1950 "The year of the assumption"

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
myfavoritmartin said:
point #5 makes my case
5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

If this were the case it should’ve been dogma form 1800+ years ago, this obviously is a man made tradition, and a mythical legend… unless you can prove otherwise?
Click to expand...
We have no need for “proofs”. This is part of the Apostolic Tradition that has been handed down to us from the Fathers. If you think it is Catholic only, or has anything to do with the Pope in particular, then go to the Orthodox. They call the assumption the “dormition”, but it is the same belief.
myfavoritmartin said:
Are you denying that the maxim that tradition does not need to be grounded in scripture for it to be tradition? Or for that matter have a unanimous consent of the fathers…
Both did not apply in this case!
Click to expand...
Completely we fully deny such a maxim. In fact, we tender the maxim that the Holy Scripture is preceeded by Sacred Tradition, from which it was born and promulgated.

Are you saying that there is not a unanimity that Mary was assumed into heaven? What makes you think not?
myfavoritmartin said:
3000a.d. right after the assumption of Peter is proclaimed.
Click to expand...
No matter what year it is, no dogma will be proclaimed that contradicts scripture or sacred tradition.Since the Assumption of Peter has already been proclaimed, there is no need to do so again. 👍
 
Basically, what I’d like to see is any evidence, historical or scriptural, that fits the same criterion as works regarding Christ –

Let’s see someone who has written within one lifespan of Mary that she was assumed, did not die, etc.

Let’s see one bit of archeology or anything, for that matter, which is dated to within say, 100 - 200 years of Mary’s lifetime, which can serve as very substantial evidence to her assumption.

All Catholics have are dogmatic belief and “the church says so”, unfortunately.
 
i realize that first martin understands this, so i am not writing this for his benefit.all this has been explained to him before. instead, i am putting this up for anyone who is honestly curious about the issue.

this is an analogy from two boys.

my eldest son is dyslexic and does not enjoying reading. my younger son is an avid reader.

if i wrote out my rules to my sons, one of them would be that the oldest has to read twenty minutes a day. i would not write out that my younger son needs to do so.

this does not mean that my younger son does not have to read, it only means that there is no need to create a rule for him, because he is already voluntarily doing what i wish him to do.

the same is true of church proclamations. until some question comes up, there is not need for clarification and therefore, no need to issue any kind of declaration.
 
guanophore said:
Completely we fully deny such a maxim. In fact, we tender the maxim that the Holy Scripture is preceeded by Sacred Tradition, from which it was born and promulgated.
Click to expand...
And that is why there is no need for a basis in scripture for your beliefs?
Isn’t the magisterium a servant to the “word of God”?
guanophore said:
Are you saying that there is not a unanimity that Mary was assumed into heaven? What makes you think not?
Click to expand...
That is what I am saying, I can find all kinds of fathers who spoke contrary to this…
And infallibility didn’t even have a unanimous consent.
 
PC_Master said:
Basically, what I’d like to see is any evidence, historical or scriptural, that fits the same criterion as works regarding Christ –

Let’s see someone who has written within one lifespan of Mary that she was assumed, did not die, etc.

Let’s see one bit of archeology or anything, for that matter, which is dated to within say, 100 - 200 years of Mary’s lifetime, which can serve as very substantial evidence to her assumption.

All Catholics have are dogmatic belief and “the church says so”, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
In the first place, “did not die” is not Catholic dogma.

In the second place, your criteria come at a high price, for if they are applied to the bible you end up with no bible. Nobody settled the canon of scripture within a lifetime of the apostles. It took over 300 years. That means that the Church had to remember without error the faith that had been handed down to the apostles. You only have a bible because “the Church says so”. Is that also unfortunate?

BTW, since we’re asking things of each other, where is the burial place of Mary?
 
deb1 said:
i realize that first martin understands this, so i am not writing this for his benefit.all this has been explained to him before. instead, i am putting this up for anyone who is honestly curious about the issue.

this is an analogy from two boys.

my eldest son is dyslexic and does not enjoying reading. my younger son is an avid reader.

if i wrote out my rules to my sons, one of them would be that the oldest has to read twenty minutes a day. i would not write out that my younger son needs to do so.

this does not mean that my younger son does not have to read, it only means that there is no need to create a rule for him, because he is already voluntarily doing what i wish him to do.

the same is true of church proclamations. until some question comes up, there is not need for clarification and therefore, no need to issue any kind of declaration.
Click to expand...
What was that issue that came up in 1950?
 
VociMike said:
It took over 300 years. That means that the Church had to remember without error the faith that had been handed down to the apostles.
Click to expand...
Wrong! they didn’t have to remember! whose history are you reading? I’ve early fathers quoting the same canon protestants use today as early as the 2nd century NOT the 4th… Sheesh c’mon! Just cuz they voted on it later doesn’t mean they didn’t have it earlier…
 
myfavoritmartin said:
And that is why there is no need for a basis in scripture for your beliefs?
Isn’t the magisterium a servant to the “word of God”?
Click to expand...
no the magisterium (which is a fancy word for the church) is a servant of the people of God. (according the my religious textbooks anyway…)
myfavoritmartin said:
What was that issue that came up in 1950?
Click to expand...
Protestants like you coming up with ridiculous ideas such as this one…
 
myfavoritmartin said:
What gives? still making up doctrines and dogma’s of the infallible sort, 1900 plus years after Christ?
I don’t get it, what’s next?
The assumption of Peter?
Click to expand...
The Assumption was made up 1900 years after the fact just like the Council of Nicea made up Jesus’ divinity 300 years later.

In other words, just because something is definitively proclaimed as a dogma at a certain date doesn’t mean the dogma was invented then. Usually such definitive proclamations come at a time of confusion on an issue. In the 300s, the Arians were denying the divinity of Christ. In 1950 the false irenicists were denying truths about Mary to appease Protestants.
 
Genesis315 said:
The Assumption was made up 1900 years after the fact just like the Council of Nicea made up Jesus’ divinity 300 years later.

In other words, just because something is definitively proclaimed as a dogma at a certain date doesn’t mean the dogma was invented then. Usually such definitive proclamations come at a time of confusion on an issue. In the 300s, the Arians were denying the divinity of Christ. In 1950 the false irenicists were denying truths about Mary to appease Protestants.
Click to expand...
:extrahappy: :amen: :extrahappy:
 
myfavoritmartin said:
What gives? still making up doctrines and dogma’s of the infallible sort, 1900 plus years after Christ?
I don’t get it, what’s next?
The assumption of Peter?
Click to expand...
The doctrine of the Assumption has been around since just about the time Mary was assumed into heaven. Just becuase it was never formally declared by the Pope doesnt mean it wasnt a doctrine. If that was true the Ressurection, the Divinity of Christ and the real presence would be suspect as they were never formally “declared” by the Pope.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
I personnally think the Orthodox and their 7 councels got it right!
Click to expand...
So you now believe in Apostolic Succession, the veneration of images, seven sacraments, intercession of the Saints . . .

You’ve come a LONG way, martin!
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Wrong! they didn’t have to remember! whose history are you reading? I’ve early fathers quoting the same canon protestants use today as early as the 2nd century NOT the 4th… Sheesh c’mon! Just cuz they voted on it later doesn’t mean they didn’t have it earlier…
Click to expand...
Sheesh all you want. If everybody knew the canon of scripture in the 2nd century then why did 3 or 4 councils feel the need to define the canon of scripture 200 or more years later? Think about it. Is it the custom of Church councils to tell people what they already know?

Anyway, there is nothing new in your line of argument. You act like atheists, demanding any proof whatsoever except the witness of the Church. You are open to listening to anybody except the Church. One who accepts the Church as the Church founded by Christ does not need to base their faith on the writings of historians, but apparently you do. You will believe historians before you believe the Church, and then call yourself Christian. You reject what has always been believed by the Church (East and West) because the level of “proof” doesn’t rise to your standards.

Not even that any historians have ever claimed that Mary was not assumed, I should note. You’re even making the freshman error of arguing from silence.

And last but not least, you are continuing the centuries-old Protestant assault on the Mother of Christ. The Church’s view of her must be torn down at any cost. Why this strange obsession?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top