1950 "The year of the assumption"

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem: **

i found this article on the site new advent. if you click on any of the blue words you will end up on new advent and can do a search from there. it appears that the belief in the assumption of mary has been around for sometime.
 
I should make it clear that I do not know whether the Assumption of Mary is true or not. It may well be true and I can see no problem in believing it even if it is not true.
My problem is not with the Marian dogmas. It is with proclaiming any new dogmas that must be believed with divine faith. This includes in 1854 (Immaculate Conception), 1870 (papal infallibility), and 1950 (the Assumption). The question I have is what happens to people who lived before the dogma was pronounced as required? Some people may have believed it for a long time but what about the people who didn’t believe it because they didn’t know they had to believe it or actually disbelieved it? Did God suddenly change the rules on the dates the dogmas were proclaimed saying “I didn’t propose this as something it was necessary to believe before, but from now on I say it is”? If He changed the rules does this contradict his unchangeable nature? If they had to believed from the beginning, before they were infallibly proclaimed, did the Church not fail people who didn’t believe them by not proclaiming them until such a late date?
 
mercygate said:
So you now believe in Apostolic Succession, the veneration of images, seven sacraments, intercession of the Saints . . .

You’ve come a LONG way, martin!
Click to expand...
Oops guess I didn’t clarify my POV well. NOPE against it all!
Just as scripture is!
 
SyCarl said:
I should make it clear that I do not know whether the Assumption of Mary is true or not. It may well be true and I can see no problem in believing it even if it is not true.
My problem is not with the Marian dogmas. It is with proclaiming any new dogmas that must be believed with divine faith. This includes in 1854 (Immaculate Conception), 1870 (papal infallibility), and 1950 (the Assumption). **The question I have is what happens to people who lived before the dogma was pronounced as required? **
Click to expand...
Nothing.
 
SyCarl said:
I should make it clear that I do not know whether the Assumption of Mary is true or not. It may well be true and I can see no problem in believing it even if it is not true.
My problem is not with the Marian dogmas. It is with proclaiming any new dogmas that must be believed with divine faith. This includes in 1854 (Immaculate Conception), 1870 (papal infallibility), and 1950 (the Assumption). The question I have is what happens to people who lived before the dogma was pronounced as required? Some people may have believed it for a long time but what about the people who didn’t believe it because they didn’t know they had to believe it or actually disbelieved it? Did God suddenly change the rules on the dates the dogmas were proclaimed saying “I didn’t propose this as something it was necessary to believe before, but from now on I say it is”? If He changed the rules does this contradict his unchangeable nature? If they had to believed from the beginning, before they were infallibly proclaimed, did the Church not fail people who didn’t believe them by not proclaiming them until such a late date?
Click to expand...
Yes and believing this IS a matter of required faith according to the catholic church, great point here!
 
PC_Master said:
.

All Catholics have are dogmatic belief and “the church says so”, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
many of us one this site are converts. we came to the catholic church after much soul searching and studying. to say that we blindly follow anything would be incorrect.

besides, before you decide that trusting the church is wrong, please look in your own backyard.

i have talked to a surprising number of protestants who, when questioned about interpretation of verses, tell me that it is simply what thier pastors told them. that seems as much blind following as what you are accusing catholics of.😦
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Yes and believing this IS a matter of required faith according to the catholic church, great point here!
Click to expand...
What happened to every Chrisian who lived prior to 1,500 who followed what Protestant consider a false Church? Since they had no Concept of OSAS or slavation through faith alone were they all condemend to eternal hellfire? Why did God wait 1,500 years to express these new dogmas?
 
deb1 said:
The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis**, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem: **

i found this article on the site new advent. if you click on any of the blue words you will end up on new advent and can do a search from there. it appears that the belief in the assumption of mary has been around for sometime.
Click to expand...
Sure see falsely ascribed and spurious enough, does that tell you something?
 
deb1 said:
many of us one this site are converts. we came to the catholic church after much soul searching and studying. to say that we blindly follow anything would be incorrect.

besides, before you decide that trusting the church is wrong, please look in your own backyard.

i have talked to a surprising number of protestants who, when questioned about interpretation of verses, tell me that it is simply what thier pastors told them. that seems as much blind following as what you are accusing catholics of.😦
Click to expand...
Try talking to actual born again Christians.
 
estesbob said:
What happened to every Chrisian who lived prior to 1,500 who followed what Protestant consider a false Church? Since they had no Concept of OSAS or slavation through faith alone were they all condemend to eternal hellfire? Why did God wait 1,500 years to express these new dogmas?
Click to expand...
BOB,
Through all the centuries their were
faith based Christians, many were burned by the church of Rome! but more surprisingly upon research you’ll see many were fathers of the early early church.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Try talking to actual born again Christians.
Click to expand...
i live in the southern usa. the captital of those who call themselves ‘born again.’

so, let me get this straight, not only do you have a grief against catholics but you have problems with those who call themselves ‘born again.’ or are you judging the salvation of those protestants who have spoken to me?
 
myfavoritmartin said:
BOB,
Through all the centuries their were
faith based Christians, many were burned by the church of Rome! but more surprisingly upon research you’ll see many were fathers of the early early church.
Click to expand...
Can you present us evidence of this? Where are their writings. Did they embrace sola scriptura, sola fidelis and OSAS? And what about the millions and millions of Christians who didnt embrace this? Why did God wait 1,500 years to clarify this “dogma”?
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Yes and believing this IS a matter of required faith according to the catholic church, great point here!
Click to expand...
The *development *of doctrine does not allow for a fundamental change in doctrine. No development of doctrine ever contradicts what went before.

For example, the doctrine of the Real Presence, held before the promulgation of *transubstantiation *is not denied by the development of the doctrine. Rather the Real Presence is further clarified by the teaching.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
BOB,
Through all the centuries their were
faith based Christians, many were burned by the church of Rome! but more surprisingly upon research you’ll see many were fathers of the early early church.
Click to expand...
Actually, many were heretics, who were ousted from authority.

The Assumption of Mary is the oldest feast day associated with her. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception derives from the Assumption, although the dogma of the Assumption was proclaimed later than the Immaculate Conception. As a previous poster stated, these things happened in the order they did to clarify, not because they were new ideas.

Where are Mary’s physical relics? Catholics are relic happy people. Mary’s relics would be more important than anyones, but they don’t exist. A few articles of clothing are all that we have left from her.
At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven.”
Click to expand...
source
 
myfavoritemartin,

You despress me, I was just about to schedule a party to celebrate your conversion into the one true faith, the Catholic faith. This makes me so sad…so sad… 😦
 
myfavoritmartin said:
BOB,
Through all the centuries their were
faith based Christians, many were burned by the church of Rome! but more surprisingly upon research you’ll see many were fathers of the early early church.
Click to expand...
can we have the name of a prereformation faith based christian who was burned by the catholic church?
 
mercygate said:
The *development *of doctrine does not allow for a fundamental change in doctrine. No development of doctrine ever contradicts what went before.

For example, the doctrine of the Real Presence, held before the promulgation of *transubstantiation *is not denied by the development of the doctrine. Rather the Real Presence is further clarified by the teaching.
Click to expand...
What about the fathers whom thought of it as symbolic, not actual? This doctrine is contradictory to those!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top