Not quite

FYI for any who are intestested, here is a URL that shows that the Mormon church has in fact taught that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers:

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/ldsteachingonlucifer.htm

(This site, while Protestant, relies on Mormon primary sources.)

He finds that the "oddest" Catholic teaching? How about the virgin birth? Or the resurrection? All of those are much stranger.

Transubstantiation, anybody??

From the article," (This is a more binding teaching than the bar on sex with my husband, by the way.)"
Husband?
Was that a typo or did I miss something?

Lucifer and Jesus brothers? Lucifer is an angel, fallen, but still and angel. Angels are created by God not procreated (angels do not procreate). I don't even think angels are siblings with each other, in the strict sense of the word.

Jesus was born of a woman Mary, and she had no other children and God had no other children so Jesus is an only child.

Now with regard to The Assumption of Our Lady:

Further Pius XII wrote as definitive doctrine:
"[...] 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."

"Having completed the course of her earthly life.." means she died. At least that's what my parish priest pointed out last Assumption Day.

Puff-- actually, that was a very deliberately ambiguous choice of words. While the usual assumption in the West is that Mary did, indeed, die, that is not held de fide. We are free to believe that she died or simply fell into a sleep ("The Dormition") as the Easterners do.

Of all the teachings, he picked the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin? One would think he wouldn't want to think as hard and start with Mary being Theotokos.

I always figured transubstantiation would be thought of as the strangest.

One matter on Mormons: It's hard to say what Mormons actually believe, since there is no real dogma in their religion. Any belief can be changed given new revelations. What was wrong before can be now right (or vice versa) simply because supposedly God has changed his mind. This idea is what keeps me from respecting Mormonism to the degree that I respect other non-Christian religions.
Ironically, changing dogma is what many Protestants accuse the Church of doing.

God "whooshed" Mary into Heaven? Doesn't that sound the least bit undignified? It must have been a glorious sight to behold with pomp and dignity, more like.

A stupid statement on many levels. Even if he had the details right, in effect he could well be saying, "As a Christian, I am obliged to believe that Christ was whooshed up physically into Heaven" which also means "as a Christian, I am obliged to believe in miracles." In other words he's almost saying, "as a religious believer, I have to believe in things I can't see." Since when is the temporary suspension of the laws of physics (say, in the case of a miracle) cause for ridicule? Unless you're a Materialist and nihilist, it's pretty clear there's a guiding Intelligence at work who can intervene.

Sullivan ought to know that a theology difficult to swallow is NOT something that sounds odd, but something that science has proven to be false. I'm not an expert on Mormon theology, but if it's true that they believe American Indians are the lost 12th tribe of Israel, then denying recent DNA tests showing that to be false IS odd and worthy of scorn.

We are free to believe that she died or simply fell into a sleep ("The Dormition") as the Easterners do.

NO !!!

That the East refers to the "Dormition" doesn't mean the East believes Mary "fell into a sleep," any more than when St. Paul writes, "But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep," he means Jesus didn't really die.

No: the Eastern Churches have always held that Mary died. Even Munificentessimus Deus, which defines the dogma of the Assumption, mentions "the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary."

The idea that Mary didn't die is a purely Western notion, and quite a late development on the part of theologians.

As a Catholic, I am obliged to believe that the mother of Jesus was whooshed physically into the sky rather than dying.

Well, why not? It happened to Elijah, too.

And he actually DIDN'T die. Whoosed up on the firy chariot.

Of course, if I were relyingon Sullivan for catechesis, I'd also think that it was perfectly fine for him to be a sodomist.

Tom K,
you may be correct that the Eastern belief in the Dormition involves death, but it is still true that the dogmatic definition was deliberately worded ambiguously, and that we are free to believe either way. We just can't cite the Dormition as an example of evidence for Our Lady not dying.

Poor Andrew. He thinks a Dogma has to be proclaimed in order for the teaching that homosexual acts are sinful be "really" binding. Someone should explain to him that when the morality can be discerned through human wisdom alone, it's not usually necessary to have a Dogma proclaimed for people to figure it out.

"Of course Mr. Sullivan is being facetious...."

That's because Mr. Sullivan is facetious, not to mention smarmy, a snob, a boring zealot, and an overrated jerk, who should be writing for the Plainfield "Trading Post--Where Used Cars Are A Steal".

If the Assumption consists of Mary being
"whooshed" into Heaven, maybe I don't want to know how he describes other mysteries of our faith. The snide definitions are probably to be found at any anti-Catholic website, though.

I am committed to the doctrine of Mary's death, resurrection and assumption.

I even chose the Dormition as the patronal feast of my blog (Blog of the Dormition: http://holydormition.blogspot.com)

Mary, model of Christians, imitated Christ in all things. She is His most perfect imitator.

I believe Elijah, too, will die. He has not yet died, but he and Enoch will return one day. And they will die and rise from the dead.