Ex Cathredra Teachings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little_Les
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Little_Les

Guest
I would agree with the Moderator that my thread dealing with Exsurge Domine has spun off into too many different topics. To reestablish focus, I’m starting this thread which will deal with the proof provided for an ex cathedra statement or two the “infallibility” is not disputed by apologists.

Munificentissimus Deus (“Bountiful God”) was an Apostolic Constitution issued by pope Pius XII in November 1950. If was the official proclamation of the Dogma of the Assumption.

There is no scriptural evidence that the Assumption took place. Nonetheless, some very creative apologists tried to read such evidence into scripture.

But even Pope Pius XII didn’t buy into that.

“26. Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers, have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption.”
 
One "proof " of the fact of the Assumption offered by Munificentissimus is as follows:

" 33. Finally, since the Church has never looked for the bodily relics of the Blessed Virgin nor proposed them for the veneration of the people, we have a proof on the order of a sensible experience"

In short, since the Church never found the body of Mary, she must have been assumed into heaven. But would this reasoning apply equally well to St. Joseph too?:rolleyes:
 
Church_Militant said:
Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption
Click to expand...
Did you read the URL you posted much of which is taken verbatim from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

“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. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem…”

In short, a folklore that originated in spurious (counterfeit) writings of the fourth or fifth centuries. As mentioned, even a 4th century Church historian wrote that he knew nothing about Mary’s death.
 
Little_Les said:
Did you read the URL you posted much of which is taken verbatim from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

“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. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem…”

In short, a folklore that originated in spurious (counterfeit) writings of the fourth or fifth centuries. As mentioned, even a 4th century Church historian wrote that he knew nothing about Mary’s death.
Click to expand...
It’s also his blog.
 
I personally think declaring assumption as an infallible teaching is doing too much. Catholic Church of course put equal emphasis on Bible and Tradition but for this teaching, it is entirely, completely, absolutely not in the Bible and is 100% from Tradition.

I mean, the Church doesn’t infallibly declare some teachings that we are 99.99% sure of and here we are declaring infallibly of something with no scripture proof.

At least Elijah and Enoch’s cases were recorded
 
fdmilkis said:
I personally think declaring assumption as an infallible teaching is doing too much. Catholic Church of course put equal emphasis on Bible and Tradition but for this teaching, it is entirely, completely, absolutely not in the Bible and is 100% from Tradition.

I mean, the Church doesn’t infallibly declare some teachings that we are 99.99% sure of and here we are declaring infallibly of something with no scripture proof.

At least Elijah and Enoch’s cases were recorded
Click to expand...
Has it escaped your attention that the Canon of Scripture itself *isn’t *contained in scripture? It nowhere lists the books of which it is comprised - not a peep. In fact the very idea of Scripture being inerrant or infallible isn’t either. The beliefs of early Christians ABOUT scripture certainly are, just as their belief in Mary’s Assumption are too.

And did Jesus say ‘what you bind on earth is bound in heaven’ or did he only say 'what you bind on earth is bound … if it’s got enough support from the scriptures you guys will write … ’ 🤷
 
fdmilkis said:
I personally think declaring assumption as an infallible teaching is doing too much. Catholic Church of course put equal emphasis on Bible and Tradition but for this teaching, it is entirely, completely, absolutely not in the Bible and is 100% from Tradition.

I mean, the Church doesn’t infallibly declare some teachings that we are 99.99% sure of and here we are declaring infallibly of something with no scripture proof.

At least Elijah and Enoch’s cases were recorded
Click to expand...
Perhaps you overlooked the fact that there is no evidence that this tradition started before the fourth or fifth century.

Therefore, it is hardly Apostolic.
 
LilyM said:
Has it escaped your attention that the Canon of Scripture itself *isn’t *contained in scripture? It nowhere lists the books of which it is comprised - not a peep. In fact the very idea of Scripture being inerrant or infallible isn’t either. The beliefs of early Christians ABOUT scripture certainly are, just as their belief in Mary’s Assumption are too.

And did Jesus say ‘what you bind on earth is bound in heaven’ or did he only say 'what you bind on earth is bound … if it’s got enough support from the scriptures you guys will write … ’ 🤷
Click to expand...
Yes, what was once claimed to be “inspired” and “inerrant” scripture also was a later development.

And the Church is moving away from the “inerrant” part, and some theologians are now saying that “inspiration” doesn’t apply to all scripture.
 
Looking further, Munificentissimus tells us that:
  1. “In the fifteenth century, during a later period of scholastic theology, St. Bernardine of Siena collected and diligently evaluated all that the medieval theologians had said and taught on this question…Moreover, it is reasonable and fitting that not only the soul and body of a man, but also the soul and body of a woman should have obtained heavenly glory.”
Is that resonable proof for the Assumption?
 
LilyM said:
Has it escaped your attention that the Canon of Scripture itself *isn’t *contained in scripture? It nowhere lists the books of which it is comprised - not a peep. In fact the very idea of Scripture being inerrant or infallible isn’t either. The beliefs of early Christians ABOUT scripture certainly are, just as their belief in Mary’s Assumption are too.

And did Jesus say ‘what you bind on earth is bound in heaven’ or did he only say 'what you bind on earth is bound … if it’s got enough support from the scriptures you guys will write … ’ 🤷
Click to expand...
Don’t bother. He doesn’t accept the inspiration of Scripture either. His posts are best ignored.
 
porthos11 said:
Don’t bother. He doesn’t accept the inspiration of Scripture either. His posts are best ignored.
Click to expand...
Don’t I always ask to be corrected? I can’t ask about my faith in Catholic Apologetic Forum? Or are you trying to deprive me of my salvation by telling people I should be left aside? Don’t bother? God forbid you do any evangelizing since you ingnore all the non-Catholics (Or even Learning Catholics like me)

Btw I accept the inspiration of Scripture. So basically you’ve just told a lie about me
 
<<But would this reasoning apply equally well to St. Joseph too?>>

There is a relic of St. Joseph the Betrothed in an Orthodox Monastery in Boston.
 
bpbasilphx said:
<<But would this reasoning apply equally well to St. Joseph too?>>

There is a relic of St. Joseph the Betrothed in an Orthodox Monastery in Boston.
Click to expand...
Is it claimed that Joseph’s whole body is in Boston?
 
porthos11 said:
Don’t bother. He doesn’t accept the inspiration of Scripture either. His posts are best ignored.
Click to expand...
Oh I wasn’t responding to Les, rather to the other poster, the one I quoted, who said there was no evidence for the Assumption in scripture, as if that matters a jot.

Little Les, I’ve got to ask, is there any sense in which you ARE actually a genuine Catholic? Seriously?

If you have problems with the inerrancy of the scriptures on essential points of faith and morals then how on earth do you justify any sort of belief in Christ Himself, let alone the Catholic Church?

It’s not like you’ve ever seen Him or His miracles, and biblical and all other accounts of Him and His doings and teachings may be completely wrong - in essential points - if some of it is. So you’ve no reason to believe in Him at all. 🤷

If scripture isn’t to be trusted on such matters as the Church’s authority to bind and loose, then why on earth are you trusting that it is accurate in any other particular at all, even down to the very fact of Christ’s existence?
 
LilyM said:
Oh I wasn’t responding to Les, rather to the other poster, the one I quoted, who said there was no evidence for the Assumption in scripture, as if that matters a jot.

Little Les, I’ve got to ask, is there any sense in which you ARE actually a genuine Catholic? Seriously?

If you have problems with the inerrancy of the scriptures on essential points of faith and morals then how on earth do you justify any sort of belief in Christ Himself, let alone the Catholic Church?

It’s not like you’ve ever seen Him or His miracles, and biblical and all other accounts of Him and His doings and teachings may be completely wrong - in essential points - if some of it is. So you’ve no reason to believe in Him at all. 🤷

If scripture isn’t to be trusted on such matters as the Church’s authority to bind and loose, then why on earth are you trusting that it is accurate in any other particular at all, even down to the very fact of Christ’s existence?
Click to expand...
  1. There is no evidence in scripture about the Assumption. If you claim there is, please cite the book, chapter, and verse.
  2. Yep. I was baptized a catholic in my infancy. Unless I specifically change my religion, I remain catholic. That doesn’t mean I remain a gullible Catholic though.😉
  3. I don’t.
  4. I guess I just can’t rely on the inerrancy of Scripture. Even the Church stopped teaching that.
  5. I’m not.
 
fdmilkis said:
Don’t I always ask to be corrected? I can’t ask about my faith in Catholic Apologetic Forum? Or are you trying to deprive me of my salvation by telling people I should be left aside? Don’t bother? God forbid you do any evangelizing since you ingnore all the non-Catholics (Or even Learning Catholics like me)

Btw I accept the inspiration of Scripture. So basically you’ve just told a lie about me
Click to expand...
Sorry milkis. No, I was referring to Little Les, not you (I thought LilyM was talking to him). He is the one who doesn’t accept the inspiration of Scripture, and he has never shown any inclination or indication that he wanted to lean or be taught (unlike you), or even just plain humility, so naturally no matter what you tell him he won’t listen anyway. So he’s best ignored.

My apologies to you.
 
Little_Les said:
  1. There is no evidence in scripture about the Assumption. If you claim there is, please cite the book, chapter, and verse.
  2. Yep. I was baptized a catholic in my infancy. Unless I specifically change my religion, I remain catholic. That doesn’t mean I remain a gullible Catholic though.😉
  3. I don’t.
  4. I guess I just can’t rely on the inerrancy of Scripture. Even the Church stopped teaching that.
  5. I’m not.
Click to expand...
You’re something all right - formal or material heretic, or schismatic maybe. No more Catholic than Luther or Henry VIII. And every bit as gullible as they and their followers were.

And no, the Church’s teaching on the inerrancy of scripture stands. Scripture is perfect and without error in regards its instruction on faith and morals. Inerrant and infallible. Full stop. Whether it is historically or scientifically accurate in EVERY respect is utterly beside the point.
 
porthos11 said:
Sorry milkis. No, I was referring to Little Les, not you (I thought LilyM was talking to him). He is the one who doesn’t accept the inspiration of Scripture, and he has never shown any inclination or indication that he wanted to lean or be taught (unlike you), or even just plain humility, so naturally no matter what you tell him he won’t listen anyway. So he’s best ignored.

My apologies to you.
Click to expand...
“In God we trust.” With everybody else examine the data.

“Test everything. Hold fast to that which is true.” Paul

“Always remember, old son, that pious nonsense is still nonsense. Sure now, lad, avoid as much of it as you can.” Brother Jerome, Irish Christian Brothers, to a student (me).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top