Ex Cathredra Teachings

[Little_Les]

Little Les;2999167:

Er, no – I was responding to the (lack of) logic in your previous post: that, if something is not mentioned in the Gospels, it didn’t happen.

Really? Please indicate exactly where I said that. Or did I?

 

[Little_Les]

Originally Posted by Little Les
And from Munificentissimus, there is this,

1. “…Consequently it seems impossible to think of her, the one who conceived Christ, brought him forth, nursed him with her milk, held him in her arms, and clasped him to her breast, as being apart from him in body, even though not in soul, after this earthly life. Since our Redeemer is the Son of Mary, he could not do otherwise, as the perfect observer of God’s law, than to honor, not only his eternal Father, but also his most beloved Mother. And, since it was within his power to grant her this great honor, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that he really acted in this way.”

This is another of those, “Jesus could have, he should have, therefore he must have” arguments.

Actually, it’s a divine revelation, just like most of the other things which God reveals.

But let’s come back to this…

.

First, please cite the “divine revelation” for us. Remember now, this has to exist before the fifth century when the Assumption legend began.

 

[Little_Les]

There are parallels between Eve and Mary-- and you will find these thoughts dating back into the early church too.

QUOTE]

Indeed. Both were women. Both died. Parallels beyond that are the creation of apologists.

 

[Little_Les]

Consequently, you seemed to have fairly well not addressed the research regarding the early Chruch and their movements within the catacombs within the first four centuries. Again, I would say that an interest in relics was actually very deeply interwoven into the Christian faith from the very beginning. The tombstones, inscribed as they were with Christian effigies, played a powerful role in the continuum of the Catholic faith, especially during times of terrible persecution.

Bearing this historically verified fact in mind, it is very striking that no body of Mary has ever been found, especially since it is well known how much graves and catacombs have been linked with the movements of the early church.

Once again, There is nothing in scripture nor anything in the writing of the Church Fathers about the fact of the assumption until the fifth century.

If you dispute this fact, please present valid evidence.

Neither Mary’s nor Joseph’s nor a host of other bodies considered saints were ever found.

 

[Little_Les]

No one is going to claim that Scripture explicitly teaches the Assumption. I certainly don’t, just as is the case with many other doctrines that Christians believe.
.

Thank you for admitting that nothing in scripture explicitly teached the Dogma of the Assumption.

But you ned to admit next that nothing in any writings of the Church Fathers until about the fourth or fifth century explicitly refer to an Assumption either.

 

[Little_Les]

So basically you’re saying that they just Assumed that Mary was taken into heaven body and soul.

Yes. This story, (legend, or folklore) started in the fourth or fifth century.

St. Francis de Sales claimed that Joseph too was assumed into heaven, but this legend never caught on. Perhaps some future Pope will make this infallible dogma also.

books.google.com/books?id=k-OnMiCvmcIC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=was+joseph+assumed+into+heaven&source=web&ots=mLYW_0–fZ&sig=YXIO75Z_NbdXO2BzN_EJbkwDcUQ#PPA200,M1

 

[Little_Les]

“There seemed to be nothing in Scripture on it” does not equal Fr. Most “concedes that there is no scriptural support for the Assumption.” If he is like the rest of us Catholics he believes that all divinely revealed truths are at least implicitly contained in Scripture. Fr. Most is not helping you.

Let’s analyze your claim. You concede that Fr. Most (correctly) concedes that there is no scriptural support for the Assumption.

But somehow, it is “implicitly” contained in scripture???

That’s a contradiction. I’m afraid you’ll have to choose one or the other.

 

[Little_Les]

All the smiley faces in the world aren’t going to help you I fear. This isn’t about whether from our respective positions Scripture supports the assumption, it’s about whether the Pope taught something that he didn’t believe was true. Your position on that is now clear.

How would we know what the Pope taught? As for his possible motives for creating the dogma of the Assumption, we can only speculate.

 

[tdgesq]

Most of this now is just to continue to show the readers that you can’t be trusted when it comes to anything you cite. And it looks like we’ve finally reached a conclusion on your motivation for acting in this way, which I think explains everything.

Munificentissimus Deus #31

Pope Pius XII admitted that the Angelic Doctor (Thomas Aquinas) never dealt with the question of the Assumption. But Pius assures us that Aquinas believed what the Church taught about the Assumption, an assertion without any evidence. Evidently Aquinas forgot to mention this.

Another falsehood. Pius states that “he [Aquinas] never dealt directly with this question, nevertheless, whenever he touched upon it, always held together with the Catholic Church . . . .”

Not dealing directly with something and not dealing with it at all are two different things; a distinction that you understand well but continue to misrepresent (as with Scripture) to further your ends. Here’s what Aquinas says:

"Reply to Objection 8. As Pope Sergius says, and it is to be found in the Decretals (De Consecr., dist. ii), “the Lord’s body is threefold; the part offered and put into the chalice signifies Christ’s risen body," namely, Christ Himself, and the Blessed Virgin, and the other saints, if there be any, who are already in glory with their bodies.” S.T., P.3, Q.83, Art.5. (Emphasis added).

Why misrepresent what Pius and Aquinas wrote?

Munificentissimus Deus #32
. . .

There is nothing in Songs 8.5 having to do with any Assumption. Pius XII’s remark that "(They) have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption.” certainly would apply here.

Again, you simply can’t be trusted when it comes to citing or quoting anything. Pius isn’t giving a full exposition of St Bonaventure’s thought here - as if he could within an Apostolic Constitution.

And here we have it again, that Pius’ language about rather free use of events and expressions means he doesn’t really believe what St. Bonaventure teaches, or any of the other teachings of the multiple Doctors that are contained in MD. He teaches as truth things that he doesn’t believe are true, according to you. See:

Yes, their interpretations were not reasonable as tacitly admitted by Pius XII in a rare moment of candor.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3002467&postcount=70

I added the bold just to be sure we all understand your position. The Pope only has rare moments of candor it appears, and one of those rare moments is when, according to your preposterous interpretation, he states that the teachings of all the Doctors and theologians of the Church he cites are not reasonable. But then he teaches it as truth anyway. So Pius is a liar.

You are so dead set on this that you will even take that one phrase along with your patently erroneous interpretation and insert it in paragraphs of MD where it isn’t to be found. Like here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3002431&postcount=69

Again, what would motivate someone who claims to be Catholic in his profile to misquote and misrepresent a Pope’s Apostolic Constitution in this way?

Let’s analyze your claim. You concede that Fr. Most (correctly) concedes that there is no scriptural support for the Assumption.

And now you misrepresent me and Fr. Most. Fr. Most does not conclude that there is no Scriptural support for the Assumption, and I specifically stated that he doesn’t. He stated that it “seemed” (in the past tense) that it didn’t. He nowhere denies that it is in fact implicitly contained in Scripture. Here’s the post so people can once again view the extent of your misrepresentations: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3002018&postcount=67

(4) >>If the successors of the apostles can’t be trusted to give us the deposit of faith, then being Catholic makes very little sense to begin with<<

Congratulations on your new insight!

Tah Dah! Now we finally understand your motivations for acting like you have. Yes, it makes very little sense being Catholic, according to you. Yet you state you are Catholic in your profile. In this very thread you affirm:

1. 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.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2991544&postcount=17

You claim to be Catholic but now confess that it makes no sense. You can’t even be honest about your anti-Catholicism. Add it to the list of misrepresentations. Given all of the above, why should anybody here trust anything you say?

 

[Little_Les]

Most of this now is just to continue to show the readers that you can’t be trusted when it comes to anything you cite. And it looks like we’ve finally reached a conclusion on your motivation for acting in this way, which I think explains everything.

Another falsehood. Pius states that “he [Aquinas] never dealt directly with this question, nevertheless, whenever he touched upon it, always held together with the Catholic Church . . . .”

Not dealing directly with something and not dealing with it at all are two different things; a distinction that you understand well but continue to misrepresent (as with Scripture) to further your ends. Here’s what Aquinas says:

"

Then you should be able to cite for us the secion in Aquinas in which he dealt with the Assumption.

Please note that my citations are correct. If you assert otherwise, surely you can cite an error I have made. Can you?

 

[Little_Les]

Not dealing directly with something and not dealing with it at all are two different things; a distinction that you understand well but continue to misrepresent (as with Scripture) to further your ends. Here’s what Aquinas says:

"Reply to Objection 8. As Pope Sergius says, and it is to be found in the Decretals (De Consecr., dist. ii), “the Lord’s body is threefold; the part offered and put into the chalice signifies Christ’s risen body," namely, Christ Himself, and the Blessed Virgin, and the other saints, if there be any, who are already in glory with their bodies.” S.T., P.3, Q.83, Art.5. (Emphasis added).

Why misrepresent what Pius and Aquinas wrote?

QUOTE]

Please quote what Aquinas said specifically about the Assumption of Mary.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

First, please cite the “divine revelation” for us. Remember now, this has to exist before the fifth century when the Assumption legend began.

A divine revelation is something that God revealed was true during the apostolic age during the original deposit of faith. In other words, if it really happened then it is indeed true-- and God has revealed it as such to our Catholic Church, something which I’m becoming increasingly skeptical that you are actually a part of.

I’ve explained to you that there are parallels between Eve and Mary-- and you will find these thoughts dating back into the early church too. I’ve explained to you the ways in which God has indeed raised up people like Enoch and Elijah even while they were still alive. I’ve also explained the dynamics between between the Adam and Eve of the Old contrasted to the Adam and Eve of the New. To be honest, you don’t seem to be interested though.

Once again, There is nothing in scripture nor anything in the writing of the Church Fathers about the fact of the assumption until the fifth century.

If you dispute this fact, please present valid evidence.

Was Mary assumed into heaven or was Mary not assumed into heaven?

If you dispute this fact, please present valid evidence.

Neither Mary’s nor Joseph’s nor a host of other bodies considered saints were ever found.

Well, at least you’re no longer raising an issue about relics like you originally did back here…

1. When did the interest in relics begin? Evidence.

Has this question been answered to your satisfaction?

Consequently, you asked before what evidence we had that relics of Mary did not exist in the early centuries before the Assumption legend was developed, correct?

Based on your line of reasoning, a reasoning which rejects our claim that the absence of her body indicates a positive toward her assumption into heaven, your request for any evidence we had that the relics of Mary did not exist in the early centuries seems pointless.

There is, after all, an empty tomb which has been found here at the Tomb of the Virgin Mary in Jerusalem…

http://www.kosovo.net/news/archive/2005/August_28/files/1125181499_7d262llaftk_tombofmary.jpg

Consequently, floods, which happened in 1972, made it possible for archaeologists not only to clear the area but also to have the area around the crypt excavated. These excavations were carried out by the late Fr. Bellarmino Bagatti.

He concluded, from the excavations, that the tradition of Mary’s tomb in the valley of Johosaphat is clearly marked in a cemetery in use during the first century. Furthermore the tomb itself, originally made up of three chambers, was dug out with the same techniques used in tombs of the first century, like the Holy Sepulchre and the Kings’ tombs.

The actual tomb was the inner chamber of the whole complex. These archaeological findings, corroborated by literary documents (Palestinian, Syrian, Ethiopian and Greek) of the II-IV centuries together with the constant liturgical devotion are witness to the belief about the tomb of Mary next to Gethsemani since the beginning of the Christian era.

It is from these far away origins that comes the celebration of the feast of the Assumption on August 15 since the infant Church, at this tomb, solemnly celebrated the feast of the Assumption of Mary.

 

[Little_Les]

Me? Hardly. Mary being a type of the Ark of the Covenant and the New Eve is testified to by the early Fathers. So those references in Scripture that refer to the same do apply, despite what you are hearing here. This very debate is taking place right now here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=200388

This particular debate is about what Pope Pius Taught in Munificentissimus Deus.

Evidence please including dates of the writings you cite.

 

[Little_Les]

Most of this now is just to continue to show the readers that you can’t be trusted when it comes to anything you cite. And it looks like we’ve finally reached a conclusion on your motivation for acting in this way, which I think explains everything.

QUOTE]

Indeed. I like to separate fact from fiction,

 

[Little_Les]

Another falsehood. Pius states that “he [Aquinas] never dealt directly with this question, nevertheless, whenever he touched upon it, always held together with the Catholic Church . . . .”

Not dealing directly with something and not dealing with it at all are two different things; a distinction that you understand well but continue to misrepresent (as with Scripture) to further your ends.

Yes. The please cite where Aquinas says that there is a scriptural basis for the Assumption and/or that this was a teaching of the Apostolic Fathers.

 

[Little_Les]

"Reply to Objection 8. As Pope Sergius says, and it is to be found in the Decretals (De Consecr., dist. ii), “the Lord’s body is threefold; the part offered and put into the chalice signifies Christ’s risen body," namely, Christ Himself, and the Blessed Virgin, and the other saints, if there be any, who are already in glory with their bodies.” S.T., P.3, Q.83, Art.5. (Emphasis added).

Why misrepresent what Pius and Aquinas wrote?

Really? Please reference the section of Article 5, which is quite lengthy, you are referring to.

 

[Little_Les]

Again, you simply can’t be trusted when it comes to citing or quoting anything.

RESPONSE:

Then please show exactly where I have ever misquoted in one of my citations, or can we assume that this is merely an assumption without any evidence?

 

[Little_Les]

And here we have it again, that Pius’ language about rather free use of events and expressions means he doesn’t really believe what St. Bonaventure teaches, or any of the other teachings of the multiple Doctors that are contained in MD. He teaches as truth things that he doesn’t believe are true, according to you. QUOTE]

Once again, we don’t know actually what pope Pius XII believed. We only know what he admitted when he wrote:

"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. "

 

[Little_Les]

I added the bold just to be sure we all understand your position. The Pope only has rare moments of candor it appears, and one of those rare moments is when, according to your preposterous interpretation, he states that the teachings of all the Doctors and theologians of the Church he cites are not reasonable. But then he teaches it as truth anyway. So Pius is a liar.

Evidently, then, you don’t understand the plain meaning of words. Please cite precisely where you claim I said the above.

 

[Little_Les]

.

You are so dead set on this that you will even take that one phrase along with your patently erroneous interpretation and insert it in paragraphs of MD where it isn’t to be found. Like here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3002431&postcount=69

Again, what would motivate someone who claims to be Catholic in his profile to misquote and misrepresent a Pope’s Apostolic Constitution in this way?

Again, please provide evidence for your assertion and explain why my “interpretation” is in error.