I don't know what to say. You are positing that Jesus had two ascensions. Do you have anything to back up your claim, besides your own reading of Holy Scriptures? I would be anxious to see it.

Also, in order for "I ascend" to be present tense, Our Lord would have had to have been in the process of ascending. You are claiming that Our Lord was ascending at that very moment when He told Mary "I ascend".

So when did Jesus open heaven? Was it the day of His Resurrection or at His Ascension forty days later?

BTW, this thread is already over so we might as well discuss this. The OP was garbage and the guy who wrote it knows that. He apologized and it's over. He admitted that it was all personal for him and he offered no evidence that proved the Brothers believe they are the two witnesses. What's ironic is that he even admitted this in the same OP.

So let's continue with this. I can see your point about the "I ascend" part. I just want to make sure your not coloring outside the lines, so to speak. Is this something that you have come up with.?Is there anyone else at all that has ever written about this? If there is, please let me know. I am not in the business of buying into every theory that's put forth, especially one that I've seen no evidence of, at all, in the Fathers, Councils, Papal writings etc.. The Church teaches one Ascension and even though you say that you're not positing two Ascensions, it strongly seems that way.

1. You may be right that there are no Infallible statements by the Popes, but it is pretty explicit in Scripture:

ACTS 1:[3] To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God...[9] And when he had said these things, while they looked on, he was raised up: and a cloud received him out of their sight.

Also, I would like to add that the "40 days" is probably one of those things that would be considered infallible due to the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers. I may be wrong about that but regardless, it seems that Scripture is very explicit.

2. At least we cleared that up. You are just saying that you believe that the Ascension happened the same day as the Resurrection.  
The problem is that I think this may be explicitly contrary to Scripture (Acts 1). If you don't think so, explain how it's not. I'll keep an open mind in this regard for the time being.

Our Lord's Ascension after 40 days is taught dogmatically and infallibly by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.  So clear is this that no Pope has ever felt the need to define it specifically.

Hi AES,

I trust you integrity but I like to see and verify for myself also, can you give me the pages from Denzinger?

Wrong.
Pius XI is clearly referring to Continence as a means of regulating birth. That's precisely why he mentions this in the very sentence in which he is referring to methods of regulating offspring. As he say, anything that deliberately frustrates the marriage act (such as condoms) is forbidden - but virtuous continence, as a method of regulating offspring, is allowed. Again, the whole point of his statement is to draw the line between what is permitted in the regulation of offspring, and what is forbidden.

I would also like "Sedevacantist" to cite the ancient version of baptism of desire that Fr. Feeney believed.  Can he quote Fr. Feeney?