Which Popes? Are you talking about the so-called Gelasian decree? If so, the end of the Juniper Carol article may address your claim (see the section under Objections). Also, if you have a specific quote from a Pope defining the Assumption as heresy, I would be willing to read it.
Ok, you don’t.
Don’t trust what Webster writes. As our good friend and fellow forum participant PhilVaz wrote a while back:
kc << Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian >>
William Webster is simply lying about Juniper Carol. I’ve had the photocopied sections of his Mariology (3 volumes) on the Immaculate Conception and Assumption for a number of years, and only recently typed up the sections on the Assumption. What Fr. Burghardt says (he is the author of the articles in those volumes on the eastern and western Fathers on Mary, not Juniper Carol who is the editor of the volumes) is that the Transitus is “valueless” as strict history, but nonetheless significant and priceless both historically and theologically. Here is what Webster does not and won’t quote:
Burghardt: “This account is significant, in the first instance, because it affirms unequivocally the death and burial of Mary, the reunion of her soul and body without delay, and her assumption into heaven in soul and body. It is significant, in the second place, for the developed Assumption theology which links this privilege causally with Mary’s Maternity and virginity, and stresses the parallelism which ought to exist between Christ and His Mother in victory over death. The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste. But the account is priceless nonetheless – historically and theologically. Historically, because it witnesses indisputably to the feeling of the faithful for Mary, a growing awareness of her dignity, even though we are unable to specify the full range of this awareness geographically or even to indicate its dawning. Theologically, because it postulates the Assumption on grounds that are valid not simply for piety but for scientific theology as well.” (Carol Mariology, volume 1, page 149-150, emphasis added)
Burghardt: “What is the value of these witnesses? As historical accounts of an actual event – Mary’s death, her translation, her Assumption – by individuals who were personally present, or else were in contact with the events through unimpeachable sources, the Transitus literature is valueless. But theologically the tales are priceless. They reveal the reaction of early Christian piety when confronted with the apparent fact of Our Lady’s death; they evidence the first unequivocal solutions to the problem of Mary’s destiny. The solutions, though divergent, disclose a genuinely Christian insight: it was not fitting that the body of Mary should see corruption. More importantly, the solution is given, incorruption is postulated, on theological lines: the principles of solution are the divine Maternity, Mary’s unimpaired virginity, her unrivaled holiness…” (Carol Mariology, volume 2, page 145-146, see above, emphasis added)
That is what Juniper Carol says (specifically Fr. Burghardt) and you and Webster can now apologize to Carol and Burghardt. This goes to show – you cannot trust William Webster. Look up what he quotes, please!
For a scholarly treatment of the so-called “Transitus literature” you want to get Shoemaker’s thorough study Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford Univ Press, 2006 paperback). And throw Webster into the garbage can where he belongs.
Phil P
To me the assumption is one of the easiest Marian doctrines to proof. Here is the one biblical passage that undeniably prove it: Deut 5:16:
On the contrary, the Dormition of the Theotokos has been a longstanding tradition in the Church. The fact is the belief that we are free to believe that Mary didn’t die is a more recent development rather than the age old tradition that went unquestioned for over 1000 years.
In a way, Mary is indeed no different from us. Everything that happened to Mary is not something that is unique to her, but something that will come to all of us. Her special privilege is not that she’s the only human to receive such graces from God (except of course being the bearer of God on earth which will forever be uniquely hers), but being filled with grace and being resurrected in glory to be assumed body and soul into heaven is our destiny. Being the Theotokos, she went first. This includes being saved. Because she was filled with grace at the very moment of her conception. For us, its a lifelong struggle through sin, repentance, change, and then filling ourselves with grace through the Sacraments.
what is typology? i love Mary and give her Honnor I know who she is. Mother of Christ the basics maybe to catholism. i know where i grew up in all the different churches my family tried as we moved, only catholic was a place for rest respectively in rest and peace. there are still things i like that i learned, is it that we talk diffrontly we have different language we cant understand more? i have other things i struggle to believe, not eurcharist or mary or saints but other things. how do you learn cultural differences if your not a genious? waht is this typology am thinkin what it is or am i off track. not every term you guys use is in this encyclopedia i am tryin to use on the website as a reference.It’s tough for a Protestant to grasp because typology is so often alien to them, such as Mary as the new Eve, the Ark of the Covenant, etc… These figures all contribute to the dogma, and point to it in a confluence of arrows.
I recommend reading The Asumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary from Juniper Carol’s Mariology. It’s a little lengthy, but if your friend wants the truth, he/she should be willing to delve into the material with an honest eye.
Perplexity,
He makes the incredible leap that just because the assumption is mentioned in an apocryphal work that the assumption itself was regarded as a heresy by the early church. These works also mention that Jesus was the messiah. Using Webster’s logic, that would also be considered a heresy. That’s how simple it is to debunk Webster.
.
I have no problem with someone being a lapsed Catholic expending most of their efforts attacking the Church. I have no problem with someone being a lapsed Protestant expending most of their efforts attacking Protestantism (as so many Catholic apologists are). etc. All I care about is good argumentation. I am in many ways just like Webster, I even attended seminary. Your point is just a genetic fallacy though.
Yeah…I doubt Webster’s logic is that ‘given any (x) whatsoever, if (x) is mentioned in a condemned heretical piece of literature, then (x) is a condemned heresy.’ lol The assumption of Mary was a teaching peculiar to these works, a teaching not attested to by really anyone before. This significantly raises the probability that it was viewed as heterodoxy.
Typology refers to those things in the Old Testament that were shadows of things in the New Testament. For example, remember in the Passover, the lamb was slain and those who had the “blood of the lamb” were spared from the angel of death. You see how this foreshadows Jesus, the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29), and those in the New Covenant are also saved by the blood of the Lamb. In the OT, the death spared was physical death. In the NT, the death spared is spiritual death.
Phil’s point starts with the fact that it wasn’t Juniper who said the Transitus is a complete fabrication that should be rejected by any serious historian. It was Fr. Burghardt whose words were in question, not Carol, and secondly, it does not summate Fr. Burghardt’s position on the text. Webster was trying to score a point, but failed on at least 2 levels.
Attacking those that don’t agreee with you is not charitable. We are called to love everyone. Explaining your position is charitable.
There’s another way to look at it. First of all, this is an argument from silence. Because you can’t find a previous written statement that said Mary was assumed bodily into heaven, you assume that the assumption didn’t happen. At the same time, there is no written record that her body suffered corruption in the grave. Secondly, your argument suggests that a single heretical writting could infect the whole church. This seems unlikely - and to those that beleive that Church doctrine is protected by the Holy Spirit, impossible
First of all, you seem to be thinking that the deposit of faith must be written down on paper… This is not the Catholic view. The deposit of faith is written first on the hearts of the faithful, only to be written down on paper when its needed for the faithful. Pope Pius XII felt compelled to make the Assumption of Mary doctrine in 1950. based on the fact that the whole Catholic Church almost unanimously believed it to be true. And you are right that the credibility of the assumption rests with the Credibility of the magesterium. We believe that Jesus established the Church to administer the sacrements and tell the truth about salvation when he commissioned St. Peter and the Apostles (Matthew 16 and 28). And He promised to be with the church unitl the end of time. We take him at his word.
Well, Catholic Apologists are not all equal and if you find one that tries to mislead rather than to tell the truth or tells you something counter to established Church teaching, then you should definitely distrust that individual.
I agree, I don’t attack Catholics.
I don’t think an argument is bad simply because it’s one from silence, there are numerous cases where arguments from silence adduce powerful support. But, I’m content to say we just don’t know. (This is quite a stretch from saying this is a dogma)
Hmm, I guess I’m not sure I follow.
I’ve only explained the deposit as the Church through her theologians does. I’ve said nothing non-Catholic about the deposit. The fact is though, if you want to probablify the Assumption on grounds other than the magisterium, you have to be able to evidence that this was believed before the last Apostle, otherwise you’re not arguing for the Catholic position.
People make mistakes, people are ignorant etc. I tend to just take things with a grain of sand, so I guess mistakes/deception don’t effect me as much as others.
That’s a very positive statement.
Its middle ground from the position of Webster, which is the assumption is false and the Catholic view that its true.
my point was that its hard to beleive that someone in the year 500 could lie about the assumption of Mary and get God’s entire church to follow it, particularly if you believe the Church is under the protection of the Holy Spirit.
We beleive that the Assumption of Mary was known to the Apostles, even though they didn’t write it down for posterity. This is the position of the Magesterium.
That’s fair. We should give people the benefit of the doubt.
WOW…i checked out that link…i have read the bible alot and i never saw or thought to look at those things…very awesome…God is Great!!! i get the imagary and scripture and how What God did in her made her as like the Arc of the Covenent, and i think that its awesome that we can see it as the word of God and What he made His Blessed Virgin to be, but is She THE only living arc of the covenent or will all who walk in God’s ways and enjoy and be satisfied in Him also be the Arc of the Covenent with her? Is she the First and the Last, and are there others in between that are that Made by God also to be Holy Atonned for before birth and never to sin or enjoy a lie also? then my arguement about the blameless 144,000 of the tribes of judah at the almost end of this sinful world who welcome Christ into His kingdom in thier hearts and souls on earth would be as i believed it and true and then i wouldnt be wrong to tell a person who is not knowing Mary how she is but Knows Jesus’s salvation look at revelations and if God calls 144,000 blameless then why do you say she has sin.
In another typological sense, because Mary is also the figure of the Church, those in the Church share their identity in a mystical way with Mary, the Ark.
Mary had a unique role in human history, the mother of God. That is what makes her the new ark of the convenant. She was born with special graces for that role. This is not to say that others have not achieved high levels of holiness - they have. But not even the most devout Saint was born without original sin like Mary
Although you might not fully appreciate this, baptism is very significant. By being baptized, you were freed of original sin, given the necessary graces to go to heaven and made a part of the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We believe you can only be baptized once for the forgiveness of sins. Baptism, at its most basic level, is a covenant agreement. God agrees to make you a member of his church, provides his grace and forgives your sins but to gain all that you need to follow his will for you or you will fall from grace. Perhaps the next stage in his will for you is what brought you to this website in the first place
This is exactly what you should be doing. God knows what is best for you Grandfather so put your faith in his hands.
Life is a journey toward or away from God. We all ultimately have the choice of heaven or hell. If we serve God and our neighbors in life, we will go to heaven, where we will be with people who do the same. If we serve only ourselves, we will be condemned to live in Hell with all the others self-centered souls.
Let’s be clear here. While many Catholics are devoted to Mary, we don’t see her as equal to God. When we pray to Mary, we ask for her intercession with God, just like we do the other Saints. And yes, Mary has brought millions to her Son. Have you read about her work at Gaudalupe, Lourdes and Fatima? They are hugely inspirational.
Be patient, both with others and yourself. You are being tested, as we all are. You will find your way, I am confident of it.
