"Assumption Day"

This event popped up on my BlackBerry under the heading "Christian Religious Holidays". Since I had never heard of this day before, I decided to look it up (having a vague idea of what I was in for).

August 15th, for Roman Catholicism, commemorates their belief that the Virgin Mary transcended a human death and God assumed her into Heaven. I did a little bit of reading on the subject, and here's what I found:

Background: "The Assumption of Mary" by Fr. William Saunders (link)

This is among the three most controversial doctrines of Mary (Immaculate Conception (1854), Assumption (1950) and the yet-to-be-formalized doctrine of Mary as mediatrix and co-redemptrix) that use extra-Biblical support.


Karl Keating states of the objection to Mary's need for a Savior:

• "The Church has a simple and sensible answer to this difficulty. It is this: Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, by her nature she was subject to the necessity of contracting Original Sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of Original Sin and certain of its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way, by anticipation. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception thus does not contradict Luke 1:47."

What is the evidence of this special intervention of God? "Blessed among (not above) women", nor "full of grace" imply that Mary was given a providencial preservation from originial sin. Catholics do not believe that Mary was conceived supernaturally, either. There is no Biblical evidence of this "special intervention" found anywhere. This doesn't stop the doctrine or Mr. Keating's explanation of it...he ends his apologetic entry with the following paragraphs:

• Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.
  Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which, though not in contradiction to Scripture, cannot be found on its face.

There you have it: We say we have the authority (nowhere in Scripture is a "commission" found for the Papacy, the Magisterium or any other bueraucratic office of the Catholic Church; this is a declaration of men), therefore we have the authority; our authority is exclusive, and because we have the authority and it is exclusive, anything we say is authortative and exclusive.

It's like an ad hominem fallacy, circular logic and a straw man argument all rolled into one.

It is often that they encourage doubters to seek documents of the church for clarification. It's as if someone doubted my unsupported assertion that the sky was red, and in that doubt, I asked them to read my newest book, "The Sky is Red".

I can at least respect the latter bold statement, because we as Christians espouse the contrary: If Sola Scriptura is true, then the extra-Biblical doctrines of the Catholic Church are false.

I continue to study Catholic doctrine among my normal Bible study, and how Protestants (and Catholics alike) can be trying to accelerate an ecumenical movement between the two is beyond me. These differences are not "surface level"; they go right to the core of the faiths respectively, and any compromise in them is simply inconceivable. Both have every right to view the other as a mission field, not like-minded brothers (or should I use cousins?).

I do not hate Catholics; I earnestly pray for God's revelation of His free gift of salvation in the crosswork of Jesus Christ to all who seek Him.