M
- Status
D
Della
Guest
I’m jumping in “cold” here (I don’t have the time to read all the posts). Your bishop, blessings on him, has overstated things here and, if I understand the situation correctly, has overstepped his bounds. He cannot state as de fide what the Church has not, nor should he. I’m curious to know what on earth stirred all this up in the first place. Why ever did the man decide he had to comment on this topic (of all things) when there are so many other, more pressing things to address?
Not all bishops are deep theologians and the Scripture doesn’t tell us Enoch and Elijah’s ultimate fate–that’s not the reason these accounts were written. We don’t know precisely where either of these prophets are or what else God may have planned for them, if anything. I would say that their being taken up was a a different order from that of Mary. In her case it was because of her perfection. In theirs it was to demonstrate the power of God–that God holds the fate of humans in his hands. Why will our clergy bite off more than they can chew like this when they would be better off dealing with issues of more urgent need in their dioceses? It’s a mystery to me. And why should your priest be so dogmatic about it? Something else is going on here besides theological debate. Seems strange to me. What do they teach in these seminaries these days?
Not all bishops are deep theologians and the Scripture doesn’t tell us Enoch and Elijah’s ultimate fate–that’s not the reason these accounts were written. We don’t know precisely where either of these prophets are or what else God may have planned for them, if anything. I would say that their being taken up was a a different order from that of Mary. In her case it was because of her perfection. In theirs it was to demonstrate the power of God–that God holds the fate of humans in his hands. Why will our clergy bite off more than they can chew like this when they would be better off dealing with issues of more urgent need in their dioceses? It’s a mystery to me. And why should your priest be so dogmatic about it? Something else is going on here besides theological debate. Seems strange to me. What do they teach in these seminaries these days?
A
Axion
Guest
I don’t know if you’re confusing the Immaculate Conception with the sinlessness of Mary here. Aquinas, along with the whole of orthodox Christianity believed in Mary’s freedom from original sin. The argument was about the MEANS by which this freedom was achieved - was Mary conceived sinful and then purified later, or conceived without sin from the first instant.
I believe this is right. The Assumption was the teaching of the Church prior to this however.
S
Sardath
Guest
Depends on what you mean by “action”. A fair number of people have lost their jobs at both the parish and diocesan levels, including some who could not credibly be accused of heterodoxy or immorality, but as far as I know there have been no formal excommunications. Instead, those of us who disagree with him have been invited, repeatedly, to excommunicate ourselves by simply going away and not coming back. We are, he has said, “completely free … free not to be Catholic.” Or, as he put it another time, quoting Cyprian of Carthage:
“Whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church. You must understand that it is to no avail that people may beguile themselves with the illusion that whilst they are not at peace with the bishops of God, they may still worm their way in and surreptitiously hold communion with certain people.”
Since he seems to define being “with the bishop” as accepting every jot and tittle of his personal teaching as well as the de facto infallibility of his prudential judgment, that doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room. And a lot of people in his diocese are taking him at his word, and leaving as he has invited them to do. He doesn’t seem too worried about that–which is pretty disturbing in itself. What sort of shepherd can be so nonchalant about a big chunk of his flock just wandering away? That makes no sense to me at all.
M
moondweller
Guest
Like the Scriptures, we view ALL true believers as saints (holy ones).
M
moondweller
Guest
So in Catholicism salvation faith is progressive. It’s not as the Scriptures state that it was “once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3). Christ gave the Apostles only a partial gospel. Yes, I see. Thank you.
M
moondweller
Guest
The “ok” was to let you know that I acknowledged your reply. It wasn’t an agreement.
M
mpartyka
Guest
Correct. Aquinas stated in his Summa Theologica, “Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception…But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb,” so he did not believe in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as it was defined in Ineffablis Deus by Pope Pius IX: “…the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception…was preserved free from all stain of original sin.”
In a nutshell, I think the difference between Aquinas’ view and the modern view could be depicted as follows:
*Aquinas: In the first instance of her conception, the Virgin Mary contracted original sin and was immediately purified from the stain of it.
Modern: In the first instance of her conception, the Virgin Mary was prevented from contracting original sin and suffering the stain of it.*
–Mike
S
Sardath
Guest
Certainly a lot of us in his diocese think so, and that opinion runs all across the spectrum from very liberal to very conservative. But of course he disagrees–and his opinion is the only one that matters.
I would agree that he shouldn’t, but apparently the new view in Rome is that a diocesan bishop can teach and do pretty much whatever he wants, as long as he doesn’t directly contradict Rome itself; and he can also excommunicate his own subjects for opposing him even when, by Rome’s own standards, their behavior would not normally merit excommunication. As I pointed out in an earlier posting, a number of years ago Bishop Bruskewitz in the Diocese of Lincoln declared a whole bunch of people excommunicated for belonging to organizations he disapproved of, including Call to Action on the left and the SSPX on the right. Some CTA members appealed to Rome, and Rome turned them down flat–once on the grounds that they had a history of opposing the Church’s “doctrine and discipline” (not, let it be noted, for opposing teachings which have been defined de fide, which the CTA has always been very careful not to do), and the second time for “lack of jurisdiction”. Similarly, Rome just ruled that diocesan bishops can close viable parishes and seize their assets to use for other purposes, even in the teeth of provisions in canon law which prohibit such actions, as long as the bishop claims to be doing so “for the common good.” All of this sets a very bad precedent, to say the least.
It began with a homily at a women’s retreat in which the bishop, as he often does, went out of his way to exalt the special status of Mary, to whom he is particularly devoted. This provoked some pointed questions from biblically astute participants at the retreat, who asked how it was that Mary and Jesus were the only humans to be in heaven “body and soul” when the Bible says that Enoch and Elijah were also assumed into heaven. He told them they were wrong, etc., and we were off and running. By itself it’s not a big deal–everybody is wrong once in a while–but taken together with his repeated claims to de facto infallibility and his demands for abject obedience to everything he teaches and does, it becomes a part of a much bigger issue. Ultimately it goes to the heart of what it means to be in communion with the universal Church; that communion, as he never tires of pointing out, can only be maintained by being “with” one’s local bishop–apparently on whatever terms the bishop wishes to define.
Indeed. Ultimately it is about power–who gets to wield it, how much of it they get to wield, and who has to submit to it and to what extent. Everything else is just detail.
M
mpartyka
Guest
I’m not sure that’s an entirely fair assessment. It’s entirely possible that the Assumption of Mary did happen but simply went unrecorded in Scripture. If that is the case, then the Church would be completely correct in claiming that the Assumption of Mary is part of that faith which was “once for all handed down to the saints.”
But even if that were the case, my question would be, “Okay, but ought belief in the Assumption be made a precondition for salvation?” Whether the Assumption happened is totally irrelevant to any dogma concerning the salvific work of Jesus Christ. Doctrinally speaking, it’s a “nice to have,” not an essential. But the Pope made it an essential through the promulgation of Munificentissimus Deus. Was it really necessary to club dissenting Catholics over the head by forcing them to give assent to an intrinsically trivial dogma? That’s the real issue here.
–Mike
M
moondweller
Guest
That’s because according to the Scriptures ALL sins are “mortal” in the sight of an infinitely holy God: “For the wages of sins is death.” But it doesn’t stop there. It goes on to say: “…but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23; cf. 5:12-21).
We believe as the Scriptures say: “In Him we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:14), and “…that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43). As stated above we don’t see our salvation as a “reward,” but as the Scriptures say, “the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8-9). Nor would we ever, ever consider our eternal redemption/salvation as a “cheap” gift. It required the shedding of “precious blood,” more valuable than silver or gold; the sacrificial blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 1:18-19).
Actually, we see and believe, according to God’s Word, that our sins (all of them) were imputed to Christ, once for all, on the cross, and buried with Him in His death; and now, as revealed in God’s Word (and God cannot lie), we are raised to new life with Him, being now “in Him,” in the resurrected Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). And as death has no more power over Him, so it is with us who are in Him (Jn. 11:25-26).
In Biblical Christianity sin and death are not the issues, but the reality of the forgiveness of all sins, total redemption through Christ’s shed blood, the joy of reconciliation to God, and the hope (not “hope so”) of the return of our Savior from heaven “who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself” (Col. 3:21).
There’s nothing “cheap” about any of this. It’s the result of a GREAT price paid, once for all, in full. And all to His glory.
S
Sardath
Guest
This, in essence, was Newman’s complaint about the definition of papal infallibility in 1870: Why are we doing this? Why this particular issue, when there are so many other things to worry about? Why now, when we have done without it for almost two millennia? But in Newman’s day the answer, once all the other excuses were swept away, was precisely as you say: The point was “to club dissenting Catholics over the head” and “force them to give assent” to something that was not really necessary, in order to separate “us” from “them”–the compliant sheep from the non-compliant goats.
It’s the same reason the U.S. in the Fifties went berserk with “loyalty oaths”, even going so far as to require them of welfare recipients. The official reason was to weed out “subversives”, by which they meant Nazis and Communists and such. But of course Nazis and Communists have no qualms whatever about lying in order to achieve their aims, so making them sign a “loyalty oath” did absolutely nothing to advance the security of the United States in that respect. Then why do it? Because it helped identify the real subversives: true believers in constitutional democracy and the principles of the Founding Fathers, who would take a stand on principle against the continual erosion of personal freedom in the name of “national security” and blow the whistle on abuses of power by the people in charge of the system. These were precisely the sort of people who would refuse to sign a loyalty oath–not because they were in league with foreign powers, but because they didn’t think the citizens of a democracy should ever have to sign such an abomination in the first place. They were the real enemy, and loyalty oaths did an extraordinarily good job of weeding them out and replacing them with the more compliant sheep who would take orders without complaint and do whatever they were told to do by those in authority.
As I just said in my last posting: " Ultimately it is about power–who gets to wield it, how much of it they get to wield, and who has to submit to it and to what extent. Everything else is just detail."
M
mpartyka
Guest
I hate to be a downer, but can the whole “once saved, always saved” discussion go over to a new thread?
–Mike
M
moondweller
Guest
That which was “once for all handed down to the saints” stated nothing about the Assumption of Mary. Not even John who personally cared for her mentioned it in his Epistles.
So, is it an essential or a nonessential? Protestants always get clubbed over the head when stating there are essentials and non-essentials in respect to salvation faith.
Paul wrote"Rom 10:8-10 "But what does it say? “The word is near to you, in your mouth and in your heart”–that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,that if you confess with your mouth Jesus {as} Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."Throughout the N.T. Scriptures, the object of salvation faith is always the Person and work of Jesus Christ - no other. As Christ, in the Gospel accounts, pointed to Himself as the object of faith and the source of eternal life. The message to me is complete, it needed nothing to be added. It wasn’t progressive as is the Catholic “gospel.”
M
mpartyka
Guest
Are you limiting what was “once for all handed down to the saints” to the Bible? Because when Jude wrote his epistle, the book of Revelation hadn’t been written yet, which means Jude couldn’t have included the book of Revelation in that “once for all” faith of which he wrote. So is Revelation extra-canonical? I doubt you’d say so. Which means that not everything in that faith which was “once for all handed down to the saints” was handed down in writing – which is consistent with Paul’s telling the Thessalonians, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thes 2:15)
John didn’t write about the Virgin Birth in his Gospel or any of his Epistles, either. Does that mean the Virgin Birth didn’t happen, or does that simply mean that John didn’t feel compelled to include that particular aspect of the faith in those particular writings of his?
I consider it nonessential, pretty much for the reason you stated: whether Mary was assumed or not has no bearing on Christ’s salvific work. Catholics, however, have to consider the dogma essential because the Pope ex cathedra said they have to.
–Mike
M
moondweller
Guest
Absolutely! Got that Thomster?
M
moondweller
Guest
I’m limiting it to the message of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ - no other. That message is pervasive in the N.T. Nor do I interpret Paul as stating there that the traditions by “word” or “epistle” are different. That which was verbally taught in the churches was preserved in Holy Writ for subsequent generations. The same way God had done it since Moses.
The virgin birth IS recorded in the N.T. writings. Her alleged Assumption is not. So I don’t see how it could be considered at all a “particular aspect of the faith” once for all delivered. Also, “the faith” is not a leap of faith. It’s not a blind faith. It’s based on historical facts and eye witnesses. Such as the sacrificial death, burial and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. But there exists no recorded record of any eye witnesses of Mary’s alleged Assumption. Yet Christ Himself made sure that His Apostles, with whom He trusted the gospel message of salvation, witnessed it all: His death, bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven. And John records in Holy Writ:1 John 1:1-3 "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us–* what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you** also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ*."How is it Christ required eye witnesses to these historical facts, but no eye witness required of Mary’s alleged Assumption?
Mike, you’re still being wishy-washy here. Certainly her alleged Assumption has nothing to do with Christ’s salvific work. But the question is whether or not belief in the Marian dogma (her Assumption) is essential for a Catholic’s salvation. If yes, then it seems quite odd since there’s nothing salvific about it. Unless you’re saying that apart from her alleged mediatorial (intercessory) work in heaven there is no salvation. Meaning all who don’t go through her are not/can not be saved. Which would, essentially, make her a type of savior (small “s”). But then that would contradict Acts 4:12.
M
mpartyka
Guest
No, I’m just stating my point of view and the Catholic point of view without insisting on the veracity of either.
That’s my point of view, too. Personally, it amazes me that a Catholic could be excommunicated over something so intrinsically irrelevant to salvation. But then again, Galileo was nearly excommunicated for teaching that the earth moves around the sun – hardly a matter of any relevance to salvation at all – because such a notion conflicted with the Church-endorsed worldview of that day. And even today, I’ve heard some Catholics argue that Galileo was not harassed by the Church on account of his teaching but only because he did not suppress his teaching at the Church’s behest – apparently, the Church was concerned that he was, without sufficient proof of his theories, unduly disturbing the minds of the faithful. I think the same principle applies here: the overwhelming majority of Catholics, clergy and laity alike, believed in Mary’s Assumption and begged the Pope to squash whatever dissent was left – not because Mary’s Assumption really matters one bit with regard to salvation, but because the dissenters were (in the minds of the “Assumptionist devotees”) unduly disturbing the minds of the faithful with their persistent obstinacy. The Pope obliged, and thus we have Munificentissimus Deus, which set forth the new requirement that Catholics must subscribe to belief in the Assumption of Mary in addition to whatever else has been required of all the Catholic faithful over the centuries.
–Mike
D
Desertsailor
Guest
mpartyka;6866120]
Catholics don’t get excommunicated for this.
This is a false statement. You need to read up on what the argument really was and not subscribe to some twisted protestant view of history.
Once again you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Catholics have always believed in the Assumption of Mary, even the Apostles did. It only became necessary to declare it dogma when people started doubting it.
M
moondweller
Guest
Proof?
- Status