Assumption of st. Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jimmy_B said:
Why should you believe in anything Christian? Because of faith, reason and the source.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe in everything “Christian” because of faith, reason, and source. That’s putting several different things on an equal playing field when that isn’t the case. I believe in things for a reason, just as the apostle John commands us to test all things. As it stands, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary is nowhere in scripture. I’m not aware of anyone within the first or second century AD writing about it. Can you show me any very early sources that speak of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary as a fact?
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
I don’t believe in everything “Christian” because of faith, reason, and source. That’s putting several different things on an equal playing field when that isn’t the case. I believe in things for a reason, just as the apostle John commands us to test all things. As it stands, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary is nowhere in scripture. I’m not aware of anyone within the first or second century AD writing about it. Can you show me any very early sources that speak of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary as a fact?
Click to expand...

  • The Assuption of Mary (above) by Annibale Carracci 1590 Museo del Prado, Madrid.
  • Protestant Reformation, beginnnig in 1517 and concluding in **1648. **
  • “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.” Here
  • The Formation of the Bible concluding - in the **fourth **and fifth centuries.
 
Jimmy_B 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.” Here
Click to expand...
So a document written falsely under the name of an apostle some 300-400+ years after the original apostles is where we get the dogma of the Assumption?
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
So a document written falsely under the name of an apostle some 300-400+ years after the original apostles is where we get the dogma of the Assumption?
Click to expand...
There exist books in the Bible named after one individual and we know that in some cases their disciples were also involved and in some cases the named author is in dispute… right? Beside that there is more than one St. John in Christianity, so I don’t know if they are claiming an apostle here… maybe… Your arguments here seem better suited to disprove Protestant beliefs than Catholic, since both the Bible and Catholicism precede any Protestant denomination by hundreds of years.
 
Jimmy_B said:
There exist books in the Bible named after one individual and we know that in some cases their disciples were also involved… right? Beside that there is more than one St. John in Christianity, so I don’t know if they are claiming an apostle here… maybe…
Click to expand...
Some manuscripts (which are written in the first person, btw) bear the title, “St. John the Theologian,” which is the official title of the apostle John, especially in the east, which would be erroneous and anachronistic for a document coming some 300 years after he most likely died. Even if we were to entertain the idea that it was another St. John, a story that came from a document 300-400 years after the incident supposedly took place and in an apocryphal document (compared to the works of scripture which were written at the time of their authors) cannot be considered source for dogma.
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
Some manuscripts (which are written in the first person, btw) bear the title, “St. John the Theologian,” which is the official title of the apostle John, especially in the east, which would be erroneous and anachronistic for a document coming some 300 years after he most likely died. Even if we were to entertain the idea that it was another St. John, a story that came from a document 300-400 years after the incident supposedly took place and in an apocryphal document (compared to the works of scripture which were written at the time of their authors) cannot be considered source for dogma.
Click to expand...
True, if one were to reject and ignore Christian history and Christians traditions, which both precede the Bible. That is the only way that Protestantism works, by viewing Christianity thru a Protestant lens and out of context. If all of the Protestant denominations agreed tomorrow, in the Assumption of Mary and preached it, I’m sure there would be a lot of minds changed… After all, every denomination claims to be “infallible” when it comes to their own particular beliefs… they just won’t say so…
 
Your sudden turn to Protestant-bashing only shows the weakness of support for the Assumption. Some traditions might predate the Bible, but the Assumption does not.
 
Jimmy_B said:
Catechism of the Catholic Church - "Assumption of St. Mary"

966 “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.” The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:
In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.
2853 Victory over the “prince of this world” was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life. This is the judgment of this world, and the prince of this world is “cast out.” “He pursued the woman” but had no hold on her: the new Eve, “full of grace” of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from sin and the corruption of death (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Holy Mother of God, Mary, ever virgin). “Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring.” Therefore the Spirit and the Church pray: “Come, Lord Jesus,” since his coming will deliver us from the Evil One.
2177 The Sunday celebration of the Lord’s Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church’s life. “Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church.”
Click to expand...
I do not believe Mary was assumed,or have no biblical, personal or divinely revealed knowledge of it,except via tradition from Rome. Again ,the bible makes zero mention of it.(This is no problem for Rome for she acknowledges that tradition is equal with scripture) .The bible is not afraid to say when someone is “assumed” or even better ,taken up (Enoch,Elijah)…But no mention of Mary,even with much writings around her time.There is no mention of it from the earliest church fathers. A forgery of a false epistle containing her assumption was condemned by a 5-6th century pope. St. Jerome says “of her end no one knows”.By their fruits you shall know them.Marionism has a scanty,and contentious past ,even in-fighting to the death over such issues.AND ,THEY ARE NOT DONE YET ,WITH A FUTURE APPEAL TO THE POPE COMING TO ADORN MARY MORE WITH MORE “TITLES”
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
Your sudden turn to Protestant-bashing only shows the weakness of support for the Assumption. Some traditions might predate the Bible, but the Assumption does not.
Click to expand...
However, it does predate Protestantism and if you are going to use the “earliest date wins” argument than the dates of the Protestant Reformation, the Formation of the Bible and so on, are relevant to this discussion… right?
 
david_ruiz said:
I do not believe Mary was assumed,or have no biblical, personal or divinely revealed knowledge of it,except via tradition from Rome. Again ,the bible makes zero mention of it.(This is no problem for Rome for she acknowledges that tradition is equal with scripture) .The bible is not afraid to say when someone is “assumed” or even better ,taken up (Enoch,Elijah)…But no mention of Mary,even with much writings around her time.There is no mention of it from the earliest church fathers. A forgery of a false epistle containing her assumption was condemned by a 5-6th century pope. St. Jerome says “of her end no one knows”.By their fruits you shall know them.Marionism has a scanty,and contentious past ,even in-fighting to the death over such issues.AND ,THEY ARE NOT DONE YET ,WITH A FUTURE APPEAL TO THE POPE COMING TO ADORN MARY MORE WITH MORE “TITLES”
Click to expand...
The Bible does not document every Christian belief or every Christian event and that’s written in the Bible

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25)

That’s why Christ founded a Church and why he had Apostles and why they had disciples.
 
Jimmy_B said:
However, it does predate Protestantism and if you are going to use the “earliest date wins” argument than the dates of the Protestant Reformation, the Formation of the Bible and so on, are relevant to this discussion… right?
Click to expand...
Sir, with all due respect, Protestantism is not even the topic, and to continually turn to it is like a Muslim who cannot defend Islam without bashing Christianity.

I asked if there was anything in scripture or 1st to 2nd century AD Christian history that spoke of the Ascension of the Virgin Mary. The closest thing you could cite for me was an apocryphal document wrongfully attributed to the apostle John and dating from 300-400+ AD. Do you know any earlier evidence than this? I’m willing to listen.
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
Sir, with all due respect, Protestantism is not even the topic, and to continually turn to it is like a Muslim who cannot defend Islam without bashing Christianity.

I asked if there was anything in scripture or 1st to 2nd century AD Christian history that spoke of the Ascension of the Virgin Mary. The closest thing you could cite for me was an apocryphal document wrongfully attributed to the apostle John and dating from 300-400+ AD. Do you know any earlier evidence than this? I’m willing to listen.
Click to expand...
That’s like saying that Catholicism is not the topic, when in fact it is because your are arguing against a Catholic belief…
 
Of course it is, and I’ve presented reasons why I do not believe in it. If you want to turn it into an anti-Protestantism rant, very well, but that won’t address what I’ve brought up and it most certainly won’t convince me that the Assumption of the Virgin Mary was a true event, let alone something entire early church upheld as being true.
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
Sir, with all due respect, Protestantism is not even the topic, and to continually turn to it is like a Muslim who cannot defend Islam without bashing Christianity.

I asked if there was anything in scripture or 1st to 2nd century AD Christian history that spoke of the Ascension of the Virgin Mary. The closest thing you could cite for me was an apocryphal document wrongfully attributed to the apostle John and dating from 300-400+ AD. Do you know any earlier evidence than this? I’m willing to listen.
Click to expand...
I like the way you conveniently chose to pick the 3rd and 4th centuries :rolleyes:… That’s funny… Why not the 7th or 8th century??? ;). I may have been born at night but it wasn’t last night… Where is Protestant Reformation found in the Bible and can you provide me with any Protestant documents from the 3rd or 4th century? And, don’t say the Bible because that’s a Catholic book… 😃
 
…and again you simply fall back on attacking Protestants.

I am not continuing this conversation. Have a good night, sir.
 
Jimmy_B said:
True, if one were to reject and ignore Christian history and Christians traditions, which both precede the Bible. That is the only way that Protestantism works, by viewing Christianity thru a Protestant lens and out of context. If all of the Protestant denominations agreed tomorrow, in the Assumption of Mary and preached it, I’m sure there would be a lot of minds changed… After all, every denomination claims to be “infallible” when it comes to their own particular beliefs… they just won’t say so…
Click to expand...
The Jews had tradition (Abraham to Moses) also, then scripture (Moses onward) .Yet Jesus never had to correct scripture , but tradition He did correct ,with scripture .Why can’t the same pattern exist here ? Does it matter what preceeded Holy Scripture ? Should it not be settled when God speaks thru His Word to us which is written ? Would He speak something contrary to what He has infallibly led to occur and be taught previously ? The point is mute as to what came first .Indeed there is a Catholic lens also which must hold on to extra-biblical revelation.You justify this position and apply it to protestants ,and of course we would be Catholics (believe in the Assumption) also , if scripture did not trump or guide tradition teachings.
 
david_ruiz said:
The Jews had tradition (Abraham to Moses) also, then scripture (Moses onward) .Yet Jesus never had to correct scripture , but tradition He did correct ,with scripture .Why can’t the same pattern exist here ? Does it matter what preceeded Holy Scripture ? Should it not be settled when God speaks thru His Word to us which is written ? Would He speak something contrary to what He has infallibly led to occur and be taught previously ? The point is mute as to what came first .Indeed there is a Catholic lens also which must hold on to extra-biblical revelation.You justify this position and apply it to protestants ,and of course we would be Catholics (believe in the Assumption) also , if scripture did not trump or guide tradition teachings.
Click to expand...
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)

It matters because of authority and infallibility.

All Christian denominations claim to have authority and a type of “infallibility” when it comes to their particular beliefs.

The Bible is much larger and more complicated than the belief in the Assumption of Mary and yet, non-Catholic Christians believe that the Catholic Church got the Bible right and the Assumtion of Mary wrong and then pick and chose a handful of other issue to argue about… just enough to still be Christian but not Catholic…

This is caused by the errant, non-Catholic Christian belief allowing for Personal Interpretation of the Bible and the inherent nature of Protestant churches to protest Rome (the Catholic Church).

Now, there is today, more than 36,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations and sub-sects who all disagree with each other over something .

Am I wrong?
 
Jimmy_B said:
I like the way you conveniently chose to pick the 3rd and 4th centuries :rolleyes:… That’s funny… Why not the 7th or 8th century??? ;). I may have been born at night but it wasn’t last night… Where is Protestant Reformation found in the Bible and can you provide me with any Protestant documents from the 3rd or 4th century? And, don’t say the Bible because that’s a Catholic book… 😃
Click to expand...
That there are no protestant documents in the 3rd century proves to me there was no Roman Catholic church then either. Many historians even catholic ,believe that when Rome asserted herself over the other patriarchs ,it solidified division. It is if they had all been only “europeans”, then all of a sudden germans said they were german and french said they were french etc. and all of a sudden you have DIVISION.I believe before Constantine ,you had mostly persecution,and the church was universal,growing in leeps and bounds ,Without any central organization, except a chief cornerstone 12 strong foundations(Rev.) and the guiding by Jesus himself ,holder of the keys (Revelation) via the Holy Spirit ,His Vicar on earth.Indeed ,some unifying had to occur ,but at the cost of freedom (even in tradition-think Easter). Even when the East broke off,Rome still operated under the delusion of “unity” -of “one garment”…The bible is a Catholic book ??? I understand your position. My position is that it is God’s Holy Word. Indeed , where is “Holy Roman Catholic” in the bible ? Thankfully you do not see Lutheranism or Calvinism or Orthodoxy in there either. Alleluia ,we are not worldly (need of a king-earthly ruler), nor do we boast that we are of Peter or of Paul.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top