Reading some of these postings leads me to add these notations to my earlier posting.
**
3. If the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were so essential in the early and medieval church why was it not until 1854 and 1950 that those two doctrines were defined and declared as official dogma of the church?**
It wasn’t because the Church had her doubts, if this is what you suppose. The Church has never felt any need to formally define anything unless compelled to. It wasn’t until 325 A.D. that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (Three divine Persons in one God) was defined as dogma by the Church at the Council of Nicea. It was time for the Church to settle with the confusion created by the heretical teachings that had appeared until then since the 2nd century and infected the orthodox faith. The major forces to be reckoned with were Monarchianism (Modalism or the Sabellian heresy), Unitarianism ( a form of Dynamic Monarchianism), and Arianism. A dogma is a confirmation and assurance that what has been taught by the Ordinary Magisterium is a true teaching of the Church and a revelation from God that must be assented to by all Christians.
In 1854, Pope Pius lX felt compelled to define the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as dogma in the wake of the growing opposition to this traditional teaching in modern Protestantism. The Church certainly never invented this doctrine in the 19th century. The Popes and Councils of previous centuries had explictly referred to this teaching in their pronouncments: Pope St. Martin 1, Lateran Synod,
Canon 3 on the Trinity [649]; Pope Sixtus lV, Constitutions
Cum Praeexcelsa [1476] (The year the Feast of the Immaculate Conception was established),
Grave Nimis [1483]; Pope Paul lll, Council of Trent,
Decree on Original Sin [1546]; Pope St. Pius V, Bull *Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus *[1567]; Pope Alexander Vll, Bull
Sollictudo Omnium Eccl. [1661].
It appears that the doctrine of the Assumption was defined as dogma in 1950 partly as a means to call the increasing number of wayward Catholics back to practicing their faith and living a life of Christian virtue by drawing their attention to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Mercy, with the rise of atheism, rationalism, indifferentism, materialism, and sacrilege - all which had to be opposed by this definition that diverts us back to the divine mysteries and the truth of the resurrection of the dead. There was also much calamity in the Church at the time and Catholic piety had to be restored to order through a profound reflection on our Blessed Mother, the archetype of the Church in her virtues. According to the life of St. Theodosius, the Feast of the Assumption was celebrated in Palestine before the year 500. Eastern Catholics had privately celebrated this feast before the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). The first early Church Father to refer to this event was St, Epihanius in the late 4th century. He came from Palestine and was aware of the private tradition there, although he was uncertain of whether Mary had died or not before being assumed into heaven body and soul. It isn’t until the end of the Patristic period (6th -8th centuries) that we have sermons on the Assumption given by several Church Fathers. It became a universal feast in the Catholic Church in the late 6th century.
** 4. When Paul mentions in Galatians that Christ was ‘born of a woman’ that doesn’t (in my view) add to the argument that Mary should be venerated as she is today.** That was Paul’s opportunity to add more in recognition or praise of Mary, which apparently he chose not to do. He didn’t even mention her by name.
But Luke records much about Mary in his gospel, and he was a companion of Paul. The apostle preached much more than he had written in his few pastoral letters. He obviously introduced his companion Luke to the Marian traditions of the faith before he wrote his gospel (cf. Lk 1:1-4). Luke recorded and intended to teach what the apostle Paul had orally preached and believed about the Blessed Virgin Mary.
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.* Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him (Paul).*** Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus."**Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [inter A.D. 180/190] **
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was appointed Bishop of Smyrna by John, so he was well-informed by the time he became the Bishop of Lyons in Gaul.
So much for plan B.
PAX :heaven:
