1950 "The year of the assumption"

[myfavoritmartin]

I was going to chime in with some serious fact, but I read a little more and find that you are really a joke. You dont know or care it seems one whit about history. If you have studied it it was only from a seriously biased teacher. Not hard to imagine you finding one of those. Perticularly where the early church is concerned. No fathers of all kinds did not speak contrary to this. and yes infallibility did have unanimous consent. even the eastern church bowed the knee. If you mean heratics did not bend the knee well that is obvious they are heratics. but the church taught and the fathers and doctors of the church defended both of these teachings from the very beginning. We still have the building where mary lived on the outside of it carved in greek is the phrase, The holy place of Mary. we see things like this all over in history. And the fathers defend her in writing tooth and nail. To deny this is to not have a working knowledge of the fathers or early church history. You would have to be very selective indeed in your reading to miss this teaching being defended.

So you decided not to chime in with any facts…You question my history, but judging by what you’ve written your only source of study is via the catholic church, biased ya figure??? I do!

Do you know how many writings out there being promoted are spurious? read up on ignatius for example…Better yet even is the protoevangelium of James…Spurious writings forwarded to promote doctrine. Don’t tell me I don’t know history unless you know me personally, otherwise you speak as a fool.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

[
Gregory of Nyssa

“Paul, joining righteousness to faith and weaving them together, constructs of them the breastplates for the infantryman, armoring the soldier properly and safely on both sides. A soldier cannot be considered safely armored when either shield is disjoined from the other. Faith without works of justice is not sufficient for salvation; neither is righteous living secure in itself of salvation, if it is disjoined from faith” (Homilies on Ecclesiastes]( ) 8 [ca. A.D. 335- 394]).

Here is more of what Gregory believed…
Satan will be saved:

“A certain deception was indeed practised upon the Evil one, by concealing the Divine nature within the human; but for the latter, as himself a deceiver, it was only a just recompense that he should be deceived himself: the great adversary must himself at last find that what has been done is just and salutary, when he also shall experience the benefit of the Incarnation. He, as well as humanity, will be purged.” (The Great Catechism, 26)

 

[myfavoritmartin]

[Origen

“Whoever dies in his sins, even if he profess to believe in Christ, does not truly believe in him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself, as we read in the epistle bearing the name of James” (Commentaries on John](Origen ) 19:6 [A.D. 226-232]).

And Origen…
He suggests universal salvation:

“If, then, that subjection be held to be good and salutary by which the Son is said to be subject to the Father, it is an extremely rational and logical inference to deduce that the subjection also of enemies, which is said to be made to the Son of God, should be understood as being also salutary and useful; as if, when the Son is said to be subject to the Father, the perfect restoration of the whole of creation is signified, so also, when enemies are said to be subjected to the Son of God, the salvation of the conquered and the restoration of the lost is in that understood to consist.” (De Principiis, 3:5:7)

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Ahemmm…Clears throat…
How many chapters does the GOSPEL OF JOHN HAVE???

I’d like a link to this…

BOB,
Gonna ignore this???
I want to know where you got this? otherwise why should I take you serious?

 

[Ilroy]

Estes made the brash statement that my core beliefs started 1500 years after Christ…**YOUR **St John proves otherwise…I encourage you to read Chrysotom regarding salvation and justification…

newadvent.org/fathers/210207.htm

Here…you can all read his complete commentary on Romans 7, vs27…You will clearly see that his main point in this is to stress, like Paul did numerous times, that works of the law were to no avail…he was disputing aginst the notion of the Jews of that time.
With that link you can get his and many other Church Father’s writings on many subjects. And you can get them in the fullness that are extant and in complete context.
And, as Church Militant stated, even if your assertion was correct about St. John Chrysostom’s belief (big if), this was never official teaching of the Church. One man’s opinion is just that…an opinion.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

newadvent.org/fathers/210207.htm

Here…you can all read his complete commentary on Romans 7, vs27…You will clearly see that his main point in this is to stress, like Paul did numerous times, that works of the law were to no avail…he was disputing aginst the notion of the Jews of that time.
With that link you can get his and many other Church Father’s writings on many subjects. And you can get them in the fullness that are extant and in complete context.
And, as Church Militant stated, even if your assertion was correct about St. John Chrysostom’s belief (big if), this was never official teaching of the Church. One man’s opinion is just that…an opinion.

He stated that faith alone didn’t come along until 1500’s and I’ve dozens of YOUR church fathers that preached precisely that, that was the point.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

He stated that faith alone didn’t come along until 1500’s and I’ve dozens of YOUR church fathers that preached precisely that, that was the point.

IN fact I could probably find twice as much ECF support for justification by faith than you would assumption of Mary.

 

[Ilroy]

IN fact I could probably find twice as much ECF support for justification by faith than you would assumption of Mary.

I highly doubt that. You can find dozens of snippets from Church Fathers with some or much read into them to mean what you already have set in your mind on the subject. I’ve seen the websites that have the standard few lines taken out of context and/or with much read into them that claim to be solid proof of various non-Catholic teaching. Thing is, I’ve researched some of the supposed proofs…taken in their whole, the meaning is quite different from what has been claimed.

 

[guanophore]

Your church skips over interpretting that one!

I could share what the Westminister confessin said about this chapter, but I don’t want an infraction!

Why would it give you an infraction? Is it badly anti-Catholic?

 

[guanophore]

I am a reasonably NEW Christian.

I was a cradle sacrementalist, like you!

What is a “cradle sacrementalist”?

 

[estesbob]

BOB,
Gonna ignore this???
I want to know where you got this? otherwise why should I take you serious?

I gave you a link Now having been proved wrong you want to cherry pick other Church fathers quotes -none of which back up your assertiion that any of them beleived in salvation by Faith alone. Havng been caught red handed distoring what St John said do you really think anyone here is going to take the time to fact check the other out of context quotes you posted?

I gave you a whole lsit of declarations of people who were giants of the Early Church. To a man they rejected salvation by faith alone. What makes you so much smarer than them? Why should we accept your personal interperations over theirs and over 2000 years of consistnet teachings on thios subject

 

[mercygate]

Ahemmm…Clears throat…
How many chapters does the GOSPEL OF JOHN HAVE???

I’d like a link to this…

The reference 31:1 is to the Manuscript/homily number in the writings of John Chrysostom, not to the Chapter in the Gospel of John.

 

[Gamera]

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?

Cool, we’re agreed that we should reject doctrines that weren’t held by the early Christians. Good. That wraps it up for all those man-made traditions from the mid-1500’s onward, such as sola scriptura, once-saved-always-saved, withholding baptism from infants …

 

[mercygate]

Cool, we’re agreed that we should reject doctrines that weren’t held by the early Christians. Good. That wraps it up for all those man-made traditions from the mid-1500’s onward, such as sola scriptura, once-saved-always-saved, withholding baptism from infants …

While we’re at it, we can get rid of the Trinity, too.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Dogmata are binding on the conscience of a Roman Catholic, right? What about the soul who perished in September of 1950, before this dogma was defined as dogma. He didn’t know his conscience was bound to this, because no one told him. What if this poor guy didn’t believe it?

The conscience is not bound, so cannot be culpable, where no obligation arises - none arises here, because it was before the dogmatisation of the Assumption.​

If he had been on a desert island from September 1950, to Oct. 31 1950, he would not have any obligation to believe it; on November 2, when he got back to civilisation, & heard of the definition that happened the day before, he would have the obligation - unless he had serious reasons to think his information was not trustworthy; at which point, he would be obliged to do his best to find out the facts.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I had a feeling someone was going to say something like that.

The moral of the story: Ignorance is bliss.

• Avoiding knowing something so as to avoid being bothered by knowing it, is called affected ignorance - such as, avoiding finding out when a fast-day is​

• Not knowing what infulae are, or what the French for “Easter” is, counts as nescience - which is a not-knowing; it’s morally no different from not knowing the population of Japan: there is no need to know such things (for most of us anyway)
• ignorance is the sort of lack of knowledge that may or may not be morally imputable - a driver who doesn’t know the speed limit, ought to know it; a child needn’t. Catholics are, as a rule, morally obliged to know the Creed - but someone with learning difficulties would probably be ignorant, & inculpable.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This is where I get stuck when studying Catholicism. How could a person be saved in the year 500 without subscribing to the beliefs of the assumption, the immaculate conception, or papal infallibility but, now, you are damned if you don’t believe in it because it was made dogma by the church 1300-1400 years later? Whether you call it doctrine or dogma doesn’t change that fact. I have come very close to joining the Catholic Church, but these issues have, I admit, been stumbling blocks. By the way, I don’t think it’s charitable to call someone “ignorant” especially if you have a good answer as you did. Just answer in love. Most of us are just trying to understand the Catholic faith by coming here.

Because it takes time for the Church to work out the precise status of what she knows - she knows lots of things generally, confusedly, without at first being clear on just how to articulate what is in her consciousness: just like a human being. As the Mystical Body of Christ, she has a sort of “corporate personality”, which is expressed by the people who are the “members” - i.e., the limbs - of the Church.​

So she can know that Jesus Christ is Lord in (say) AD 50, without at once seeing that this necessarily implies the Assumption. By 1950, that implication was seen with sufficient clarity not only to be articulated, but also to be dogmatically defined. She has to be able to think things through, to “meditate on them by day and by night” (Psalm 1) - then she can see them more clearly. That is part of what is meant by Tradition: the Church thinking things through, “meditat[ing] on them by day and by night”, with God’s help, always It had been in her mind all along - the Pope defined it, spoke with God’s authority so as to focus it, because it could be discerned as being part of God’s Revelation in Christ.

As the mind of the Church is in essence the Mind of Christ, it is impossible to list everything in the Church’s mind - it remains true that no definition of dogma is a revelation; it is a statement of what is contained in God’s revelation. The CC is not Mormon, at all - revelation is complete for ever; articulating it, is not; that’s the difference.

That’s how I see it, anyway

 

[here_i_stand]

Well, that is what I tried to point out to the poster. These things were Doctrine in the year 500 and so they HAD to be believed by the faithful. The reason they became Dogma is because there was some dispute or confusion as to the exact meaning. A Dogma is simply a formal defining of a Doctrine that already is and was. Declaring a Dogma does not mean something is being added that was not previously there. It means something that was previously there just needed to be explained in a more clear and formal manner.
See the articles on each at Newadvent.org for an in depth explanation.

As for saying ignorance, maybe it was a poor choice of word…In my previous post, the meaning of the word simply means uninformed or unknowledgeable of the particular issue. No harm was intended.

So, just to be clear, right now there’s talk about someday making it dogma that Mary is “co-redemptrix”. So, right now, Catholics HAVE to believe that? I know what the term is supposed to mean, so I don’t need educating on what is “meant” by co-redemptrix…just wondering if that’s the case.

 

[Ilroy]

So, just to be clear, right now there’s talk about someday making it dogma that Mary is “co-redemptrix”. So, right now, Catholics HAVE to believe that? I know what the term is supposed to mean, so I don’t need educating on what is “meant” by co-redemptrix…just wondering if that’s the case.

Hadn’t heard about that being considered for becoming a Dogma so I looked around a little bit. Here’s a decent not too long article describing about some folks who were trying to get Pope JPII to declare it Dogmatically.
catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html

Also a good explanation in case what you know turns out to be not completely accurate or maybe a bit more info that you may not have yet.

To answer the question, anything that is Doctrine of the Church whether it has been formally declared Dogmatically or not must be believed by the faithful. To have to call Mary by the title co-redemptrix might not be required, I’m not sure if the specific title is actual Doctrine, but to believe the meaning behind the title has to be. Namely, that Mary cooperated fully with God’s plan for redeption and with full consent of her free will, etc.

 

[SPH1]

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?

You could make this same silly argument with the Trinity and the Council of Nicea and subsequent councils.

Your error is that just because something is defined at some point, it does not mean that it was not believed previously. Or that it’s not true.