in the series being more of the accusations against the Catholic church.)
@YajunYuanSDA If Elijah, how much more the Mother of Christ. Epiphanius gives us, in section 79 of Panarion, a point-blank statement that is overlooked today by many: Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death. St. Epiphanius clearly indicates his personal agreement with the idea that Mary was assumed into heaven without ever having died. He will elsewhere clarify the fact that he is not certain, and no one is, at least not definitively so, about whether or not she died. But he never says the same about the Assumption itself. That did not seem to be in doubt. By comparing her to Elijah, he indicates that she was taken up bodily, just as the Church continues to teach 1,600 years later. Since the time of the promulgation of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, there has been much new discovery. We now have written evidence of belief in the Assumption of Mary as far back as the third century. Though it is not necessary for there to be written evidence all the way back to the second century for us as Catholics because we have Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church first and foremost that has already given us the truth of the Matter, I believe it is really exciting that new historical discoveries continue to be made and once again . . . and again . . . and again, they confirm the Faith of our Fathers.
I am so grateful to God and my wonderful parents that I am Catholic and I hope that our Protestant brothers and sisters will come to full belief in the Church.
Here is The True Savior YaH The Heavenly FATHER (Genesis 1) HIMSELF was Who they Crucified/Pierced for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF” From the Ancient Egyptian Semitic: "Yad He Vav He" is what Moshe (Moses) wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3) Ancient Egyptian Semitic Direct Translation Yad - "Behold The Hand" He - "Behold the Breath" Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
Catholics would look at Revelation 12:1-2 and interpret “the woman clothed with the sun” as being a reference to Mary. Is this position correct? No, it is not. If you notice the text in verse 2 it says that she was “with child and she cried out being in labor and in pain.” This is a problem because according to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Mary did not inherit Original Sin. CCC 491, “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.” If you’re not familiar with the concept of Original Sin, it is “the hereditary fallen nature and moral corruption that is passed down from Adam to his descendants.”1 Sin entered the world through Adam (Romans 5:12). He is the first man who committed sin, and that sin is reckoned to all people (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:18). This means that all descendants of Adam are under the effects of original sin. Part of the curse of the Fall that caused Original Sin is spoken of by God in Genesis 3. Gen. 3:16, “To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you shall bring forth children. Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.’” Notice that part of the curse is pain in childbirth. This is why women suffer during the birth process. So, when we look back to the text of Revelation 12:1-2, we see that the woman clothed with the sun is suffering birth pain. Since the Roman Catholic position is that Mary could not be suffering birth pain (because of her Immaculate Conception and no Original Sin), then these verses cannot be about Mary.
First, in the OT, the imagery of the sun, moon, and stars refers to the nation of Israel. Joseph said, “I have had still another dream; and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me” (Gen. 37:9). Osborne writes, “In Jewish literature ‘twelve stars’ often refers to the twelve patriarchs or the twelve tribes.”[1] Second, the Bible frequently uses the imagery of a woman to refer to Israel, Zion, or Jerusalem. Paul writes, “The Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother” (Gal. 4:26). Jeremiah writes, “Surely, as a woman treacherously departs from her lover, so you have dealt treacherously with Me, O house of Israel” (Jer. 3:20; c.f. Isa. 54:1-6; Ezek. 16:8-14; Hos. 2:19-20; Micah 4:9-10). Third, in the OT, the image of being protected by eagle’s wings refers to Israel. In Exodus 19:4, we read, “You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings, and brought you to Myself.” This seems to fit with the language in Revelation 12:14, where we read, “The two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she was nourished.” Fourth, the Woman is protected in the wilderness for 1,260 days. This fits with the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27, which is directed to Israel (“your people and your holy city”). This iteration of 3.5 years is mentioned five times through this section of Revelation (Rev. 11:2; 11:3; 12:6; 12:14; 13:5). Clearly, this time span of three and a half years must be important to the author. This seems to fit with half of the seven years, where the Antichrist will be in power (Dan. 9:26-27). Fifth, Daniel 12 predicted that Michael would rise up at this time to protect Israel (Dan. 12:1). Daniel writes, “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued” (Daniel 12:1). We see a fulfillment of this, when John writes, “There was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war” (Rev. 12:7). Sixth, Jesus is said to rule the nations with a rod of iron. In Revelation 19:15, we read, “From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron.” Thus the man-child of verse 5 must be Jesus-not the Church. Mary? Roman Catholic interpreters argue that the woman here is Mary, Jesus’ mother.[2] Advocates of this interpretation argue that the woman is referred to in the singular (Rev. 12:5, 17). If the nation of Israel or the Church were really in view, then why is this woman just a singular person? Also, the most natural and straightforward reading would be to think of this as Jesus’ mother, Mary. Of course, critics of this view make a number of counter arguments: First, this is symbolic language, and it shouldn’t be read rigidly. Since we are reading apocalyptic literature, we shouldn’t place too much weight on the fact that this is spoken of as a singular woman. Second, when did the 1,260 days of nourishment occur in Mary’s life, as the text explains (vv.6, 14)? This time frame, which is mentioned five times in the text (Rev. 11:2; 11:3; 12:6; 12:14; 13:5), seems to fit best with Daniel’s vision of the 70th seven in Daniel 9:27 (as argued above). Third, when was Mary persecuted so intensely? John writes, “When the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child” (v.13). Roman Catholic interpreters usually identify this with Mary seeing Jesus crucified in front of her. But this doesn’t seem to fit the language of Revelation 12. Fourth, Roman Catholics believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin-not giving birth to more children. While the Bible affirms that Mary had more children (Mt. 1:25; 12:46-47; 13:55; Mk. 6:2-3; Jn. 2:12; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:4-5; Gal. 1:19), Roman Catholics argue that this Greek word for “brothers” (adelphos) should actually be translated cousins. While NT scholars disagree with this view,[3] this precludes Mary from being the woman from a Roman Catholic perspective. If Mary remained a perpetual virgin, then who are “the rest of her children” mentioned at the end of the chapter? (Rev. 12:17)
Here is The True Savior YaH The Heavenly FATHER (Genesis 1) HIMSELF was Who they Crucified/Pierced for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF” From the Ancient Egyptian Semitic: "Yad He Vav He" is what Moshe (Moses) wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3) Ancient Egyptian Semitic Direct Translation Yad - "Behold The Hand" He - "Behold the Breath" Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
Great analysis Trent! “Mary’s role is not to attract vain attention to herself, but to always lead people to her son, Jesus Christ” - **Exactly!** - those who cannot understand Humility unfortunately don't yet know God! (Matthew 11:24-27) So much so I think Our Lord **started** His whole plan for our salvation with MARY first in mind, then worked the whole thing backwards (Isaiah 46:10) starting then with Adam & Eve - to lead up to Jesus on the cross giving Her to us at his Last! Surely He gives us that hint at Gen 3:15 !!!
Amazing content. By the way, besides all explanations, the most reasonable is the logical one: "If Jesus has brought Enoch, Moses and Elijah to his presence, even before the cross, imagine how much he would do to His beloved mother". Maybe the many of our christians debates would be solved just using the logic and realizing that fact we are talking about God, the one who is most zealous and who is love by nature.
Dr. Ortlund has a new video responding to 6 common defenses of the Assumption that came out around the time this one came out. Just an FYI, Trent, if you are interested.
As a former Protestant, I came to realize that Protestants selectively pick and choose which "Church Traditions/History" that they want to believe. If it falls in line with their thinking, it must be true. But, if it doesn't than it was just "made up" For example, ask almost any Protestant how St. Peter and St. Paul died and most would respond that St. Peter was crucified upside down and St. Paul was beheaded. This is NO WHERE in the Bible, but is from Church Tradition. Same goes with the deaths of the other Apostles, they believe those Church Traditions. Protestants trust the judgements of the Ecumenical Councils when it comes to the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and Jesus Christ's two natures of both man and divine and other foundational beliefs, but then want to say that they just got all the other stuff wrong that they don't want to believe in. Please don't get me started on their idea of "Sola Scriptura", but can't admit where the scriptures came from in the first place and do some mental gymnastics to justify that the canon of scripture wasn't put together by the church itself.
I’ve always known Protestantism to be incoherent. That is why I knew if Christianity was true it would have to be Catholicism. But upon discovering these huge historical problems, such as the assumption, I could not remain catholic. I now no longer believe Christianity.
@@thatgirlray2765 I would suggest you read, "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary" by Brant Pitre. It explains from the Bible all that Ctholics believe about Mary.
@@pixurguy4915 that doesnt prove it actually happened, that’s reading what Catholics want to be true INTO the text. If it weren’t the case, it wouldn’t be just a catholic scholar who finds it. Pitre is slimy apologetics at best, i suggest you look into him and actual academic criticisms of him and his work.
The Trinity is in scripture, if you dont believe that why even be Christian. Imagine sacrificing the core essential of God’s identity to defend medieval folklore.
It's not about history OR myth - it's about the reality of the heart and conclusions of the heart from the incarnation and what it means and it's extent in influence and Mary's place in redemption. I am Eastern Orthodox and today we celebrated the feast of the Dormition-people bring flowers to put around the plinth holding the icon of the Dormition - we offer her the most tender reverence. History can wait and myth is not a factor.
Hey, Trent, I would love to see some engagement with the redeemed Zoomer channel! He's a very intelligent, thoughtful and gracious presbyterian, who discusses lots of mere christian issues/doctrine and some calvinist theology. He really deserves the recognition!
Hi Trent. Really like your channel as a source of calm and thoughtful presentations of Roman Catholic doctrine. Having said that I think the idea that Mary didnt see death is irrelevant to the christain faith. Christ is the mediator between God and man and we are commanded by Paul that everthing we do and say is thu the name of Jesus so to me the effective prayer is directed to the Father in the name of Jesus. The danger to me is the elevation of Mary above Christ if the focus is shifted from Christ to Mary in prayers. I dont think the saints in heaven need our prompting to pray for us. Revelations clearly shows they are praying for us whether we are asking them or not.
Rev 12 shows the Mother of the Messiah bodily in heaven (clothed and crowned) unlike the other souls mentioned in Revelation. Also John's gospel always refers to Mary as "the woman" (Eve before the Fall), as does Rev 12.
"The woman of the Apocalypse clothed with the sun, which in its *literal* sense must be taken to mean the church,..." (Fundamentals of Catholica Dogma, Ludwig Ott) Yes, interesting that Jesus never refers to Mary as his mother. Jesus has never given Mary the title 'mother of God'.
@@yajunyuan7665 "Jesus never refers to Mary as his mother" LOL, are you saying Jesus didn't have a mother?? You really think Jesus did not think of Mary as His mother?? She was just some vessel that gave birth to Him, fed Him with her own breast, changed his diapers, taught Him the things all mothers teach their children, held Him when He cried, etc. How wacko fringe do you and other Protestants want to go?? Is it not good enough for you that the Holy Spirit gave Mary the title Mother of God? (Are you really going to twist yourself into a knot over the difference between God and LORD?) "Elizabeth was filled with *the Holy Spirit* and she exclaimed with a loud cry, 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that *the mother of my Lord* should come to me?'" Lk 1:42-43 Need I cite other passages in the Spirit-inspired Scripture where Mary is called His mother? "On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there" Jn 2:1 By calling her woman, giving her the title that Eve had before the Fall, Jesus honors her. The earliest Church fathers (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus) pick up on this, comparing her to Eve. I think I'll go with the early Church over Ott (assuming you even quoted him in proper context), which accepted both interpretations and saw Mary as the literal interpretation and the Church as the figurative interpretation: "No one of you is ignorant of this: that the dragon is the devil; nor of this: that the woman signifies the Virgin Mary, who being inviolate, brought forth our Head inviolate; at the same time she represented in her person Holy Church in figure, that as she remained a virgin in bringing forth her Son, so also the Church brings forth His members at all times, without any loss to her virginity." -Quovultdeus (c. 430 AD), early Church father and bishop (De Symbolo 3) Always tricky labeling something "literal" in a work like Revelation. But I think it is completely clear to anyone that a person claiming that the woman is really the Church is NOT appealing to the literal sense of the word "woman." Does this really need to be argued??
@@geordiewishart1683 Do I need to spell it out for you?! Jesus is God. God is the primary author of Scripture. Scripture says Mary is Jesus' mother, the Mother of the Lord/God. Can you follow the logical chain which results in "Jesus says Mary is Jesus' mother"? What exactly are we arguing about here? The point being made by the poster is not only irrelevant but misleading. Even if I were to concede that Jesus never calls Mary His mother, SO WHAT?! What would that supposedly mean? STOP beating around the bush and just come out and say the ridiculous thing that lies behind it! Because by itself, it would not actually have any significance compared to the truth about Mary according to God's Word in Scripture. Are you saying Jesus didn't have a mother?? Are you saying Mary did not give birth to Jesus?? Are you Jesus did not think of Mary as His mother?? Are you saying Jesus did not honor Mary as His mother? Spit it out.
I heard a story that one of the Eastern Churches had a Bishop who wanted to be made the Patriarch of Jerusalem. The Empress at the time enjoyed collecting relics from Jerusalem and she wrote to him asking for him to send her specific relics. He told her that St Stephen appeared to him and told him where his bones were kept. He was not above making up stories to get promoted. She said that read about the BVM in the Gospel , and that she would like him to send her a relic. He wanted to please the Empress, but he was at a loss because he didn't have a relic of Mary for obvious reasons. It might cause him to lose the promotion if he didn't send one, but he would be called out by Christians who knew she was Assumed into Heaven. He wrote her apologetically saying "Empress, I can't send you a relic of Mary's body because everyone in Jerusalem knows that her tomb is empty and her body was translated to Heaven."
Yes, it was Bishop Juvenal and Empress Pulcheria, but this shows in the *fifth* century that Mary's alleged assumption in 64AD was not universally known.
I find it interesting in the Marian dogma debates that one side appeals to tradition,early Church Fathers and typology as well as isegesis while the other appeals to Scripture.
@@YajunYuanSDA there’s nothing in Scripture regards the assumption of Mary. It didn’t start gathering pace until mid 5th century unless you want to use some gnostic writings which were earlier
@@YajunYuanSDA I put all the Marian Dogmas together which wasn’t right to do but it would take too long to break them all down one by one. But my point for the most part still stands,RC teachings appeal to early church fathers,tradition,isegesis and typology while the arguments against them mostly appeal to Scripture.
Hi Trent, Thanks for this upload. There are a few comments that come to mind. First, the issue isn't really with Mary's assumption *as such*; if one thinks Mary was assumed to heaven, that's fine. The issue is making something necessary to salvation that wasn't unilaterally believed by the early church. Here's what Munificentissiumus Deus says: "44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. 45. Hence if *anyone*, which God forbid, should dare *willfully to deny or to call into doubt* that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith." Hence, Epiphanius from the Panarion 78: "For one option is that the holy virgin died, and was buried, her sleep in honor, her end in chastity and crowned in her virginity. Or perhaps she was killed, just as it is written, and a sword will pierce through her soul, her credit into the martyrs, her body holy in blessedness, through which light entered the world. Or she remained. For is it not possible for all things to be done by God, whatever He wishes? For no one knows her end. We ought not to honor the saints beyond what is necessary, but to honor their master. So then let us end the deception which is leading astray. For neither is Mary God, nor does she have a body from heaven but from the conception of a man and a woman, being raised according to promise, as Isaac. And let no one give offerings in her name, for he will destroy his own soul." ^^He explicitly states that no one knows her end and doesn't mention an oral tradition at all of her being assumed. Stephen Shoemaker, in the same book you cited, cites several examples of this and says on page 54 that the value of such admissions is the inability to find any significant traditions concerning Mary's end before the fifth century, and the ones that crop up at first are uncertain. So here's the problem that poses. One can say "well the Magisterium does what it do and declares stuff infallible and indispensable to salvation because it has authority to do so", but that's not how magisterial authority works. According to Dei Verbum, the magisterium never *adds* to the apostolic deposit, but only exposits it. That means that even if one thinks Mary was assumed, there still needs to be a connection between the statement "Mary was assumed" and "if you deny it or doubt it you've fallen away from the faith"--there needs to be some theological rationale underlying that connection for it to be truly an exposition of the apostolic deposit and no more. Otherwise, the magisterium really just is adding to the apostolic deposit requirements for salvation that the apostles never themselves taught.
Yes indeed. It seems so obvious this is an addition to the deposit of faith, not an exposition of it. Likewise for the doctrine of Mary being sinless. Neither of these are taught - even implicitly - by the apostles or the early church. Unless of course we totally redefine and stretch the meaning of "implicit" beyond recognition.
The theological truth of this Marian dogma is about the everlasting life that all who believe in Christ would be raised on the last day. Mary experienced the first resurrection.
My problem is that the dogma is a fundamental required belief even though any reference to it in the Christian Church until the sixth century. Even then for centuries afterwards it was not a universal doctrine,eg the venerable Bede and others.
I see it like this, all versions of the ark lead or help the people of God , Noah's saved the human race as well as animals, the ark of the covenant lead the people of Israel to the promised land as well as taking down the walls of Jericho, now the Ark of the new and everlasting covenant, our blessed Mother Mary, leads us to Jesus and his everlasting Kingdom.
9:16 I'd say at least the writing of the Apocalypse and of the Gospel of St. John, probably Epistles too, was after the Assumption, and this may have been the case for some Petrine Epistles too.
I easily believe if Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven, Mary was definitely assumed. Mary is the new Eve and the Ark of the covenant. There is no way her Son would allow her body to be corrupted in death.
@@darinbracy8433We have bodily relics of the apostles and martyrs, including the first martyr, St. Stephen. It was the norm for Christians to gather the relics of apostles and saints once they died as a way to venerate them, and the Catholic Church has tons of relics, some of them uncorrupted. This is why it's such a big deal that we do not have any bodily relics of Mary - Christians definitely would have tried to get her bodily relics if they could have. But they couldn't, because her body was assumed into heaven.
Just because a body cannot be located doesn't mean that that person went to heaven. God disposed of Moses body in some unknown location. Moses is still dead.
@Tylerstrodtman 0 seconds ago I’m not sure many Protestants say that they don’t believe Mary was assumed bodily into heaven because it doesn’t explicitly say it in the Bible. Hopefully thoughtful Protestants would say it differently, something to the effect of how scripture doesn’t say it happened, we have no conceptual or theological grounding to assume that it did, and just because one denomination says dogmatically that it did, doesn’t prove anything. I can appreciate what you said about Mary’s role in salvation is to point away from herself and to her son Jesus, much like how John the Baptist said, and though I do think as salvation is a matter of supreme importance, we are warranted in saying that the scriptures ought to have some mention of her on the salvation process and she is noticeably absent, my experience with Catholics taking about Mary is the opposite, namely that she becomes a focus in and of herself, and Christ fades away in the discussion.
The Book of Mary's Repose survives complete in Ge'ez, but fragments exists in other languages. Shoemaker's book has a translation of the entire text, and even includes the fragments side by side with the Ge'ez version.
My question for Catholics would be this: what about the Marian doctrines other than Mary being mother of God make them central enough to Christianity to be dogma? If the Catholic church is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ, surely belonging to it is very important. Why make it so that you cannot be a Catholic without believing specific details about Mary like that she was assumed into Heaven, was born sinless, and was a virgin forever? How is this stuff so central to being a Christian in the one true church that anyone who doesn't believe these things cannot be Catholic?
So if I understand this correctly, the early church father's knew Mary was assumed, but not if it was after or before her death. That by itself brings big questions. I would thought that would be an important detail that the people would know if in fact it was something that happened.
a sickly elderly woman is suggently caught up into heaven, how do you determine if she had died or not? I don't think the host of the hoise could afford to have a doctor by her bedside all the time to verify exactly when she'd die
@@tafazzi-on-discord We know Elijah was assumed without dying, We know Moses was assumed after dying. Unless you think Mary was in total isolation and then when she was assumed suddenly she was surrounded by eye witnesses then there is no way to explain no one knowing the end of Mary.
@@yajunyuan7665 yes because Elijah was a healthy man that was talking to Elisha right up to the moment of the assumotion, while Moses' assumption took place some time after his death (Satan contended with Micheal)
@@tafazzi-on-discord Correct, but no one knows what happened to Mary. Catholics have said she died of old age, Catholics have said she died of martyrdom, Catholics have said she never died. This means the Catholic Church is saying no one knows what happened to her, so we are just going to say she is Heaven now because we think Mary is special. Even though the Catholic Church lacks any divine revelation on it.
I ve written about how the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim antiquities of Egil (a small city way up in the mountains of Turkish Kurdistan) indirrectly reflect this doctrinal matter, in light of the lack of corporal relics of Our Lady, Mary, the Theotokos. To be brief, according to this strand of Christian history (of importance especially to Armenian Orthodox, since Egil is an holy site of the Armenian Orthodox Church, albeit one rather forgotten about now, since the Turkish government does not want tourists to be in this remote region), St. John the Evangelist conveyed Mary the Mother of Jesus and all of the other Holy Women who had surrounded Him as he hanged on the Cross to Egil (already an O.T. holy site) for their protection from persecution. All of these Holy Women are buried there EXCEPT for Mary the Mother of God. St. John himself and the Blessed Virgin Mary moved on from Egil but none of the other Holy Women did so. I've been to their reputed graves in Egil, where they are buried. As with other sites attributed to the life of Our Lady, there are no relics of Our Lady to be had from her time at Egil. Because she was assumed into heaven, her body is nowhere (and never has been after her death) still on earth. Not in Egil, desite all of those other holy women buried there and not anywhere else.
It's not really an argument from silence when you go looking for evidence to prove a doctrine and you don't find it where anyone would reasonably expect to find it...the burden of proof is on the one making the positive doctrinal claims...appealing to the idea that silence "does not disprove" is not a proof to affirm a doctrine.
Maybe you didn’t watch the entire video but he clearly said he’s not trying to prove the doctrine using the historical record but rather showing how arguments from silence used by Protestants aren’t sufficient in denying the claim.
@kidus_1010 obviously a strong point in the Protestant eyes is that these dogmas CAN NOT be proven from the earliest historical records therefore we should not be held to something that's not proven (especially when they are considered binding on the conscience, demanded beliefs and infallibly proclaimed and not until 1870 and 1950 respectively).
@kidus_1010 this seems to be generally conceded by Catholic apologists thus they shift to a strategy of doctrinal development hypothesis of Cardinal Newman.
@kidus_1010 I kind of anticipated someone would say what you did...that's why I pointed out that the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim...meaning your retort (and Trents) that silence doesn't disprove does not hold water...all we need to establish is that these doctrines are unproven and if they are not proven they should not be DEMANDED to be held (if they were optional beliefs we could talk). That is irrespective of the point that Trent conceded his goal was not an attempt to prove the doctrine historically.
Of all the Marian Dogmas, this is the one which is not violating the first and second of the 10 commandments or denying the mercy God has on those who do not understand their lost state.
The assumption of Mary probably wouldn't strike anyone as of great concern if it weren't for the claim of the Roman Catholic Church that to deny it or disbelieve it is tantamount to the shipwreck of faith. Pious opinions are one thing, dogmas that cannot be established from the Sacred Scripture, yet carry with them the necessity of belief for salvation, is an entirely different matter. Additionally, given the Perfection and Sufficiency of Scripture, negative arguments or arguments from silence can be valid. It also seems that the premise of your video depends upon its own argument from silence. "Here are all the unstated reasons why the early Fathers didn't mention the assumption of Mary." Again, given the degree to which the RC Church makes this dogma primary and fundamental, expecting to find it in the Scripture and the Early Fathers isn't so much to ask.
The Assumption is a historical event. Although it is true that the end of Mary’s life is not explicitly described in Scripture, there are allusions to it, passages that resonate with the truth of the Assumption. Here are a few examples: “Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified” (Ps. 132:8). An ancient tradition compares Mary to the Ark of the Covenant; in that light, this passage’s reference to the sanctified ark being brought to the Lord’s resting place can be seen as speaking of Mary’s assumption. “Come with me from Lebanon, my bridge; come with me from Lebanon” (Song of Sol. 4:8). “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev. 12:1ff). We do not rely on Scripture for our belief in the Assumption, but Scripture does sort of “point to” it.
@@noahgaming8833 If Scripture "does sort of 'point to' it," this is pretty shaky ground by which to dogmatize something on pain of shipwrecking faith if you don't believe it, wouldn't you agree?
@@marcuswilliams7448 you wrote: this is pretty shaky ground by which to dogmatize something on pain of shipwrecking faith if you don’t believe it, wouldn’t you agree? Response: I’m not an expert on this, but I feel like this is just a double standard. Why dogmatize something that can only kind of be point to it from scripture? Well, that’s like when Protestants use verses that “point out” sola scriptura, like 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All scripture (Greek, pasa graphē) is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” There are a few points to why using this verse to support sola scriptura is setting it on a shaky one. 1. pasa graphē ordinarily would be translated “every scripture” (pasa generally means “every” rather than “all” before a singular noun like graphē). “Every scripture” would be a reference to each individual book of Scripture. Further, in the Bible the word “scripture” (singular) refers to an individual book or passage. The inspired books as a whole are “the scriptures” (plural), not “scripture.” But Paul couldn’t mean each individual book is sufficient for doctrine. Otherwise, you could do theology by “Genesis alone,” “Isaiah alone,” and so forth. 2. Paul says the books are useful toward certain goals, including teaching. But being useful merely means that something makes a contribution-not that it is uniquely and exclusively sufficient. 3. although the scriptures contribute to the goal of making the man of God “complete, equipped for every good work,” they aren’t the only things he needs. He also needs holiness, the charisms of the Holy Spirit, the correct understanding of the texts, and so on. The texts are not sufficient by themselves. 4. If we look at the context, Paul was referring to the Old Testament: “and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 3:15 I’m sure you would disagree that only the OT should be the sole rule of faith.
@@noahgaming8833 The entire point is moot, because no one believes that sola Scriptura is so fundamental that if you disbelieve it you've made shipwreck of your faith.
@@marcuswilliams7448 you wrote: No one believes that sola scriptura is so fundamental that if you disbelieve it you’ve made shipwreck of your faith. Response: WOW! That’s a pretty big generalization to make. Sola Scriptura is the dogma of Reformed Christianity that religious or theological authority comes from the bible alone (i.e. solely from scripture). Dogma: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Incontrovertibly: in a way that cannot be disagreed with or denied. So this Isn’t what you would see as making a shipwreck of your faith? Then what would happened if a Protestant denied this dogma that “cannot be disagreed with or denied”? Nothing? I don’t know about you, but where I’m from, your statement is called a lie, Mr. Williams.
Romans 3:23 all have sinned. When the Bible has a verse this blunt and easy to understand why does one not believe it but try to find verse that they try to justify their beliefs?
Empress Pulcheria, in the fifth century, requested Juvenal (Bishop of Jerusalem) to allow her to have the body of the Virgin, in order to display it for the public adoration of the faithful at Constantinople. How can be if it was "universal" knowledge that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven in *64AD?*
As a non-denominational disciple of Christ, I have no problem if people want to believe that Mary was taken up to heaven. It is not a problem or a stumbling block for me. It happened several times in the Bible, including with Enoch. My issue is the church forcing non-biblical doctrines on us. It is not in the Bible so why do they make such a big deal of it? Why can't they just leave it be up to the individual? By declaring it to be an infallible teaching, they force me to take a stand on it. The Bible does not speak of it, so why turn it into a stumbling block? This is my problem with all the non-biblical doctrines that the catholic church forces on us. If it's not in the Bible then it shouldn't be taught as if it is Scripture. In the end my problem is with church leaders who blaspheme the Name of God by calling themselves with the title of "Holy Father," and blaspheme the Word of God by claiming to speak with the same authority and infallibility as the Word of God, and adding non-biblical doctrines to the Word of God.
@@shadowsteppah it doesn't say that every teaching is in the Bible. But if there is something so vital for our salvation that it is a "must believe" doctrine, it is certainly included in Scripture. And if it isn't a vital teaching or important for our salvation, then why does the catholic church make such a big deal of it? Why didn't John who was adopted into Jesus' family mention the bodily assumption of Mary? Why didn't ANY of the NT writers, several of whom knew Mary personally, have mentioned her bodily assumption? If she HAD been taken up into heaven without dying, surely this would be something mentioned by John or Peter or Paul in their letters. And if they didn't think it was important enough to mention, then why does the catholic church now think it is important enough to make into an "infallible" doctrine? The vital stuff is ALL included in Scripture. There is nothing we need for a complete spiritual life in Jesus Christ that is not given to us in Scripture. (except for our own active participation in the body and participation in the sacraments which are physical things we must do, and ALL of which ARE mentioned in Scripture). These non-biblical doctrines about Mary are the bad fruits of a bad tree. And it starts with men blaspheming the name of God by calling themselves "Holy Father" and falsely believing that they speak with the same level of authority and infallibility as the Word of God. Sad.
Holy church tradition is authoritative. It predates even the scripture itself. The books of the Bible and the canon itself comes from said Tradition. And guess what, Catholics and all other ancient Apostolic churches dont teach Sola Scriptura. Any kind of disrespect towards the Blessed and Holy Mother of our Lord wont be tolerated.
@Kostas_Dikefalaios disrespect? I love Mary and I know her better than you. If you knew Mary as well as you claim to, you would know that she wants you spending your time praying to her Son, worshiping her Son, and putting your faith in Him alone. The LAST thing she wants you to do is give her the title of a pagan goddess "queen of heaven" and bow down to images of her.
@@xrendezv0usx Not only am I going to bow down, but I am also going to kiss icons of the sinless and ever-virgin Holy Mother of God and Queen of Heaven and venerate her in every way provided by my church. You are dishonoring her by lowering her value. Before you start talking about whats in the Bible, which you got from the Church btw, come back when you find Sola Scriptura in the scripture. Good luck, youll need it. "I know her better than you" hahaha. Its always the non dems having that arrogant attitude. Must come along with the fact that you think you are knowledgable enough to interpret a 2000 year old text all by yourself (oh and by reading a translation of said text), disregarding any kind of tradition which was practised for 2 millenia. Yeah man you are theologically much more equipped than the church fathers which were taught by the Apostles themselves. You dont even belong to a church. Dont make me laugh
An argument from silence is a valid argument - especially considering hundreds of years passed before we hear a whisper of it. It's like me saying that the 1st amendment is wrong because I read some author who wrote in modern times saying so.
16:29 I don't think it's fair to say that a theological development tied to Scriptural interpretation like Eternal Security is really all that comparable to a historical dogma tied to a specific event. I have major concerns about the fact that Gnostic accounts describing a lot of the elements of the Marian dogmas appear like they could be the genesis of their adoption by more orthodox sources. If the Marian dogmas are Gnostic in origin, then the Roman-Catholic church has a really serious problem.
"If the Marian dogmas are Gnostic in origin, then the Roman-Catholic church has a really serious problem." I don't believe this is the case, but even if it was, this position would be in the err of the Genetic Fallacy. Because the Gnostics were shown to be heretical in previous points, doesn't mean that therefore *everything* they claimed was heretical.
Rev 12 seems to clearly point to Mary being in Heaven. So it's with in the sphere of scriptural interpretation. Also keep listening till the 16:56 mark
@@jon6car No Christian has any doubt that Mother Mary is in heaven. Even if Rev. 12 is talking specifically about Mary, it doesn't prove the assumption of Mary, which is quite a different matter.
@@jon6car If Mary was assumed, I can't see why it wouldn't be clearly stated, as it was w/ Elijah and Enoch. Even w/ Moses, it is murky, but many believe he was, esp. because he was transfigured w/ Christ and Elijah.
Honestly I do not know what a protestant would point to in the Bible that would not justify the Assumption, I don't know what their claims are so this video might not apply to me. But I would say the book The Immaculate Heart of Mary by Fr. John Peter Pinamonti not only is one of the best apologetic books about Mary, but it lays down just about any argument I would make to a protestant perfectly. It also stirs up and intense joy for the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts. I don't know why it isn't more well-known, I found it by chance. I don't see it listed on the Catholic Answers site, but you should check it out.
All major Protestant Apologists on YT: *so here are the quotes of Church Fathers who say nobody knows what happened to Mary.* Meanwhile, Trent: *So anyway, about that silly argument from silence of theirs...* Low Trent... really low.
With this kind of approach you can succeed in arguing for anything. You can overwhelmingly prove that the Pheonix bird truly existed. In any case, the Holy Spirit guided the early witnesses to include all that mattered and I care less for other fancy later additions, it just means there are not critical to our faith.
The Holy Spirit guided the Church and still does to this day. When Protestants allow themselves to be open to the guidance of that same Spirit, they find themselves led out of Protestantism and into the Church.
@@Danaluni59 unsaved Protestants will be prone to be tossed by every wind of doctrine. Yes, the Spirit guides the church and believers, even today, that is why in 1 John 4:1, all children of God are urged to put every spirit to the test and see if they are correct. The Bible is replete with warnings about people who come with noval ideas and we must be watchful (Acts 20:28-30, Galatians 1:6-9) Somewhat, the enemy is always sneaking in to introduce weeds amongst the wheat (Matthew 13:24-30). So don't feel hurt when a Protestant exercises caution and asks, " where did these wierd doctrines which cannot be traced to any of the Apostles come from?"
Only Protestants suggest it never happened which we have homilies from our church fathers predating the canonization of the Bible speaking of Mary's assumption. Case closed.
I have an idea. Since the Bible and early church fathers are silent on whether or not Joseph was assumed into heaven upon his death, let's say that we have progressive revelation and say that he to was assumed into heaven. For all the reasons mentioned in this video, no one could say we're wrong. In fact let's not stop there, let's say all the 12 apostles were assumed too.
@@sonsofpolaris6102 How does that refute what I actually said? If the magisterium of the Church created a doctrine of assumption for anyone at all, out of thin air, you would have to accept it, or lose your salvation. This particular doctrine is absent in the Apostolic period, has zero biblical basis whatsoever, only becomes main stream 600 years after the beginning of the church, and was only adopted as dogma in the 1950s under penalty of losing your salvation. Meaning that all the Christians in the first 600 years of the church are not saved. If that makes any sense to anyone, it's only because you accept on faith whatever the magisterum of the Church says.
Trent I respect you and love your videos but I have to disagree with you about evidence of Mary Assumption. Unlike Elijah and Enonch There is NO mention of it in the Bible or church Fathers and you my use arguments from silence but you could say that about anything. Why wasnt Paul taken to Heaven?
@@sonsofpolaris6102 There is still NO scripture that states,implies or even implied in the Bible or even early non-canon Christian Books. It wasnt even CathoilcChurch Doctine until 1854. Why did it take them so long after 1854 years to realise this?
Nice and rational… except…Paul received his theology directly from the post resurrected Jesus with the command to bring that theology to the gentiles for our salvation. He does not mention Mary at all. That may not mean the Marian dogmas are false but it certainly means that, if true, they are unimportant to our faith and salvation.
A worse problem for the Catholic claim about Mary's alleged assumption into heaven isn't that the early church fathers are silent about it, but it's also that the Bible, itself, is silent about it. Arguments from silence are not always fallacious (just as most fallacies are not always fallacious). Arguments from silence are not fallacious if we would expect it to be mentioned. The Bible specifically mentions Enoch and Elijah were bodily assumed into heaven. If it didn't, we would never know that they had been. So if Mary had been bodily assumed into heaven, surely Scripture would have mentioned it so that we would know it happened to her, too. The problem here is that one must assume Catholic doctrines about Mary in order to believe that she was bodily assumed into heaven, which seems to make it a question begging argument that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven because Catholic doctrines about Mary don't come from Scripture, they come from church tradition. So since Scripture is silent about Mary's bodily assumption into heaven, that seems to add weight to the argument from silence regarding early church fathers. It seems to imply that this was not made an official doctrine until sometime later in the church.
I have a question about who has the burden of proof. Does it fall to the Catholic to prove the Assumption (since the Church claims that Mary was assumed)? Or to the Protestant to prove why it was necessary for scripture and the Early Church Fathers to write about it? This seems like two sides of the same coin, but which is correct? I guess it depends on how the topic statement is phrased. Thoughts?
As a Catholic dogma, it is logical that the CC should prove the Ascension. Likewise, as Protestants typically reject the Assumption, they should prove their claim. Whilst scripture shows no evidence for the Assumption & the early fathers very little, Protestants claim victory. However, as Mary was immaculately conceived Lk 1 28-38, was the Ark of the New Covenant carrying Jesus, is the Queen of Heaven (type of Esther) & the woman of Rev 12 it is implicit that Mary was assumed into Heaven. If you believe that isn’t the case, where are her relics. Mary was saved at the moment of her conception & lived a sinless life, so it would be natural for her son to take her pure body to heaven. Elijah & Elisha were also taken up to heaven.
I'm a non believer who enjoys Trent's content but these kinds of videos are usually his worst. He will argue some weak historical evidence(basically church tradition) where he can find a scholar to argue that although it really started in the 5th century, the scholar thinks it goes back **possibly** earlier. No argument is really given as to why this is plausible rather than just possible and what other scholars think. Then he realizes how weak these defenses are and defaults to the usual catch-all: "Protestants believe things for bad reasons, so catholics are allowed to do the same". This kind of argument is extremely disconcerting to anyone from the outside looking in who is looking for sound reasons for belief. It just lowers the overall integrity of the stronger intellectual arguments made on the channel. Even so I'll keep watching cause overall he is a string conservative debater/thinker even if I disagree with his conclusions.
Trent, will you make a video on how NOT to interact with the saints in heaven? For example, can we ask St. Anthony of Padua to help us find our lost car keys? And how would that h happen? Does he just so let pray to God that request? Does he have supernatural insight and the ability to transfer it to us? Etc. I think this would bridge a huge gap between Catholics and Protestants.
Hi Trent! Is there a date where the actual Assumption was to have occurred? Could it have happened after all of the letters and Gospel’s were written but before Revelation was written?
It would undermine the claim by the Roman catholic church that it cannot err in matters of faith and morals. This is why RC apologists work so hard to spin these doctrines that have no biblical support and are false.
Hey Trent, I'm a layman when it comes to these issues, but when someone say that the assumption of Mary is a dogma, is the dogma in the same level as the belief that Jesus rose from the dead, that the bible is inspired by God and so on?
Jesus rose from the dead is both a dogma and a "mode of credibility", which means that the church gets her legitimacy from that historical truth. But yes, the dogma of the Assumption is on the same level as the dogma of inspiration
Interesting how James White, in the debate with you, on Perseverance of the saints, in the beginning of his closing statement, mocked the Assumption of Mary! The Queen is not pleased!
While definitely not all are of this nature, I do think many Protestant pastors care more about defending the doctrines that allow them to have a cushy job lording it over others than they do actually being right with God or humbling themselves before the truth.
Theres a channel called redeemed zoomer... hes a young guy but pretty smart.... lots of subs and hes a presby. His whole goal is to retore historical protestant values to the mainline church. Hes respectful but not very knowledgeable about catholics. Ive been pressuring him on restoring historic protestant marian doctrines as well. Im hoping he makes a video soon... i find it amusing reading the quotes of the reformers about Mary. Also nobody on that channel seems interested in the Tilma of our lady of Guadaloupe either.
15:17 IT can be added, both the Protestants you are speaking of, and the Catholics in the time of Pope St. Pius X believed that the Exodus narrative we have was written by none other than Moses, one of the participants. IN other words, those "historians" are wrong.
“In order to disprove the dogma, you have to disprove the authority of the church that gives this dogma to us.” Isn’t the reverse true? As a Protestant, I am unconvinced of the Catholic Church’s ability to inerrantly declare historical events like this. Don’t you have to prove their ability to do so?
Yes. The authority of the Church should be demonstrated for someone to accept that it has this authority, but its authority would need to be disproved in order to disprove the dogma (not that disproving its authority would disprove the dogma, but that it is necessary for the Church's authority to be disproved in order for the dogma to be, for if the Church has this authority then the dogma is necessarily true). Otherwise, one should remain agnostic on the truthfulness of this doctrine unless it is demonstrated through another means (the Scriptures, history, tradition, etc.), or until the Church's authority is demonstrated.
@@repentantrevenant9776 Once we become Christians, the starting point is usually that Christ resurrected, vindicating His claims (at least that He was the Messiah and taught with Divine authority). From there it gets harder with the historical retrieval of Jesus's teachings. Basically, we need to believe in Jesus, in what He taught and did. In order to prove that Jesus established a Church that he taught would be protected from error in what she teaches, and that Church is found today in the Catholic Church, one would have to go through the historical sources or documents we have that could help us understand what Christ taught. If it is likely, using these sources, that Christ did establish a Church with a charism of infallibility, and it can be shown that that today is the Catholic Church, then the claim can be demonstrated. To disprove it, one would have to demonstrate that Christ did not establish a Church or that He taught that the Church is not protected from error. This seems really hard to do to me, so I don't think it can be disproved, properly speaking. However, if there is not enough evidence He did do this, I can understand why someone would not believe He did. I don't think putting it in terms of "ability to discern past events" is the most helpful way of thinking about it, though. I think it's better seen as the Church being "lead into all the truth" by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13), whose office, as Tertullian would say in "The Praescription Against Heretics" in circa A.D. 200, is to keep the churches from understanding and believing differently from what He Himself was preaching by the apostles. (I am not really trying to prove it here; I am just trying to frame the situation). I think Suan Sonna makes a pretty good case for it in his Biblical Case for and Infallible Magisterium, at this url: www.academia.edu/49351757/The_Biblical_Case_for_an_Infallible_Magisterium. I think there may be a video on RUclips.
@@AJ-hi4lx Why do Catholics refuse to use any other means to demonstrate it? Why do Catholics choose only to use Church authority rather than history or tradition for the assumption of Mary?
@@YajunYuanSDA Precisely this. The case for Catholicism (or Protestantism) should be cumulative, and involve multiple independent lines of evidence. The fact that Catholic apologists so often retreat back to arguments form authority, which are both circular and unfalsifiable, is a negative indicator for Catholicism imo
I believe the best definition of apostolic tradition is "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus" (translated as "that which has been believed always, everywhere, by everyone"), attributed to Vincent of Lérins in the 5th century. Unfortunately, I think this dogma fails this test. Especially if we affirm the concept in the positive - where it must be demonstrated the belief existed. If we dont demonstrate, then that is an argument from silence made by Catholics - asserting a universal belief of the church that the testimony is silent on until very late. As a spiritually homeless non-protestant, non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christian, I have no problem people believing things like this. I think its a valid belief. But I cannot believe it myself - and as such, I kind of resent dogmas that contribute to my spiritual homelessness by requiring beliefs in things that are outside of the essentials of salvation as defined by demonstrable apostolic tradition.
Thanks for including Saint Ignatius in the thumbnail. Most for most Jesuits, this is the anniversary of our vow day!
Mary who died in 43AD or who died in 48AD or who died in 53AD or who died in 63AD or who died after the last book of the NT was written or who never died. Mary who died in the place of Jerusalem or who in the place in the place of Ephesus or who never died. Mary whose death was by God (e.g. Moses) or whose death was natural (e.g. old age) or whose death was by murder or who never died. Who was assumed immediately after death or who was assumed the following night or who was assumed three days after death or who was assumed seven months after death or who was assumed without death.
From the above account Catholics can be 100% historically certain that Mary went bodily into heaven on August 15th because Eugenio Pacelli claimed in 1950AD that the 1st century Apostles deposited this as historical fact to the Roman Catholic Church.
Are you kidding me? He was leader of the inquisitions and also wrote that horrific Jesuit Oath of Induction. Read it. It still is on the books and is still being used! 😈🔥👹☠
@@Revelation18-4 no offense, but he was never an inquisitor. He was jailed by the inquisitors. I've been a Jesuit for 23 years, took all the vows, been a superior, been the director of a work, made the full 30 day exercises twice... The oath you're referring to was a hoax made up by enemies of the Jesuits. I encourage you to research a bit more.
@@Revelation18-4 is this what you spend your free time doing? Trolling comments on Trent’s videos? Very Christian like behaviour LOL 😂
@@FrJohnBrownSJ Do you believe Epiphanius taught the bodily assumption of Mary?
I pray that you get acknowledgment by the Catholic Church even from the pope himself. I don’t think they are aware at how much you are doing for the church. In this day of RUclips you are reaching far more people than they realize. God bless you and thank for being one of the reasons I’ve came back to the church.
Yes, just from the work he's done he's probably more than eligeble to some award like knighthood of the order of Saint Gregory
The most under-appreciated part of your channel is your absolutely stellar VOLUME levels 🌟may God bless you so hard for that
Are you Catholic?
Thank you Trent for all your great work for the Catholic Church.
_"...all your great work for the Catholic Church."_
Should cannibalism and human sacrifice be condemned or worshiped?
@@twitherspoon8954what is this the 100ad Roman Senate? You got to be more original than that, it's The year of our Lord 2023..But followers always follow, and the weak, and confused, are the ones who follow so what's new, because this claim sure as shit is not..
@@twitherspoon8954 😒🙄
@@thenazarenecatholic
Are you denying that the literal worship of human sacrifice is the core tenet of Christianity? You know, that cross and John 3:16...
Christians believe that God sent one of his sons to be tortured and killed as a sacrificial offering (a practice adopted from Paganism).
They worship this human sacrifice as part of a ritual intended to appease a god. In Christian theology, atonement refers to the forgiving of sin by using Jesus as the human sacrifice.
Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it:
Romans 8:32
"He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all."
1 Corinthians 5:7
"Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."
Romans 3:25
"God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement."
Romans 5:8
"God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us."
Hebrews 10:10
"We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."
@@twitherspoon8954youre being overly fececious and you misrepresent our position by not then explaining what the sacrifice was for.
Youre a disingenuous critic and all you want to do is argue.
We praise God for his sacrifice to save humanity, to take on the punishment of man.
Cannibalism? You mean the eucharist? Its symbolic and literal, but no person is being hurt in the process of recieving it.
As a video producer, I feel that pain for you losing video files 😭
Timestamp 0:29 as a fellow video producer see you if can coax Trent Horn into do a 100k subscriber live special
Do you believe Epiphanius taught the bodily assumption of Mary?
@@yajunyuan76650⁰⁰⁰⁰0⁰⁰0⁰⁰⁰0000ppppppppp
Thank you for defending our Mama
I struggle with this a lot. I understand and agree that we can and should venerate the Blessed Mother of Jesus, but that line by Trent, “Mary’s role is not to attract vain attention to herself, but to always lead people to her son, Jesus Christ” I find difficult to understand.
I think there are a lot of Catholics who don’t center their salvation on Mary or put her on equal footing to Christ. That said, I just took a trip up towards Wisconsin with my Protestant wife and Catholic family (my side) to the Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help.
The statuary, the Catholic shops, the shrine itself, intercessory prayers to the Virgin Mary, and emphasis on the visionary of the shrine, all scared the wits out of my wife.
I tried explaining how and why Christ is at the center using my knowledge obtained by Trent’s videos and yet there wasn’t much wiggle room left to see Jesus. To her, it was all praise given to Mary alone with the added bandaid of, “through Mary, to Christ”.
Lastly, I so badly want to return to the sacraments and show my wife that Christ is truly at the center of it all. That the saints are alive and witnessing everything that happens on earth.
That’s the best I could offer her, yet her heart was hardened by the experience.
Pray for us, brothers and sisters in Christ.
Praying for you, brother. Frankly, I do think this sort of thing shows a massive problem. For instance, consider the morning consecration:
"My Queen, my Mother! I give myself entirely to thee, and to show my devotion to thee I consecrate to thee this day, my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my whole being without reserve, Wherefore, good Mother, as I am thine own, keep me, guard me, as thy property and possession."
This prayer encourages the faithful to offer themselves to Mary as their property, possession--to give their whole being to Mary. Just saying "and through her to Christ", as you say, is a poor bandaid--you could justify just about any act of worship to a creature like that.
Now, one might say "well you don't have to pray that prayer and can disagree with it because it's not infallibly taught by the magisterium." True, but even non-infallible teaching is said to be protected from being harmful to souls. But I don't see how this sort of prayer can be anything other than harmful to souls, and the kind of devotion it issues forth seen in the Shrine you visited.
❤🙏🏼❤️ my wife is Protestant also (non- denominational to be specific) and IF she ever converted this would be the last bridge to cross. Very difficult for Protestants to understand/ get on board with.
I will remember you at Holy Mass today
Please refer to Dr Scott Hahn to help your wife
Here is The TRUE Savior
YaH The Heavenly FATHER (Genesis 1) HIMSELF was Who they Crucified/Pierced for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF”
From the Ancient Egyptian Semitic:
"Yad He Vav He" is what Moshe (Moses) wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3)
Ancient Egyptian Semitic Direct Translation
Yad - "Behold The Hand"
He - "Behold the Breath"
Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
Happy Feast of the Assumption of Mary
Makes sense, Trent!🎉
You never disappoint us in all your videos, buddy!❤
I have just started praying the holy rosary and have pondered this question when meditating on the 4th Glorious Mystery. Thank you for this video 🙏🏼.
Why don't you read Anne Catherine Emmerich or Mary of Agreda .....download it from the internet....the assumption is there .....actually dictated to these people by Jesus Himself.....
So don't worry about humans today giving you their theories .
Trent is good listen to him
Stop praying on those idol beads and go to Jesus directly for prayer. Jesus is the only mediator between God and man.
1 Timothy 2:5 read your bible.
@@chommie5350 Ann Emmerich was into satanic rituals. She was evil. She also practiced levitation.
@@Revelation18-4 What idol are you referring to?
Very well done Trent. God bless you. Happy Feats of our Blessed Mother's Assumption!!
Here is The TRUE Savior
YaH The Heavenly FATHER (Genesis 1) HIMSELF was Who they Crucified/Pierced for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF”
From the Ancient Egyptian Semitic:
"Yad He Vav He" is what Moshe (Moses) wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3)
Ancient Egyptian Semitic Direct Translation
Yad - "Behold The Hand"
He - "Behold the Breath"
Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
Happy feast day of the Panagia and Theotokos to you Catholics from an Orthodox.
Thanks!
Do you believe Epiphanius taught the bodily assumption of Mary?
Hi from the Philippines! We love you Trent! Mother Mary Pray for us!
Love that you brought up Moses 🙏 so much to ponder. Thank you ☺️
Thank you brother 🙏 God bless you and your family.
A Blessed Feast of the Assumption to you Trent. Ο Θεός να ευλογεί.
Hello
Thanks for explaining this domain. May Mary the mother of Jesus pray for us. Amen
You are such a great help when it comes to better understanding my Faith and by extension, with the Lord.
The assumption of Mary is one of the most good and beautiful truths we know!
As a protestant convert of 15years, it was something that I merely assented to for a long time (based on "if they're right about the real presence, apostolic succession, etc, then they're probably right about this too.") But this year, when it finally sank in - wow. Praise to the Queen of Heaven! And Glory to God who makes all things possible.
Having said that, this is a tough one to argue. Of all doctrines, it seems to most clearly enuniciate our confidence in Holy Tradition. Thanks for the good work, Trent.
I'm a Protestant, and I believe in the assumption
Cool! What denomination are you? I had no idea there were Protestants who believed this.
Reformer Heinrich Bullinger believed in the Assumption
@@gunsgalore7571 I'm currently affiliated with the PCA, the Presbyterian Church in America. My views are too high church to be labeled Presbyterian, so I just go by high church Protestant.
@@ianpardue2615 Is it common for high church Protestants to believe in the assumption? I ask this solely for my own education... I thought it was just Catholics and Orthodox who believed in this.
@@gunsgalore7571 Within high church Protestantism, it is usually seen as an opinion that is neither required for salvation, nor forbidden to hold to, since the Holy Scriptures don't clearly allude to it. Depending on the church as well. Me and my padre don't see eye to eye about Mary. He accuses me of trying to lead the Reformed Church either to Rome or into Lutheranism and Anglicanism. My views on blessed Mary are:
I hold to both the perpetual virginity and the bodily assumption of the Mother of God. I also hold to the belief that she was free from personal sin. I see evidence for in Luke 1, Revelation 12, and from the New Eve title that was given to her by St Justin Martyr and St Irenaeus of Lyons.
I agree with the Queen of Heaven and the Mother of the Church titles (Revelation 12:1, 17).
I honor Mary under the title of Our Lady of La Leche, since I see evidence for that title from art from the second century, and from Psalm 22:9, Luke 11:26-27, and Hebrews 2:17.
That is all.
My uber secular town happens to have so many Mass offerings today that there's just no excuse to miss this Holy Day of Obligation. 🩵 Headed for the 12:15 myself, hail Holy Queen, pray for us. 🙏 📿
I went to the 8:30 mass bc I had a guitar lesson at noon. But then the lesson got canceled XD.
@fury_blade9303 D'oh! Our 8am was Latin (and the second mass of the day, but still too early for me)
God bless you brother Trent Horn,, you are amazing. Catholic as always ❤️.
Are you from PNG? I agree, Trent Horn is amazing.🙏🙏
@@jenniegermale2592 yes,, I am Papua New Guinean. Indeed, Trent Horn is the true gift to the Catholic Church. Thank you and God bless you. Amen 🙏
@@MaranglikPeterTo-Rot-dm4nc hi, fellow Papua New Guinean here. Nice to meet you. Thank you and God bless you too.🙏
@@jenniegermale2592 ❤️❤️
@@jenniegermale2592 Portable Network Graphics?
(What? No I didn’t just look up what a PNG file was just to make that joke what are you talking about?)
Good job at explaining it TH.
I love your content. I really enjoy the longer videos and rebuttals. I’m also looking forward to your upcoming debates.
Im extremely greatful you revisited this. Great job.
Blessed feast day! It’s my birthday today, I guess I was always meant to convert haha. Ave Maria, Vive Christo Rey.😊
Since I was born in October, I guess I was meant to be a Protestant
@@Wgaither1cringe
GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH ❤
Trent, As I have been watching your videos lately, I have found that you have improved greatly in your speaking and debating skills. I am a Protestant with a video request. It’s based around Mike Winger’s videos since I found that your rebuttal to his videos on Catholicism revolved around explaining Catholic Doctrine rather than showing what Mike Said is somehow incorrect. Mike Even made a video addressing this. I would really like to see a reboot of examining Mike Winger’s videos on Catholicism. His videos played an instrumental videos in my journey to understanding Catholicism.
(If you are interested in this, I’d like to note that I remember his first video being more of a regular sermon, and his later videos in the series being more of the accusations against the Catholic church.)
Trent you are one intellectual Catholic master.
He’s three, actually. (He has three Masters.)
@drjanitor3747
Jealousy will get you no where?
I have 10 years of study of Catholicism and he puts my intellect to shame.
@@robertajaycart3491 Do you believe Epiphanius taught the bodily assumption of Mary?
@YajunYuanSDA
If Elijah, how much more the Mother of Christ.
Epiphanius gives us, in section 79 of Panarion, a point-blank statement that is overlooked today by many:
Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death.
St. Epiphanius clearly indicates his personal agreement with the idea that Mary was assumed into heaven without ever having died. He will elsewhere clarify the fact that he is not certain, and no one is, at least not definitively so, about whether or not she died. But he never says the same about the Assumption itself. That did not seem to be in doubt. By comparing her to Elijah, he indicates that she was taken up bodily, just as the Church continues to teach 1,600 years later.
Since the time of the promulgation of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, there has been much new discovery. We now have written evidence of belief in the Assumption of Mary as far back as the third century. Though it is not necessary for there to be written evidence all the way back to the second century for us as Catholics because we have Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church first and foremost that has already given us the truth of the Matter, I believe it is really exciting that new historical discoveries continue to be made and once again . . . and again . . . and again, they confirm the Faith of our Fathers.
Thank you Trent. Very informative video. God bless you and your family🙏
I am so grateful to God and my wonderful parents that I am Catholic and I hope that our Protestant brothers and sisters will come to full belief in the Church.
❤️🙏♥️
I believe in Jesus, and God the Father.
@@geordiewishart1683Holy Spirit?
Here is The True Savior
YaH The Heavenly FATHER (Genesis 1) HIMSELF was Who they Crucified/Pierced for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF”
From the Ancient Egyptian Semitic:
"Yad He Vav He" is what Moshe (Moses) wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3)
Ancient Egyptian Semitic Direct Translation
Yad - "Behold The Hand"
He - "Behold the Breath"
Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
@@geordiewishart1683
You cannot have TWO Masters, either pick the “son” OR The “Father” but you CANNOT have both
Praise YaH The FATHER and no other
It is telling that John's Apocalypse, which was one of the last books of the New Testament to be written, mentions Mary in heaven....
That woman in Revelation is symbolic of twelve tribed Israel.
It is not Mary.
@@geordiewishart1683 whatever you say, friend. ❤️
Catholics would look at Revelation 12:1-2 and interpret “the woman clothed with the sun” as being a reference to Mary. Is this position correct? No, it is not.
If you notice the text in verse 2 it says that she was “with child and she cried out being in labor and in pain.” This is a problem because according to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Mary did not inherit Original Sin.
CCC 491, “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”
If you’re not familiar with the concept of Original Sin, it is “the hereditary fallen nature and moral corruption that is passed down from Adam to his descendants.”1 Sin entered the world through Adam (Romans 5:12). He is the first man who committed sin, and that sin is reckoned to all people (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:18). This means that all descendants of Adam are under the effects of original sin. Part of the curse of the Fall that caused Original Sin is spoken of by God in Genesis 3.
Gen. 3:16, “To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you shall bring forth children. Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.’”
Notice that part of the curse is pain in childbirth. This is why women suffer during the birth process. So, when we look back to the text of Revelation 12:1-2, we see that the woman clothed with the sun is suffering birth pain. Since the Roman Catholic position is that Mary could not be suffering birth pain (because of her Immaculate Conception and no Original Sin), then these verses cannot be about Mary.
First, in the OT, the imagery of the sun, moon, and stars refers to the nation of Israel. Joseph said, “I have had still another dream; and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me” (Gen. 37:9). Osborne writes, “In Jewish literature ‘twelve stars’ often refers to the twelve patriarchs or the twelve tribes.”[1]
Second, the Bible frequently uses the imagery of a woman to refer to Israel, Zion, or Jerusalem. Paul writes, “The Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother” (Gal. 4:26). Jeremiah writes, “Surely, as a woman treacherously departs from her lover, so you have dealt treacherously with Me, O house of Israel” (Jer. 3:20; c.f. Isa. 54:1-6; Ezek. 16:8-14; Hos. 2:19-20; Micah 4:9-10).
Third, in the OT, the image of being protected by eagle’s wings refers to Israel. In Exodus 19:4, we read, “You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings, and brought you to Myself.” This seems to fit with the language in Revelation 12:14, where we read, “The two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she was nourished.”
Fourth, the Woman is protected in the wilderness for 1,260 days. This fits with the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27, which is directed to Israel (“your people and your holy city”). This iteration of 3.5 years is mentioned five times through this section of Revelation (Rev. 11:2; 11:3; 12:6; 12:14; 13:5). Clearly, this time span of three and a half years must be important to the author. This seems to fit with half of the seven years, where the Antichrist will be in power (Dan. 9:26-27).
Fifth, Daniel 12 predicted that Michael would rise up at this time to protect Israel (Dan. 12:1). Daniel writes, “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued” (Daniel 12:1). We see a fulfillment of this, when John writes, “There was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war” (Rev. 12:7).
Sixth, Jesus is said to rule the nations with a rod of iron. In Revelation 19:15, we read, “From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron.” Thus the man-child of verse 5 must be Jesus-not the Church.
Mary?
Roman Catholic interpreters argue that the woman here is Mary, Jesus’ mother.[2] Advocates of this interpretation argue that the woman is referred to in the singular (Rev. 12:5, 17). If the nation of Israel or the Church were really in view, then why is this woman just a singular person? Also, the most natural and straightforward reading would be to think of this as Jesus’ mother, Mary. Of course, critics of this view make a number of counter arguments:
First, this is symbolic language, and it shouldn’t be read rigidly. Since we are reading apocalyptic literature, we shouldn’t place too much weight on the fact that this is spoken of as a singular woman.
Second, when did the 1,260 days of nourishment occur in Mary’s life, as the text explains (vv.6, 14)? This time frame, which is mentioned five times in the text (Rev. 11:2; 11:3; 12:6; 12:14; 13:5), seems to fit best with Daniel’s vision of the 70th seven in Daniel 9:27 (as argued above).
Third, when was Mary persecuted so intensely? John writes, “When the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child” (v.13). Roman Catholic interpreters usually identify this with Mary seeing Jesus crucified in front of her. But this doesn’t seem to fit the language of Revelation 12.
Fourth, Roman Catholics believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin-not giving birth to more children. While the Bible affirms that Mary had more children (Mt. 1:25; 12:46-47; 13:55; Mk. 6:2-3; Jn. 2:12; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:4-5; Gal. 1:19), Roman Catholics argue that this Greek word for “brothers” (adelphos) should actually be translated cousins. While NT scholars disagree with this view,[3] this precludes Mary from being the woman from a Roman Catholic perspective. If Mary remained a perpetual virgin, then who are “the rest of her children” mentioned at the end of the chapter? (Rev. 12:17)
Here is The True Savior
YaH The Heavenly FATHER (Genesis 1) HIMSELF was Who they Crucified/Pierced for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF”
From the Ancient Egyptian Semitic:
"Yad He Vav He" is what Moshe (Moses) wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3)
Ancient Egyptian Semitic Direct Translation
Yad - "Behold The Hand"
He - "Behold the Breath"
Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
Great video!
Love your work and efforts. Thank you for this amazing video. 🙏
Long live Jesus, Long live the Mother of God❤
Great analysis Trent!
“Mary’s role is not to attract vain attention to herself, but to always lead people to her son, Jesus Christ” -
**Exactly!** - those who cannot understand Humility unfortunately don't yet know God! (Matthew 11:24-27)
So much so I think Our Lord **started** His whole plan for our salvation with MARY first in mind,
then worked the whole thing backwards (Isaiah 46:10) starting then with Adam & Eve - to lead up to Jesus on the cross giving Her to us at his Last!
Surely He gives us that hint at Gen 3:15 !!!
Glory to the most Holy Theotokos ☦️❤️
This is blasphemy. Glory be to God alone.
@@georgwagner937 Blasphemy? Is Jesus fully God? If so, Mary can rightfully be called Theotokos. If not, then you're re-treading Nestorianism.
Amazing content. By the way, besides all explanations, the most reasonable is the logical one: "If Jesus has brought Enoch, Moses and Elijah to his presence, even before the cross, imagine how much he would do to His beloved mother". Maybe the many of our christians debates would be solved just using the logic and realizing that fact we are talking about God, the one who is most zealous and who is love by nature.
Thanks Trent. You are awesome.
Dr. Ortlund has a new video responding to 6 common defenses of the Assumption that came out around the time this one came out. Just an FYI, Trent, if you are interested.
As a former Protestant, I came to realize that Protestants selectively pick and choose which "Church Traditions/History" that they want to believe. If it falls in line with their thinking, it must be true. But, if it doesn't than it was just "made up"
For example, ask almost any Protestant how St. Peter and St. Paul died and most would respond that St. Peter was crucified upside down and St. Paul was beheaded. This is NO WHERE in the Bible, but is from Church Tradition. Same goes with the deaths of the other Apostles, they believe those Church Traditions. Protestants trust the judgements of the Ecumenical Councils when it comes to the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and Jesus Christ's two natures of both man and divine and other foundational beliefs, but then want to say that they just got all the other stuff wrong that they don't want to believe in.
Please don't get me started on their idea of "Sola Scriptura", but can't admit where the scriptures came from in the first place and do some mental gymnastics to justify that the canon of scripture wasn't put together by the church itself.
I’ve always known Protestantism to be incoherent. That is why I knew if Christianity was true it would have to be Catholicism. But upon discovering these huge historical problems, such as the assumption, I could not remain catholic. I now no longer believe Christianity.
@@thatgirlray2765 I would suggest you read, "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary" by Brant Pitre. It explains from the Bible all that Ctholics believe about Mary.
@@pixurguy4915 that doesnt prove it actually happened, that’s reading what Catholics want to be true INTO the text. If it weren’t the case, it wouldn’t be just a catholic scholar who finds it. Pitre is slimy apologetics at best, i suggest you look into him and actual academic criticisms of him and his work.
The Trinity is in scripture, if you dont believe that why even be Christian. Imagine sacrificing the core essential of God’s identity to defend medieval folklore.
It's not about history OR myth - it's about the reality of the heart and conclusions of the heart from the incarnation and what it means and it's extent in influence and Mary's place in redemption.
I am Eastern Orthodox and today we celebrated the feast of the Dormition-people bring flowers to put around the plinth holding the icon of the Dormition - we offer her the most tender reverence.
History can wait and myth is not a factor.
Hey, Trent, I would love to see some engagement with the redeemed Zoomer channel! He's a very intelligent, thoughtful and gracious presbyterian, who discusses lots of mere christian issues/doctrine and some calvinist theology. He really deserves the recognition!
Hi Trent. Really like your channel as a source of calm and thoughtful presentations of Roman Catholic doctrine. Having said that I think the idea that Mary didnt see death is irrelevant to the christain faith. Christ is the mediator between God and man and we are commanded by Paul that everthing we do and say is thu the name of Jesus so to me the effective prayer is directed to the Father in the name of Jesus. The danger to me is the elevation of Mary above Christ if the focus is shifted from Christ to Mary in prayers. I dont think the saints in heaven need our prompting to pray for us. Revelations clearly shows they are praying for us whether we are asking them or not.
Rev 12 shows the Mother of the Messiah bodily in heaven (clothed and crowned) unlike the other souls mentioned in Revelation. Also John's gospel always refers to Mary as "the woman" (Eve before the Fall), as does Rev 12.
"The woman of the Apocalypse clothed with the sun, which in its *literal* sense must be taken to mean the church,..." (Fundamentals of Catholica Dogma, Ludwig Ott)
Yes, interesting that Jesus never refers to Mary as his mother. Jesus has never given Mary the title 'mother of God'.
@@yajunyuan7665 "Jesus never refers to Mary as his mother" LOL, are you saying Jesus didn't have a mother?? You really think Jesus did not think of Mary as His mother?? She was just some vessel that gave birth to Him, fed Him with her own breast, changed his diapers, taught Him the things all mothers teach their children, held Him when He cried, etc. How wacko fringe do you and other Protestants want to go??
Is it not good enough for you that the Holy Spirit gave Mary the title Mother of God? (Are you really going to twist yourself into a knot over the difference between God and LORD?)
"Elizabeth was filled with *the Holy Spirit* and she exclaimed with a loud cry, 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that *the mother of my Lord* should come to me?'" Lk 1:42-43
Need I cite other passages in the Spirit-inspired Scripture where Mary is called His mother?
"On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there" Jn 2:1
By calling her woman, giving her the title that Eve had before the Fall, Jesus honors her. The earliest Church fathers (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus) pick up on this, comparing her to Eve.
I think I'll go with the early Church over Ott (assuming you even quoted him in proper context), which accepted both interpretations and saw Mary as the literal interpretation and the Church as the figurative interpretation:
"No one of you is ignorant of this: that the dragon is the devil; nor of this: that the woman signifies the Virgin Mary, who being inviolate, brought forth our Head inviolate; at the same time she represented in her person Holy Church in figure, that as she remained a virgin in bringing forth her Son, so also the Church brings forth His members at all times, without any loss to her virginity."
-Quovultdeus (c. 430 AD), early Church father and bishop (De Symbolo 3)
Always tricky labeling something "literal" in a work like Revelation. But I think it is completely clear to anyone that a person claiming that the woman is really the Church is NOT appealing to the literal sense of the word "woman." Does this really need to be argued??
Tony, the poster said that Jesus is never recorded as calling Mary his mother.
The quotes you provide are not attributed to Jesus.
@@geordiewishart1683 Do I need to spell it out for you?!
Jesus is God. God is the primary author of Scripture. Scripture says Mary is Jesus' mother, the Mother of the Lord/God. Can you follow the logical chain which results in "Jesus says Mary is Jesus' mother"?
What exactly are we arguing about here? The point being made by the poster is not only irrelevant but misleading.
Even if I were to concede that Jesus never calls Mary His mother, SO WHAT?! What would that supposedly mean? STOP beating around the bush and just come out and say the ridiculous thing that lies behind it! Because by itself, it would not actually have any significance compared to the truth about Mary according to God's Word in Scripture.
Are you saying Jesus didn't have a mother?? Are you saying Mary did not give birth to Jesus?? Are you Jesus did not think of Mary as His mother?? Are you saying Jesus did not honor Mary as His mother? Spit it out.
@@tonyl3762 Do you want to know what Epiphanius says about why Jesus called her "Woman" in John?
I heard a story that one of the Eastern Churches had a Bishop who wanted to be made the Patriarch of Jerusalem. The Empress at the time enjoyed collecting relics from Jerusalem and she wrote to him asking for him to send her specific relics. He told her that St Stephen appeared to him and told him where his bones were kept. He was not above making up stories to get promoted. She said that read about the BVM in the Gospel , and that she would like him to send her a relic. He wanted to please the Empress, but he was at a loss because he didn't have a relic of Mary for obvious reasons. It might cause him to lose the promotion if he didn't send one, but he would be called out by Christians who knew she was Assumed into Heaven. He wrote her apologetically saying "Empress, I can't send you a relic of Mary's body because everyone in Jerusalem knows that her tomb is empty and her body was translated to Heaven."
Yes, it was Bishop Juvenal and Empress Pulcheria, but this shows in the *fifth* century that Mary's alleged assumption in 64AD was not universally known.
@@yajunyuan766564 AD? where did you get that date?
I have no problems with the Assumption of Mary. If God took Enoch and Elijah into heaven, why not Mary?
And Mary was clearly more close to God that Elijah and Enoch. God literally lived physically in her body and nursed from her.
You believe this so why not believe that? In 300 years we will definitely have Mary as redemptor with that line of thinking.
I wish I could find it, but I recently read somewhere in Aquinas where he refers to a sermon of St Augustine on the topic of the assumption
I find it interesting in the Marian dogma debates that one side appeals to tradition,early Church Fathers and typology as well as isegesis while the other appeals to Scripture.
In regards to the Assumption of Mary, Protestants appeal to the literal sense of Scripture and the early Church Fathers.
@@YajunYuanSDA there’s nothing in Scripture regards the assumption of Mary. It didn’t start gathering pace until mid 5th century unless you want to use some gnostic writings which were earlier
@@scottie8365Exactly, so all the early Church Fathers do not support the assumption of Mary.
@@YajunYuanSDA I put all the Marian Dogmas together which wasn’t right to do but it would take too long to break them all down one by one. But my point for the most part still stands,RC teachings appeal to early church fathers,tradition,isegesis and typology while the arguments against them mostly appeal to Scripture.
Hi Trent,
Thanks for this upload. There are a few comments that come to mind. First, the issue isn't really with Mary's assumption *as such*; if one thinks Mary was assumed to heaven, that's fine. The issue is making something necessary to salvation that wasn't unilaterally believed by the early church. Here's what Munificentissiumus Deus says:
"44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
45. Hence if *anyone*, which God forbid, should dare *willfully to deny or to call into doubt* that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."
Hence, Epiphanius from the Panarion 78: "For one option is that the holy virgin died, and was buried, her sleep in honor, her end in chastity and crowned in her virginity. Or perhaps she was killed, just as it is written, and a sword will pierce through her soul, her credit into the martyrs, her body holy in blessedness, through which light entered the world. Or she remained. For is it not possible for all things to be done by God, whatever He wishes? For no one knows her end. We ought not to honor the saints beyond what is necessary, but to honor their master. So then let us end the deception which is leading astray. For neither is Mary God, nor does she have a body from heaven but from the conception of a man and a woman, being raised according to promise, as Isaac. And let no one give offerings in her name, for he will destroy his own soul."
^^He explicitly states that no one knows her end and doesn't mention an oral tradition at all of her being assumed. Stephen Shoemaker, in the same book you cited, cites several examples of this and says on page 54 that the value of such admissions is the inability to find any significant traditions concerning Mary's end before the fifth century, and the ones that crop up at first are uncertain.
So here's the problem that poses. One can say "well the Magisterium does what it do and declares stuff infallible and indispensable to salvation because it has authority to do so", but that's not how magisterial authority works. According to Dei Verbum, the magisterium never *adds* to the apostolic deposit, but only exposits it. That means that even if one thinks Mary was assumed, there still needs to be a connection between the statement "Mary was assumed" and "if you deny it or doubt it you've fallen away from the faith"--there needs to be some theological rationale underlying that connection for it to be truly an exposition of the apostolic deposit and no more. Otherwise, the magisterium really just is adding to the apostolic deposit requirements for salvation that the apostles never themselves taught.
Yes indeed. It seems so obvious this is an addition to the deposit of faith, not an exposition of it. Likewise for the doctrine of Mary being sinless. Neither of these are taught - even implicitly - by the apostles or the early church. Unless of course we totally redefine and stretch the meaning of "implicit" beyond recognition.
As a Catholic, would love to see you and Trent debate this.
The theological truth of this Marian dogma is about the everlasting life that all who believe in Christ would be raised on the last day. Mary experienced the first resurrection.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696One thing is the Assumption, another is Mary's sinlessness. That is actually very much present in the Early Church.
@@nickdon But one can believe that all will be resurrected on the last day without believing Mary was assumed (hence Epiphanius)
My problem is that the dogma is a fundamental required belief even though any reference to it in the Christian Church until the sixth century. Even then for centuries afterwards it was not a universal doctrine,eg the venerable Bede and others.
I see it like this, all versions of the ark lead or help the people of God , Noah's saved the human race as well as animals, the ark of the covenant lead the people of Israel to the promised land as well as taking down the walls of Jericho, now the Ark of the new and everlasting covenant, our blessed Mother Mary, leads us to Jesus and his everlasting Kingdom.
Excellent!
9:16 I'd say at least the writing of the Apocalypse and of the Gospel of St. John, probably Epistles too, was after the Assumption, and this may have been the case for some Petrine Epistles too.
If Mary wasn’t Assumed into Heaven, there wouldn’t be a Feast Day for it.
She wasn't though
Where is her body then?
I easily believe if Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven, Mary was definitely assumed. Mary is the new Eve and the Ark of the covenant. There is no way her Son would allow her body to be corrupted in death.
@@GMAAndy333 Disagreeable definitely
@Anthony-fk2zu your logic is flawless.
GET EM TRENT!
I would then ask, "If she wasn't assumed, then where is her body?" Then proceed to listen to them explain how the Catholic Church hid her body. 😂
Umm where’s Peter’s body?
Where’s Paul’s body?, How about any of the Apostles? Heck folks asking who’s buried in Grant’s tomb?
@@darinbracy8433 buried under Catholic Churches.
@@darinbracy8433We have bodily relics of the apostles and martyrs, including the first martyr, St. Stephen. It was the norm for Christians to gather the relics of apostles and saints once they died as a way to venerate them, and the Catholic Church has tons of relics, some of them uncorrupted. This is why it's such a big deal that we do not have any bodily relics of Mary - Christians definitely would have tried to get her bodily relics if they could have. But they couldn't, because her body was assumed into heaven.
Just because a body cannot be located doesn't mean that that person went to heaven.
God disposed of Moses body in some unknown location.
Moses is still dead.
@@tongakhan230 your tradition doesn't believe in the Transfiguration?
@Tylerstrodtman
0 seconds ago
I’m not sure many Protestants say that they don’t believe Mary was assumed bodily into heaven because it doesn’t explicitly say it in the Bible. Hopefully thoughtful Protestants would say it differently, something to the effect of how scripture doesn’t say it happened, we have no conceptual or theological grounding to assume that it did, and just because one denomination says dogmatically that it did, doesn’t prove anything. I can appreciate what you said about Mary’s role in salvation is to point away from herself and to her son Jesus, much like how John the Baptist said, and though I do think as salvation is a matter of supreme importance, we are warranted in saying that the scriptures ought to have some mention of her on the salvation process and she is noticeably absent, my experience with Catholics taking about Mary is the opposite, namely that she becomes a focus in and of herself, and Christ fades away in the discussion.
The Book of Mary's Repose survives complete in Ge'ez, but fragments exists in other languages. Shoemaker's book has a translation of the entire text, and even includes the fragments side by side with the Ge'ez version.
My question for Catholics would be this: what about the Marian doctrines other than Mary being mother of God make them central enough to Christianity to be dogma? If the Catholic church is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ, surely belonging to it is very important. Why make it so that you cannot be a Catholic without believing specific details about Mary like that she was assumed into Heaven, was born sinless, and was a virgin forever? How is this stuff so central to being a Christian in the one true church that anyone who doesn't believe these things cannot be Catholic?
So if I understand this correctly, the early church father's knew Mary was assumed, but not if it was after or before her death. That by itself brings big questions. I would thought that would be an important detail that the people would know if in fact it was something that happened.
a sickly elderly woman is suggently caught up into heaven, how do you determine if she had died or not?
I don't think the host of the hoise could afford to have a doctor by her bedside all the time to verify exactly when she'd die
@@tafazzi-on-discord We know Elijah was assumed without dying, We know Moses was assumed after dying. Unless you think Mary was in total isolation and then when she was assumed suddenly she was surrounded by eye witnesses then there is no way to explain no one knowing the end of Mary.
@@yajunyuan7665 yes because Elijah was a healthy man that was talking to Elisha right up to the moment of the assumotion, while Moses' assumption took place some time after his death (Satan contended with Micheal)
@@tafazzi-on-discord Correct, but no one knows what happened to Mary.
Catholics have said she died of old age, Catholics have said she died of martyrdom, Catholics have said she never died.
This means the Catholic Church is saying no one knows what happened to her, so we are just going to say she is Heaven now because we think Mary is special. Even though the Catholic Church lacks any divine revelation on it.
@@yajunyuan7665 She was assumed into heaven, that much is divinely revealed. We get our revelation from apostles, not from false prophetesses
I ve written about how the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim antiquities of Egil (a small city way up in the mountains of Turkish Kurdistan) indirrectly reflect this doctrinal matter, in light of the lack of corporal relics of Our Lady, Mary, the Theotokos. To be brief, according to this strand of Christian history (of importance especially to Armenian Orthodox, since Egil is an holy site of the Armenian Orthodox Church, albeit one rather forgotten about now, since the Turkish government does not want tourists to be in this remote region), St. John the Evangelist conveyed Mary the Mother of Jesus and all of the other Holy Women who had surrounded Him as he hanged on the Cross to Egil (already an O.T. holy site) for their protection from persecution. All of these Holy Women are buried there EXCEPT for Mary the Mother of God. St. John himself and the Blessed Virgin Mary moved on from Egil but none of the other Holy Women did so. I've been to their reputed graves in Egil, where they are buried. As with other sites attributed to the life of Our Lady, there are no relics of Our Lady to be had from her time at Egil. Because she was assumed into heaven, her body is nowhere (and never has been after her death) still on earth. Not in Egil, desite all of those other holy women buried there and not anywhere else.
It's not really an argument from silence when you go looking for evidence to prove a doctrine and you don't find it where anyone would reasonably expect to find it...the burden of proof is on the one making the positive doctrinal claims...appealing to the idea that silence "does not disprove" is not a proof to affirm a doctrine.
Maybe you didn’t watch the entire video but he clearly said he’s not trying to prove the doctrine using the historical record but rather showing how arguments from silence used by Protestants aren’t sufficient in denying the claim.
@@kidus_1010 I'm well aware of the arguments.
@kidus_1010 obviously a strong point in the Protestant eyes is that these dogmas CAN NOT be proven from the earliest historical records therefore we should not be held to something that's not proven (especially when they are considered binding on the conscience, demanded beliefs and infallibly proclaimed and not until 1870 and 1950 respectively).
@kidus_1010 this seems to be generally conceded by Catholic apologists thus they shift to a strategy of doctrinal development hypothesis of Cardinal Newman.
@kidus_1010 I kind of anticipated someone would say what you did...that's why I pointed out that the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim...meaning your retort (and Trents) that silence doesn't disprove does not hold water...all we need to establish is that these doctrines are unproven and if they are not proven they should not be DEMANDED to be held (if they were optional beliefs we could talk). That is irrespective of the point that Trent conceded his goal was not an attempt to prove the doctrine historically.
Of all the Marian Dogmas, this is the one which is not violating the first and second of the 10 commandments or denying the mercy God has on those who do not understand their lost state.
The assumption of Mary probably wouldn't strike anyone as of great concern if it weren't for the claim of the Roman Catholic Church that to deny it or disbelieve it is tantamount to the shipwreck of faith. Pious opinions are one thing, dogmas that cannot be established from the Sacred Scripture, yet carry with them the necessity of belief for salvation, is an entirely different matter.
Additionally, given the Perfection and Sufficiency of Scripture, negative arguments or arguments from silence can be valid.
It also seems that the premise of your video depends upon its own argument from silence. "Here are all the unstated reasons why the early Fathers didn't mention the assumption of Mary." Again, given the degree to which the RC Church makes this dogma primary and fundamental, expecting to find it in the Scripture and the Early Fathers isn't so much to ask.
The Assumption is a historical event. Although it is true that the end of Mary’s life is not explicitly described in Scripture, there are allusions to it, passages that resonate with the truth of the Assumption. Here are a few examples:
“Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified” (Ps. 132:8). An ancient tradition compares Mary to the Ark of the Covenant; in that light, this passage’s reference to the sanctified ark being brought to the Lord’s resting place can be seen as speaking of Mary’s assumption.
“Come with me from Lebanon, my bridge; come with me from Lebanon” (Song of Sol. 4:8).
“And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev. 12:1ff).
We do not rely on Scripture for our belief in the Assumption, but Scripture does sort of “point to” it.
@@noahgaming8833 If Scripture "does sort of 'point to' it," this is pretty shaky ground by which to dogmatize something on pain of shipwrecking faith if you don't believe it, wouldn't you agree?
@@marcuswilliams7448 you wrote: this is pretty shaky ground by which to dogmatize something on pain of shipwrecking faith if you don’t believe it, wouldn’t you agree?
Response: I’m not an expert on this, but I feel like this is just a double standard. Why dogmatize something that can only kind of be point to it from scripture? Well, that’s like when Protestants use verses that “point out” sola scriptura, like 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All scripture (Greek, pasa graphē) is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”
There are a few points to why using this verse to support sola scriptura is setting it on a shaky one.
1. pasa graphē ordinarily would be translated “every scripture” (pasa generally means “every” rather than “all” before a singular noun like graphē). “Every scripture” would be a reference to each individual book of Scripture. Further, in the Bible the word “scripture” (singular) refers to an individual book or passage. The inspired books as a whole are “the scriptures” (plural), not “scripture.” But Paul couldn’t mean each individual book is sufficient for doctrine. Otherwise, you could do theology by “Genesis alone,” “Isaiah alone,” and so forth.
2. Paul says the books are useful toward certain goals, including teaching. But being useful merely means that something makes a contribution-not that it is uniquely and exclusively sufficient.
3. although the scriptures contribute to the goal of making the man of God “complete, equipped for every good work,” they aren’t the only things he needs. He also needs holiness, the charisms of the Holy Spirit, the correct understanding of the texts, and so on. The texts are not sufficient by themselves.
4. If we look at the context, Paul was referring to the Old Testament: “and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 3:15
I’m sure you would disagree that only the OT should be the sole rule of faith.
@@noahgaming8833 The entire point is moot, because no one believes that sola Scriptura is so fundamental that if you disbelieve it you've made shipwreck of your faith.
@@marcuswilliams7448 you wrote: No one believes that sola scriptura is so fundamental that if you disbelieve it you’ve made shipwreck of your faith.
Response: WOW! That’s a pretty big generalization to make. Sola Scriptura is the dogma of Reformed Christianity that religious or theological authority comes from the bible alone (i.e. solely from scripture).
Dogma: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
Incontrovertibly: in a way that cannot be disagreed with or denied.
So this Isn’t what you would see as making a shipwreck of your faith? Then what would happened if a Protestant denied this dogma that “cannot be disagreed with or denied”? Nothing?
I don’t know about you, but where I’m from, your statement is called a lie, Mr. Williams.
Thank you.
I don’t see how anyone can deny that Mary is without sin after the immaculate arguments you put out. You should get that published , it’s like math!
Romans 3:23 all have sinned. When the Bible has a verse this blunt and easy to understand why does one not believe it but try to find verse that they try to justify their beliefs?
@@only1gumpy941 Did Jesus sin?
Sometimes Bible verses do indeed seemingly contradict like the Roman’s 3:23
@@azophi I hope you’re not serious. If you are I suggest you read the book of John that tells you who Jesus is.
Empress Pulcheria, in the fifth century, requested Juvenal (Bishop of Jerusalem) to allow her to have the body of the Virgin, in order to display it for the public adoration of the faithful at Constantinople.
How can be if it was "universal" knowledge that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven in *64AD?*
As a non-denominational disciple of Christ, I have no problem if people want to believe that Mary was taken up to heaven.
It is not a problem or a stumbling block for me. It happened several times in the Bible, including with Enoch.
My issue is the church forcing non-biblical doctrines on us. It is not in the Bible so why do they make such a big deal of it? Why can't they just leave it be up to the individual?
By declaring it to be an infallible teaching, they force me to take a stand on it. The Bible does not speak of it, so why turn it into a stumbling block?
This is my problem with all the non-biblical doctrines that the catholic church forces on us. If it's not in the Bible then it shouldn't be taught as if it is Scripture.
In the end my problem is with church leaders who blaspheme the Name of God by calling themselves with the title of "Holy Father," and blaspheme the Word of God by claiming to speak with the same authority and infallibility as the Word of God, and adding non-biblical doctrines to the Word of God.
>non biblical
Where does the bible implicitly or explicitly say that all of Church teaching and history will be in the bible?
@@shadowsteppah it doesn't say that every teaching is in the Bible. But if there is something so vital for our salvation that it is a "must believe" doctrine, it is certainly included in Scripture.
And if it isn't a vital teaching or important for our salvation, then why does the catholic church make such a big deal of it?
Why didn't John who was adopted into Jesus' family mention the bodily assumption of Mary? Why didn't ANY of the NT writers, several of whom knew Mary personally, have mentioned her bodily assumption? If she HAD been taken up into heaven without dying, surely this would be something mentioned by John or Peter or Paul in their letters. And if they didn't think it was important enough to mention, then why does the catholic church now think it is important enough to make into an "infallible" doctrine?
The vital stuff is ALL included in Scripture. There is nothing we need for a complete spiritual life in Jesus Christ that is not given to us in Scripture. (except for our own active participation in the body and participation in the sacraments which are physical things we must do, and ALL of which ARE mentioned in Scripture).
These non-biblical doctrines about Mary are the bad fruits of a bad tree. And it starts with men blaspheming the name of God by calling themselves "Holy Father" and falsely believing that they speak with the same level of authority and infallibility as the Word of God. Sad.
Holy church tradition is authoritative. It predates even the scripture itself. The books of the Bible and the canon itself comes from said Tradition. And guess what, Catholics and all other ancient Apostolic churches dont teach Sola Scriptura.
Any kind of disrespect towards the Blessed and Holy Mother of our Lord wont be tolerated.
@Kostas_Dikefalaios disrespect?
I love Mary and I know her better than you. If you knew Mary as well as you claim to, you would know that she wants you spending your time praying to her Son, worshiping her Son, and putting your faith in Him alone.
The LAST thing she wants you to do is give her the title of a pagan goddess "queen of heaven" and bow down to images of her.
@@xrendezv0usx Not only am I going to bow down, but I am also going to kiss icons of the sinless and ever-virgin Holy Mother of God and Queen of Heaven and venerate her in every way provided by my church.
You are dishonoring her by lowering her value. Before you start talking about whats in the Bible, which you got from the Church btw, come back when you find Sola Scriptura in the scripture. Good luck, youll need it. "I know her better than you" hahaha. Its always the non dems having that arrogant attitude. Must come along with the fact that you think you are knowledgable enough to interpret a 2000 year old text all by yourself (oh and by reading a translation of said text), disregarding any kind of tradition which was practised for 2 millenia. Yeah man you are theologically much more equipped than the church fathers which were taught by the Apostles themselves. You dont even belong to a church. Dont make me laugh
An argument from silence is a valid argument - especially considering hundreds of years passed before we hear a whisper of it.
It's like me saying that the 1st amendment is wrong because I read some author who wrote in modern times saying so.
16:29 I don't think it's fair to say that a theological development tied to Scriptural interpretation like Eternal Security is really all that comparable to a historical dogma tied to a specific event. I have major concerns about the fact that Gnostic accounts describing a lot of the elements of the Marian dogmas appear like they could be the genesis of their adoption by more orthodox sources. If the Marian dogmas are Gnostic in origin, then the Roman-Catholic church has a really serious problem.
"If the Marian dogmas are Gnostic in origin, then the Roman-Catholic church has a really serious problem." I don't believe this is the case, but even if it was, this position would be in the err of the Genetic Fallacy. Because the Gnostics were shown to be heretical in previous points, doesn't mean that therefore *everything* they claimed was heretical.
Rev 12 seems to clearly point to Mary being in Heaven. So it's with in the sphere of scriptural interpretation. Also keep listening till the 16:56 mark
@@jon6car No Christian has any doubt that Mother Mary is in heaven. Even if Rev. 12 is talking specifically about Mary, it doesn't prove the assumption of Mary, which is quite a different matter.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 I didn't say it proved it. But that its in the sphere of scriptural interpretation. Which it is.
@@jon6car If Mary was assumed, I can't see why it wouldn't be clearly stated, as it was w/ Elijah and Enoch. Even w/ Moses, it is murky, but many believe he was, esp. because he was transfigured w/ Christ and Elijah.
Honestly I do not know what a protestant would point to in the Bible that would not justify the Assumption, I don't know what their claims are so this video might not apply to me. But I would say the book The Immaculate Heart of Mary by Fr. John Peter Pinamonti not only is one of the best apologetic books about Mary, but it lays down just about any argument I would make to a protestant perfectly. It also stirs up and intense joy for the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts. I don't know why it isn't more well-known, I found it by chance. I don't see it listed on the Catholic Answers site, but you should check it out.
All major Protestant Apologists on YT: *so here are the quotes of Church Fathers who say nobody knows what happened to Mary.*
Meanwhile, Trent: *So anyway, about that silly argument from silence of theirs...*
Low Trent... really low.
With this kind of approach you can succeed in arguing for anything. You can overwhelmingly prove that the Pheonix bird truly existed. In any case, the Holy Spirit guided the early witnesses to include all that mattered and I care less for other fancy later additions, it just means there are not critical to our faith.
The Holy Spirit guided the Church and still does to this day. When Protestants allow themselves to be open to the guidance of that same Spirit, they find themselves led out of Protestantism and into the Church.
@@Danaluni59 unsaved Protestants will be prone to be tossed by every wind of doctrine. Yes, the Spirit guides the church and believers, even today, that is why in 1 John 4:1, all children of God are urged to put every spirit to the test and see if they are correct. The Bible is replete with warnings about people who come with noval ideas and we must be watchful (Acts 20:28-30, Galatians 1:6-9) Somewhat, the enemy is always sneaking in to introduce weeds amongst the wheat (Matthew 13:24-30). So don't feel hurt when a Protestant exercises caution and asks, " where did these wierd doctrines which cannot be traced to any of the Apostles come from?"
Only Protestants suggest it never happened which we have homilies from our church fathers predating the canonization of the Bible speaking of Mary's assumption.
Case closed.
"predating the canonization of the Bible"
Are you using the 1546 date?
@@yajunyuan7665 AD 382 canon
I think you should topic the Iglesia Ni Kristo. The one that debated James White on the divinity of Jesus.
I have an idea. Since the Bible and early church fathers are silent on whether or not Joseph was assumed into heaven upon his death, let's say that we have progressive revelation and say that he to was assumed into heaven. For all the reasons mentioned in this video, no one could say we're wrong. In fact let's not stop there, let's say all the 12 apostles were assumed too.
@@sonsofpolaris6102 How does that refute what I actually said? If the magisterium of the Church created a doctrine of assumption for anyone at all, out of thin air, you would have to accept it, or lose your salvation. This particular doctrine is absent in the Apostolic period, has zero biblical basis whatsoever, only becomes main stream 600 years after the beginning of the church, and was only adopted as dogma in the 1950s under penalty of losing your salvation. Meaning that all the Christians in the first 600 years of the church are not saved. If that makes any sense to anyone, it's only because you accept on faith whatever the magisterum of the Church says.
do you have a response to the claim " scholars are coming around to thinking) the author of Luke used Josephus' work," ?
Trent I respect you and love your videos but I have to disagree with you about evidence of Mary Assumption. Unlike Elijah and Enonch There is NO mention of it in the Bible or church Fathers and you my use arguments from silence but you could say that about anything. Why wasnt Paul taken to Heaven?
@@sonsofpolaris6102 There is still NO scripture that states,implies or even implied in the Bible or even early non-canon Christian Books. It wasnt even CathoilcChurch Doctine until 1854. Why did it take them so long after 1854 years to realise this?
@@sonsofpolaris6102 I was only using Paul as an example. It wasn't even Catholic Church offical doctine until 1854
If Mary was sinless, why didn't she offer herself up as the lamb of God which took away the sins of the world?
@@sonsofpolaris6102okay I will assume what you just said was true HOW do you know she made an Assumption to Heaven?
Nice and rational… except…Paul received his theology directly from the post resurrected Jesus with the command to bring that theology to the gentiles for our salvation. He does not mention Mary at all. That may not mean the Marian dogmas are false but it certainly means that, if true, they are unimportant to our faith and salvation.
A worse problem for the Catholic claim about Mary's alleged assumption into heaven isn't that the early church fathers are silent about it, but it's also that the Bible, itself, is silent about it. Arguments from silence are not always fallacious (just as most fallacies are not always fallacious). Arguments from silence are not fallacious if we would expect it to be mentioned. The Bible specifically mentions Enoch and Elijah were bodily assumed into heaven. If it didn't, we would never know that they had been. So if Mary had been bodily assumed into heaven, surely Scripture would have mentioned it so that we would know it happened to her, too. The problem here is that one must assume Catholic doctrines about Mary in order to believe that she was bodily assumed into heaven, which seems to make it a question begging argument that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven because Catholic doctrines about Mary don't come from Scripture, they come from church tradition. So since Scripture is silent about Mary's bodily assumption into heaven, that seems to add weight to the argument from silence regarding early church fathers. It seems to imply that this was not made an official doctrine until sometime later in the church.
Exactly. Silence in scripture and the early church seems like a significant double whammy.
I have a question about who has the burden of proof. Does it fall to the Catholic to prove the Assumption (since the Church claims that Mary was assumed)? Or to the Protestant to prove why it was necessary for scripture and the Early Church Fathers to write about it? This seems like two sides of the same coin, but which is correct? I guess it depends on how the topic statement is phrased. Thoughts?
As a Catholic dogma, it is logical that the CC should prove the Ascension. Likewise, as Protestants typically reject the Assumption, they should prove their claim.
Whilst scripture shows no evidence for the Assumption & the early fathers very little, Protestants claim victory. However, as Mary was immaculately conceived Lk 1 28-38, was the Ark of the New Covenant carrying Jesus, is the Queen of Heaven (type of Esther) & the woman of Rev 12 it is implicit that Mary was assumed into Heaven.
If you believe that isn’t the case, where are her relics. Mary was saved at the moment of her conception & lived a sinless life, so it would be natural for her son to take her pure body to heaven. Elijah & Elisha were also taken up to heaven.
I'm a non believer who enjoys Trent's content but these kinds of videos are usually his worst. He will argue some weak historical evidence(basically church tradition) where he can find a scholar to argue that although it really started in the 5th century, the scholar thinks it goes back **possibly** earlier. No argument is really given as to why this is plausible rather than just possible and what other scholars think. Then he realizes how weak these defenses are and defaults to the usual catch-all: "Protestants believe things for bad reasons, so catholics are allowed to do the same". This kind of argument is extremely disconcerting to anyone from the outside looking in who is looking for sound reasons for belief. It just lowers the overall integrity of the stronger intellectual arguments made on the channel. Even so I'll keep watching cause overall he is a string conservative debater/thinker even if I disagree with his conclusions.
Is there any official Church teaching on Enoch, Elisha, and Moses and if they are in heaven body and soul? Or is it all just theory and speculations?
Trent, will you make a video on how NOT to interact with the saints in heaven?
For example, can we ask St. Anthony of Padua to help us find our lost car keys? And how would that h happen? Does he just so let pray to God that request? Does he have supernatural insight and the ability to transfer it to us? Etc.
I think this would bridge a huge gap between Catholics and Protestants.
Hi Trent! Is there a date where the actual Assumption was to have occurred? Could it have happened after all of the letters and Gospel’s were written but before Revelation was written?
Catholics have no agreed upon date when it occurred, there is at least 5 different proposed dates that differ by more than half a century.
Great video. Happy feast day!
Indeed! Likewise!!
If Mary was not assumed into heaven, does it necessarily follow that Catholicism is false?
It would undermine the claim by the Roman catholic church that it cannot err in matters of faith and morals. This is why RC apologists work so hard to spin these doctrines that have no biblical support and are false.
Since it was dogmatically declared, then yes. -Kyle
@@TheCounselofTrent Then its a dogmatically declared false teaching.
Hey Trent, I'm a layman when it comes to these issues, but when someone say that the assumption of Mary is a dogma, is the dogma in the same level as the belief that Jesus rose from the dead, that the bible is inspired by God and so on?
Jesus rose from the dead is both a dogma and a "mode of credibility", which means that the church gets her legitimacy from that historical truth.
But yes, the dogma of the Assumption is on the same level as the dogma of inspiration
Have you read the "Mystical City of God"! Mary explains it all..
What about Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes and his findings on the lady of Guadalupe?
Interesting how James White, in the debate with you, on Perseverance of the saints, in the beginning of his closing statement, mocked the Assumption of Mary! The Queen is not pleased!
While definitely not all are of this nature, I do think many Protestant pastors care more about defending the doctrines that allow them to have a cushy job lording it over others than they do actually being right with God or humbling themselves before the truth.
Theres a channel called redeemed zoomer... hes a young guy but pretty smart.... lots of subs and hes a presby. His whole goal is to retore historical protestant values to the mainline church. Hes respectful but not very knowledgeable about catholics. Ive been pressuring him on restoring historic protestant marian doctrines as well. Im hoping he makes a video soon... i find it amusing reading the quotes of the reformers about Mary. Also nobody on that channel seems interested in the Tilma of our lady of Guadaloupe either.
Good video
Is there any infallible teaching in the on is Mary's body and soul ever separated and she died, or is it was a like a deep sleep.
15:17 IT can be added, both the Protestants you are speaking of, and the Catholics in the time of Pope St. Pius X believed that the Exodus narrative we have was written by none other than Moses, one of the participants. IN other words, those "historians" are wrong.
What’s the significance of Mary’s supposed assumption? Why make it dogma in the 1950’s?
Can we just cut to the chase and note that lack of evidence is lack of evidence?
how about no evidence?
Maybe there is a good reason for that silence
There is! She was assumed very late compared to the production of the rest of the material that was widely circulated in the Early church
“In order to disprove the dogma, you have to disprove the authority of the church that gives this dogma to us.”
Isn’t the reverse true? As a Protestant, I am unconvinced of the Catholic Church’s ability to inerrantly declare historical events like this. Don’t you have to prove their ability to do so?
Yes. The authority of the Church should be demonstrated for someone to accept that it has this authority, but its authority would need to be disproved in order to disprove the dogma (not that disproving its authority would disprove the dogma, but that it is necessary for the Church's authority to be disproved in order for the dogma to be, for if the Church has this authority then the dogma is necessarily true). Otherwise, one should remain agnostic on the truthfulness of this doctrine unless it is demonstrated through another means (the Scriptures, history, tradition, etc.), or until the Church's authority is demonstrated.
@@AJ-hi4lx how does one prove the Catholic Church’s ability to inerrantly discern past events? How would one disprove?
@@repentantrevenant9776 Once we become Christians, the starting point is usually that Christ resurrected, vindicating His claims (at least that He was the Messiah and taught with Divine authority). From there it gets harder with the historical retrieval of Jesus's teachings. Basically, we need to believe in Jesus, in what He taught and did. In order to prove that Jesus established a Church that he taught would be protected from error in what she teaches, and that Church is found today in the Catholic Church, one would have to go through the historical sources or documents we have that could help us understand what Christ taught. If it is likely, using these sources, that Christ did establish a Church with a charism of infallibility, and it can be shown that that today is the Catholic Church, then the claim can be demonstrated.
To disprove it, one would have to demonstrate that Christ did not establish a Church or that He taught that the Church is not protected from error. This seems really hard to do to me, so I don't think it can be disproved, properly speaking. However, if there is not enough evidence He did do this, I can understand why someone would not believe He did.
I don't think putting it in terms of "ability to discern past events" is the most helpful way of thinking about it, though. I think it's better seen as the Church being "lead into all the truth" by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13), whose office, as Tertullian would say in "The Praescription Against Heretics" in circa A.D. 200, is to keep the churches from understanding and believing differently from what He Himself was preaching by the apostles. (I am not really trying to prove it here; I am just trying to frame the situation).
I think Suan Sonna makes a pretty good case for it in his Biblical Case for and Infallible Magisterium, at this url: www.academia.edu/49351757/The_Biblical_Case_for_an_Infallible_Magisterium. I think there may be a video on RUclips.
@@AJ-hi4lx Why do Catholics refuse to use any other means to demonstrate it? Why do Catholics choose only to use Church authority rather than history or tradition for the assumption of Mary?
@@YajunYuanSDA Precisely this. The case for Catholicism (or Protestantism) should be cumulative, and involve multiple independent lines of evidence.
The fact that Catholic apologists so often retreat back to arguments form authority, which are both circular and unfalsifiable, is a negative indicator for Catholicism imo
I believe the best definition of apostolic tradition is "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus" (translated as "that which has been believed always, everywhere, by everyone"), attributed to Vincent of Lérins in the 5th century. Unfortunately, I think this dogma fails this test. Especially if we affirm the concept in the positive - where it must be demonstrated the belief existed. If we dont demonstrate, then that is an argument from silence made by Catholics - asserting a universal belief of the church that the testimony is silent on until very late. As a spiritually homeless non-protestant, non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christian, I have no problem people believing things like this. I think its a valid belief. But I cannot believe it myself - and as such, I kind of resent dogmas that contribute to my spiritual homelessness by requiring beliefs in things that are outside of the essentials of salvation as defined by demonstrable apostolic tradition.