An Example of Hyper Hyper Hyper Dulia?

[Pax]

Can you give me a couple of examples of what Jesus or His apostles taught or said that is not recorded in the Scriptures? Where specifically is this found in the “deposit of faith”?

If you cannot produce just a couple of examples of what Jesus or His apostles said or taught then that tells me you don’t know what it is either. You can claim “deposit of faith” or Sacred Tradition all you want but until we see concrete examples of these teachings of Christ and His apostles not found in the Scriptures then there is no reason to think they exist. I hope that is not the case though…

The problem is that you cannot know what doctrines are true and which doctrines are false simply by way of scripture. It requires the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” which is the Church to know what doctrines are true. Scripture is frequently misunderstood when it comes to doctrine.

You asked for a couple of examples of something that is not in scripture but is part of the deposit of faith. The following are in scripture but they need the Church to confirm the meaning of scripture in terms of truth and doctrine. For example:

You do not believe that prayer to the saints is proper even though scripture can be used to demonstrate that it is. The Church teaches that it is proper and that it is in keeping with scripture. You interpret scripture differently even though this has been a common and approved practice within Christianity from the get go.

You do not believe that Jesus gives us his precious body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist even though scripture demonstrates that it is. The Church teaches this truth and it is in keeping with scripture. You interpret scripture differently on this extremely important doctrine even though this has been the constant teaching in Christianity from the get go.

The truth of these are in scripture, but you claim they are not. We depend on the witness of the Church as to what scripture teaches, and scripture likewise witnesses to the Church and her doctrines. You reject the obvious relationship between the two.

Need I say more?

 

[PerryJ]

What this means that since the Catholic church is not based on the Scriptures it based the doctrines of men. We see it so much in its doctrines and practices.

:

Yet you haven’t been able to prove any doctrines are not Biblically supported. Our doctrines do not have to be in the Bible; but, they do not conflict with it. You haven’t been able to post anything significant against Mary being sinless on another thread. You continue to make this claim yet lose the discussion when the subjects are brought up?

When will you be able to support your claim that our doctrines are man made. We have proven this many times concerning SS.

 

[justasking4]

**
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where do the Scriptures command you to love Mary?

peary1
One would think it is obviously included in Christ’s commandment: “Love others as I have loved you.”**

Where do the Scriptures command us to love the dead?

 

[justasking4]

Yet you haven’t been able to prove any doctrines are not Biblically supported. Our doctrines do not have to be in the Bible; but, they do not conflict with it. You haven’t been able to post anything significant against Mary being sinless on another thread. You continue to make this claim yet lose the discussion when the subjects are brought up?

When will you be able to support your claim that our doctrines are man made. We have proven this many times concerning SS.

Where is Mary’s assumption taught in Scripture? Where do we see anyone praying to Mary in Scripture?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Where is Mary’s assumption taught in Scripture? Where do we see anyone praying to Mary in Scripture?

I fear that this conversation has completely collapsed into a snarky back and forth.

It seems to me that the Protestants are saying,
(1) “x Catholic doctrine isn’t found in the Bible” and
(2) how can we know that it’s right if it’s not in the Bible?"
(3) The lack of presence of x doctrine in the Bible is dispositive that it wasn’t a belief of the early Church.

While the Catholic side is saying,
(1) “lots of Christian things aren’t found (explicitly) in the Bible”
(2) “extra-Biblical doesn’t mean anti-Biblical,” and “extra-Biblical doesn’t mean it’s untrue.” As support, the Catholic Church predates (and conducted) the compilation of the Bible.
(3) in fact, the Bible suggests that there’s more to the story than just what’s written down…
(4) The Church has long held these views, and the practitioners of old seem to have believed it came to them from the Apostolic Age, or even the Apostles themselves.

Are there other arguments being made here? I think that there’s a quality discussion that can be had here (although only tangentially related to the original thread), but let’s move past just saying “it’s not in the Bible / it’s not against the Bible.” And please, can we stop assuming the other posters are writing in bad faith? And treat each other like Christians?

 

[ralphinal]

Where is Mary’s assumption taught in Scripture? Where do we see anyone praying to Mary in Scripture?

Prove that she was dead prior to the writting of Scripture.

 

[justasking4]

Prove that she was dead prior to the writting of Scripture.

Go to the thread Sinless Mary[ ](Sinless Mary)post #160 and you will find your answer.

 

[ralphinal]

Go to the thread Sinless Mary[ ](Sinless Mary)post #160 and you will find your answer.

Actually, that did not answer my question. I want to know when she died, not if. She was alive at the beginning of Acts and seemingly through the end of Acts of the Apostles. The letters were written, by and large, during that time, and would not need to mention it anyway, as they were letters of instruction, repromand, or support. She was dead by the time Revelation was written, but again, it was not germain.

My position is simple: it is not in there because she had not yest died.

 

[justasking4]

Actually, that did not answer my question. I want to know when she died, not if. She was alive at the beginning of Acts and seemingly through the end of Acts of the Apostles. The letters were written, by and large, during that time, and would not need to mention it anyway, as they were letters of instruction, repromand, or support. She was dead by the time Revelation was written, but again, it was not germain.

My position is simple: it is not in there because she had not yest died.

As the Catholic writer said in my post # 160 we don’t know. The last we hear of her is in Acts. She could have lived past the writing of Revelation.

 

[ralphinal]

As the Catholic writer said in my post # 160 we don’t know. The last we hear of her is in Acts. She could have lived past the writing of Revelation.

Correct, but logically not likely. If she was 15 at the time of Chirst’s birth, she would have been 48 when he died. I hold to the idea that the Scriptures were complete by 70 AD, so that would her well into her 80s or early 90s, depending on if the 33 AD date is accurate.

Either way, the dogmas may not be in there because she was still alive in the mid first century.

 

[justasking4]

Correct, but logically not likely. If she was 15 at the time of Chirst’s birth, she would have been 48 when he died. I hold to the idea that the Scriptures were complete by 70 AD, so that would her well into her 80s or early 90s, depending on if the 33 AD date is accurate.

Either way, the dogmas may not be in there because she was still alive in the mid first century.

Would you agree then that the doctrine of her assumption is not based on Scripture?

 

[ralphinal]

Would you agree then that the doctrine of her assumption is not based on Scripture?

It depends on how much basing you need.

Scripturally, people were taken into heaven body and soul. Elijah and Enoch come to mind. So, we can say that it would not be unheard of. We also see in Revelations the Woman appear. IT is not beyond the understanding that that is the Blessed Virgin Mary. THat does not prove that she was there body and soul, but it has been cited as such.

Now, if you want it to say “She was taken into heaven,” it is not there. But, there is nothing to prevent it from being acceptable to the faith.

 

[Pax]

Scripture manifests the assumption in Revelation 12. You may disagree with this, but your disagreement is by way of your interpretation only. Who is better qualified to interpret scripture…the individual or the Church in her teachings? Who do we take our disagreements to…to an individual, to scripture, or to the Church? Is the individual reading scripture the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” or is it the Church? Is scripture itself the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” or is the Church “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”?

Scripture says that it is the Church. Jesus made promises to his Church and to her authority. We need to accept the Church’s decisions on these things instead of our own when scripture can be interpreted by the many to mean many different things.

 

[justasking4]

Scripture manifests the assumption in Revelation 12. You may disagree with this, but your disagreement is by way of your interpretation only. Who is better qualified to interpret scripture…the individual or the Church in her teachings? Who do we take our disagreements to…to an individual, to scripture, or to the Church? Is the individual reading scripture the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” or is it the Church? Is scripture itself the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” or is the Church “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”?

Scripture says that it is the Church. Jesus made promises to his Church and to her authority. We need to accept the Church’s decisions on these things instead of our own when scripture can be interpreted by the many to mean many different things.

Lets see if this is just my opinion only.
The first church father to teach it was Gregory of Tours in 590 AD. The Transitus Mariae dates from the end of the fith century. Catholic historian Ludwig Ott confirms this as the earliest source of Mary’s assumption:

"The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ "

Source: Ludwigg Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209-210.

 

[Pax]

Lets see if this is just my opinion only.
The first church father to teach it was Gregory of Tours in 590 AD. The Transitus Mariae dates from the end of the fith century. Catholic historian Ludwig Ott confirms this as the earliest source of Mary’s assumption:

"The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ "

Source: Ludwigg Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209-210.

The next questions that must be asked are as follows:

–Is the writing of Gregory of Tours on the assumption a novel invention at the time?

The answer to this is “no.” If it were there would have been a horrendous backlash since the Church was incredibly conservative and alert to any and all heresies.

–Was there ever a debate ahead of Gregory’s writings that denied the assumption?

The answer is “no.”

–Did the Church decide that the doctrine of the assumption was worthy of belief or unworthy of belief?

The answer is that the Church declared it to be worthy of belief and it is in no way contrary to scripture.

 

[justasking4]

Pax;4184291]The next questions that must be asked are as follows:

–Is the writing of Gregory of Tours on the assumption a novel invention at the time?

The answer to this is “no.” If it were there would have been a horrendous backlash since the Church was incredibly conservative and alert to any and all heresies.

It certainly looks like its new. We know the Scriptures never speak of it and its unheard of for centuries.

–Was there ever a debate ahead of Gregory’s writings that denied the assumption?

The answer is “no.”

How were things discussed back then? I would think that the mere fact a pope wrote this was enough to be taken to be true just because of who he was.

–Did the Church decide that the doctrine of the assumption was worthy of belief or unworthy of belief?

The answer is that the Church declared it to be worthy of belief and it is in no way contrary to scripture.

It is contray to the Scriptures in that it violates 2 John 9 which says --Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.

The Lord Jesus nor His apostles ever taught such a thing as this.
.

 

[Pax]

You might give this some consideration as well. Juniper Carol writes the following:

Death and Assumption

With respect to the Assumption the significant literature in the patristic East comprises

1. two passages from Epiphanius,
2. the apocryphal accounts called Transitus Mariae, and
3. the Greek homilies on the Dormition stemming from the seventh and eighth centuries.

As the evidence stands, the first explicit reference to a genuine Assumption of Our Lady occurs in Epiphanius, ca. 377 AD.

Note: Before Nicaea (325) the only overt reference to the close of Our Lady’s earthly life is a phrase attributed to Origen: “With respect to the brethren of Jesus (John 2:12), there are many who ask how He had them, seeing that Mary remained a virgin until her death…” – the passage is more significant as testimony to Mary’s permanent virginity than as evidence for her death. True, her death is mentioned obliquely, as though it were self-evident; but this manner of speaking need not reflect a tradition; it may stem from lack of reflection on the dignity of God’s Mother. In a word, we may conclude no more than that the author took Our Lady’s death for granted. [64]

Epiphanius (c. >310 - 403 AD)

St. Epiphanius of Salamis, in a digression typical of his Medicine Chest against eighty heresies, is concerned to forestall a perilous accommodation of John 19:27 (“From that day the disciple took [Mary] into his home [or as his own]”). He is afraid that in the John-Mary relationship clerics may find a pseudo-justification for retaining in their homes the much-discussed virgines subintroductae. He insists that the case of Mary was guided by a wise providence, that this procedure is to be regarded as an exception to the common conduct obligatory in the way of God, and that once John had taken Mary into his home she did not remain with him any longer. And he continues:

"But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary's death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried. More than that: John journeyed to Asia, yet nowhere do we read that he took the holy Virgin with him. Rather, Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy, in order not to shock the minds of men.

"For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence. For it may be that somewhere we have found hints that it is impossible to discover the death of the holy, blessed one. On the one hand, you see, Simeon says of her, 'And your own soul a sword shall pierce, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed' (Luke 2:35). On the other hand, when the Apocalypse of John says, 'And the dragon hastened against the woman who had brought forth the male child, and there were given to her an eagle's wings, and she was carried off into the wilderness, that the dragon might not seize her' (Rev 12:13-14), it may be that this is fulfilled in her.

"However, I do not assert this absolutely, and I do not say that she remained immortal; but neither do I maintain stoutly that she died. The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain, for the sake of that valued vessel without compare, to prevent anyone from harboring carnal thoughts in her regard. Did she die? We do not know. At all events, if she was buried, she had had no carnal intercourse...." [65]

Twelve chapters later Epiphanius returns briefly to the problem of Mary’s end:

"....either the holy Virgin died and was buried; then her falling asleep was with honor, her death chaste, her crown that of virginity. Or she was killed, as it is written: 'And your own soul a sword shall pierce'; then her glory is among the martyrs and her holy body amid blessings, she through whom light rose over the world. Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no one knows...." [66]

The testimony of Epiphanius is crucial for two reasons. Before Ephesus he alone deals expressly with the problem at issue; and he knows the Holy City and its traditions as few others of his time. It is the more regrettable, therefore, that his witness is so vague that several interpretations of his thought are possible. As a defensible exegesis I submit three points.

1. How did Mary end her life? Epiphanius does not know. There are three possibilities: natural death, bloody martyrdom, deathless immortality. Of these, it is illegitimate to exclude any, illegitimate to impose any.
2. In any event, the end of Mary’s life on earth was worthy of God and in harmony with her dignity and holiness.
3. Epiphanius’ importance lies in this, that he has posed the problem and allowed us to glimpse the possible solutions. [67]

It is not difficult to see in him the first theologian of the Assumption, in the sense that he had an intuition of the mystery and was fascinated by it. [68]

 

[Pax]

…
…

It is contray to the Scriptures in that it violates 2 John 9 which says --Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.

The Lord Jesus nor His apostles ever taught such a thing as this.
.

This is very subjective on your part. Scripture never states anything explicit about the Trinity. Your objection could be applied to the well developed Christian understanding of the Trinity and the incarnation as well. You have uttered an opinion, but there is no reason to believe that the teaching on the assumption has gone too far.

Accepting that Jesus would choose to assume his mother into heaven is well in keeping with scripture. After all, Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven…why not Mary? And just how does such a belief prevent us from abiding in Christ?

 

[PerryJ]

It depends on how much basing you need.

Scripturally, people were taken into heaven body and soul. Elijah and Enoch come to mind. So, we can say that it would not be unheard of. We also see in Revelations the Woman appear. IT is not beyond the understanding that that is the Blessed Virgin Mary. THat does not prove that she was there body and soul, but it has been cited as such.

Now, if you want it to say “She was taken into heaven,” it is not there. But, there is nothing to prevent it from being acceptable to the faith.

To add to this point the NT shows a similar action. Was not Mary greater then these.

Matthew 27: 52 And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, 53 And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many.

 

[justasking4]

Pax;4184408]
Originally Posted by justasking4
…
…

It is contray to the Scriptures in that it violates 2 John 9 which says --Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.

The Lord Jesus nor His apostles ever taught such a thing as this.
.

Pax;
This is very subjective on your part. Scripture never states anything explicit about the Trinity. Your objection could be applied to the well developed Christian understanding of the Trinity and the incarnation as well. You have uttered an opinion, but there is no reason to believe that the teaching on the assumption has gone too far.

If we were discussing the Trinity we would find a number of passages to support it. This is not so with much of the marian doctrines and passages.

Accepting that Jesus would choose to assume his mother into heaven is well in keeping with scripture. After all, Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven…why not Mary?

Just because certain things have happened in the past does not mean it happened with Mary. Their is no eyewitness accounts of it in the first century to support the claim.

And just how does such a belief prevent us from abiding in Christ?

Paul was admant about believers being focussed on Christ alone. We see him making the strongest statement to this effect in 2 Corinthians 11:3 when he writes these words–But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

Can you think of one writer of the NT that ever exhorts Christians to pray or focus on Mary?