Ex Cathredra Teachings

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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…

That’s really a stretch, isn’t it? Perhaps you would want to argue that Gensis “alludes to it” too. After all, it mentions a woman.

But how much of a stretch is it, really?

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

For example St. Irenaeus (193 A.D.) wrote that…

“It was right and necessary that Adam be restored in Christ…that Eve be restored in Mary, so that a Virgin, become advocate of a virgin, might erase and abolish the disobedience of a virgin by her obedience as Virgin.”

Indeed, if Adam and Eve brought death into the world of humanity with both of them dying as a result of their sin, and if Jesus the “New Adam” Ascended after his Resurrection into heaven– does it not follow that the “New Eve” would likewise follow in the same pattern of the New Adam being brought into heaven?

When one contrasts the Old Adam and Eve to the New Adam and Eve, the pattern seems very consistent-- inversed upon itself. Whereas the Old Adam and Eve died and decayed into the earth, the New Adam and Eve died and then, rising from the dead, likewise arose into heaven.

I don’t see this as too much of a stretch to be fair.

Nonetheless, when we come back to 1 Thessalonians 4:17, we do potentially see a pattern fulfilled in the same sense as the Adam and Eve patterns noted above. Mary didn’t “ascend” into heaven in the same way the Lord brought himself into heaven. Mary was, despite being immaculately conceived without sin (like Adam and Eve were) brought into heaven, essentially “assumed” heaven-ward by her Son.

As such, like all beleivers will be in the end, she remains a picture of the fulfillment of that which all “purely human believers” await for some day-- The Great Resurrection. In this way, she certainly is a sign of hope for all purely human believers who believe in the promises of her Son just like she did then (and still does today).

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.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

DanteAlighieri;2998416:

The gospels are suppose to report significant events.

The gospels don’t say Peter didn’t have a halo either. .Based on that, would you argue that he did?

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.

You’re right: the Gospels mention many significant events. They do not, however, contain the sum total of Jesus’ life:

John 21:25: But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

…and, as Catholics, we don’t believe that all Truth is contained in the Bible anyway. Certainly, all the Bible is true; not all that is true is in the Bible.

Peace,
Dante

 

[tdgesq]

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.”

This is a highly misleading characterization of Pope Pius’ comments about the witness of Scripture to Mary’s assumption. Rather than diminishing the analysis of “theologians and preachers” who have followed the “footsteps of the holy Fathers,” he uses it as further evidence of the correct interpretation of those Scriptural passages. Here’s the rest of the paragraph:

Thus, to mention only a few of the texts rather frequently cited in this fashion, some have employed the words of the psalmist: “Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified”[21]; and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and placed in the Lord’s temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven. Treating of this subject, they also describe her as the Queen entering triumphantly into the royal halls of heaven and sitting at the right hand of the divine Redeemer.[22] Likewise they mention the Spouse of the Canticles “that goes up by the desert, as a pillar of smoke of aromatical spices, of myrrh and frankincense” to be crowned.[23] These are proposed as depicting that heavenly Queen and heavenly Spouse who has been lifted up to the courts of heaven with the divine Bridegroom.

Pius goes on to list numerous Church Doctors who held to the same interpretation, including New Testament references as well - Rev 12:1 and Luke 1:28. See MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS paragraphs 27-32.

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?

Perhaps it would apply. If you believe that St. Joseph was dead by the time Jesus began his ministry, which many theologians do considering his absence at that time in the Scriptures, and that the bodies of the Saints arose after Jesus’ Resurrection as stated in Matt. 27:52. You also neglected to mention in paragraph 33 of MD (that you improperly quoted btw) the theology of the Schools. In conjunction with Scripture and the conclusion that she was free of original sin led many to deduce that her body was incorruptable and in preparation for her bodily assumption. Further comment is probably warranted here, but it will have to do for now. The fact that relics would have been sought but were not found is not as weak an argument as you suggest.

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.

This isn’t precisely true either. Have you read the apocryphal literature? I have not, but not all pseudo literature is on equal footing as far as what is to be believed and what is to be rejected. It also makes no sense to me that Pius or the bishops would base anything on works they knew to be unreliable in the particulars. And you have left out perhaps the best argument that MD has to offer. Nearly the entire episcopate agreed with the Pope on this matter. Even if all Eastern Bishops did not participate, the view on the Dormition is well known among the Orthodox. 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.

 

[Little_Les]

This is a highly misleading characterization of Pope Pius’ comments about the witness of Scripture to Mary’s assumption. Rather than diminishing the analysis of “theologians and preachers” who have followed the “footsteps of the holy Fathers,” he uses it as further evidence of the correct interpretation of those Scriptural passages. Here’s the rest of the paragraph:

Thus, to mention only a few of the texts rather frequently cited in this fashion, some have employed the words of the psalmist: “Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified”[21]; and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and placed in the Lord’s temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven. Treating of this subject, they also describe her as the Queen entering triumphantly into the royal halls of heaven and sitting at the right hand of the divine Redeemer.[22] Likewise they mention the Spouse of the Canticles “that goes up by the desert, as a pillar of smoke of aromatical spices, of myrrh and frankincense” to be crowned.[23] These are proposed as depicting that heavenly Queen and heavenly Spouse who has been lifted up to the courts of heaven with the divine Bridegroom.

.

1. On the contrary, this is hardly a “misleading characterization of Pope Pius’ remarks.” When Pius euphemistically admitted that: “(They) have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption.” He meant exactly what he said… “Rather free” is entirely different than the “correct interpretation.”
2. Reference to the Ark of the Covenant (Footnote 21) “Arise, LORD, come to your resting place, you and your majestic ark.” This has no reference to Mary nor any Assumption. The Ark of the Covenant contained the tablets of the Law and was a symbol of Israel’s history. (reference: Modern Catholic Dictionary, John A. Hardon, S.J, editor, page 42.
3. Footnote 22 “Daughters of kings are your lovely wives; a princess arrayed in Ophir’s gold comes to stand at your right hand. Listen, my daughter, and understand; pay me careful heed. Forget your people and your father’s house.that the king might desire your beauty. He is your lord; honor him, daughter of Tyre. Then the richest of the people will seek your favor with gifts. All glorious is the king’s daughter as she enters, her raiment threaded with gold…”
   There is no reference to a Redeemer, Mary, or any Assumption.
4. Footnote 23 is from the Song of Songs and refers to the Covenant between Israel and the Lord as a marriage. (Reference: New American Bible, Introduction to the Song of Songs). Again, there is no reference to Mary or any Assumption.
   3.6 “What is this coming up from the desert,
   like a column of smoke
   Laden with myrrh, with frankincense,
   and with the perfume of every exotic dust?”
   4.8 “Come from Lebanon, my bride,
   come from Lebanon, come!
   Descend from the top of Amana,
   from the top of Senir and Hermon,
   From the haunts of lions,
   from the leopards’ mountains.”
   6.8-9 “There are sixty queens, eighty concubines,
   and maidens without number-
   One alone is my dove, my perfect one,
   her mother’s chosen,
   the dear one of her parent.
   The daughters saw her and declared her fortunate,
   the queens and concubines, and they sang her praises;

4.Only somone with a very vivid imagination can claim that any of these scripturally support the fact of the Assumption. But if an apologist has to try to find some scriptural support, perhaps this is the best he can do.

Even the very conservative Fr. William Most of EWTN fame concedes that there is no scriptural support for the Assumption.

“There had been a problem of how the Pope could define the Assumption. There seemed to be nothing in Scripture on it, and what things there were in the Tradition of the Fathers seemed to come not from an apostolic origin, but from some apocryphal stories that circulated chiefly beginning in the fourth century.”

Let me deal with your next claim separately since the post may be lengthy. I’ll divide it as appropriate.

 

[Little_Les]

Pius goes on to list numerous Church Doctors who held to the same interpretation, including New Testament references as well - Rev 12:1 and Luke 1:28. See MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS paragraphs 27-32.
.

No. They are not using the same interpretation. They are developing their own different interpretations in an effort to establish scriptural support for the Assumption which doesn’t exist.

Note that these arguments were developed after the fifth century when the folklore was born.

Munificentissimus #27

The” woman clothed with the sun”. See Rev 12.1 et seq.
“A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.
Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems.
Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. 5 Her child was caught up to God and his throne. The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.” (NAB)

Do you see anything about an Assumption here?

The footnote to this passage in the New American Bible explains it thus:

[12-1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Genesis 37:9-10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13-17); cf Isaiah 50:1; 66:7; Jeremiah 50:12. This corresponds to a widespread myth throughout the ancient world that a goddess pregnant with a savior was pursued by a horrible monster; by miraculous intervention, she bore a son who then killed the monster.

[2] Because of Eve’s sin, the woman gives birth in distress and pain (Genesis 3:16; cf Isaiah 66:7-14).

But, of course, since Mary was suppose to be free of original sin not having been affected by Eve’s sin., she had no pain when giving birth. That was one of the “preternatural gifts.”

So not only is there no reference to an Assumption. The woman isn’t even Mary.

(to be continued)

 

[Little_Les]

Munificentissimus #28

Amadeus, Bishop of Lausarme, as stated is of the scholastic period, long after the pious legend of the Assumption was created. There is nothing here quoting any scripture, nor strangely is there any mention of an Assumption. “For she was full of grace and blessed among women. She alone merited to conceive the true God of true God, whom as a virgin, she brought forth, to whom as a virgin she gave milk, fondling him in her lap, and in all things she waited upon him with loving care.” {Amadeus of Lausanne, De Beatae Virginis Obitu, Assumptione in Caelum Exaltatione ad Filii Dexteram.]

He only claims a lack of bodily corruption for Mary, a claim completely without evidence.

(to be continued)

 

[tdgesq]

1. On the contrary, this is hardly a “misleading characterization of Pope Pius’ remarks.” When Pius euphemistically admitted that: “(They) have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption.”

Euphemistic how? That they were wrong? That their interpretations went beyond anything reasonable? Then it would make no sense for Pius to go ahead and quote the very Scriptural passages that he doesn’t find support the Assumption. His criticism would equally apply to the Doctor’s of the Church, but guess what, that isn’t what he does:

1. Moreover, the scholastic Doctors have recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in various figures of the Old Testament, but also in that woman clothed with the sun whom John the Apostle contemplated on the Island of Patmos.[24] Similarly they have given special attention to these words of the New Testament: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women,”[25] since they saw, in the mystery of the Assumption, the fulfillment of that most perfect grace granted to the Blessed Virgin and the special blessing that countered the curse of Eve.

So is Pope Pius criticizing the scholastic Doctors here for relying upon Scripture for their conclusions? Give up on this one Les. It’s just going to get worse for you the more you fight about it, because MD is full of Scriptural passage used to support the Assumption.

He meant exactly what he said… “Rather free” is entirely different than the “correct interpretation.”

The exact meaning of “rather free” doesn’t include your interpretation that Pope Pius is being sarcastic. So if it’s exact meaning we want, you haven’t given it. I agree with him that theologians have been rather free in their use of events and expressions from Scripture to support the Assumption, following in the footsteps of the Fathers. I just don’t infer that Pius is undermining the support of Scripture for the Assumption when the context demonstrates the opposite. Clearly.

4.Only somone with a very vivid imagination can claim that any of these scripturally support the fact of the Assumption. But if an apologist has to try to find some scriptural support, perhaps this is the best he can do.

Well, I suppose if you only want to treat selected verses from MD and not the others, that’s your prerogative. I tend to believe that selective treatment isn’t very convincing. But we are getting off track here. 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. My point is that your claim that Pius in MD doesn’t find any support for the Assumption in Scripture is - without reservation - nonsense.

Even the very conservative Fr. William Most of EWTN fame concedes that there is no scriptural support for the Assumption.

“There had been a problem of how the Pope could define the Assumption. There seemed to be nothing in Scripture on it, and what things there were in the Tradition of the Fathers seemed to come not from an apostolic origin, but from some apocryphal stories that circulated chiefly beginning in the fourth century.”

“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.

 

[Little_Les]

Euphemistic how? That they were wrong? That their interpretations went beyond anything reasonable? Then it would make no sense for Pius to go ahead and quote the very Scriptural passages that he doesn’t find support the Assumption. His criticism would equally apply to the Doctor’s of the Church, but guess what, that isn’t what he does:

.

Yes. As I have demonstrated, they were wrong. The passages quoted make no reference to an Assumption. Their interpretations are, at best, wishfull thinking.

Yes. It made no sense for Pius XII to either quote them or to claim as a fact the Assumption which is not found in scripture or the teachings of the Apostolic fathers.

In fact, ex cathedra statements cannot creat new dogma according to Vatican I.

 

[Little_Les]

Munificentissimus #29

St Anthony of Padua is said to have found scriptural support for the Assumption in Isaiah 61:13 “I will glorify the place of my feet.” The reasoning is that since Mary’s womb once contained Jesus’ feet, obviously she had to be assumed into heaven. That’s really a stretch.

Also, “Arise, Oh Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark which you have sanctified.” As has been shown, the Ark contained the Law of Moses and thus was a symbol of Israel. There’s no Assumption mentioned.

“(They) have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption.” Pope Pius XII

Then it would make no sense for Pius to go ahead and quote the very Scriptural passages that he doesn’t find support the Assumption.<<

Who claimed he made sense?

 

[Little_Les]

Euphemistic how? That they were wrong? That their interpretations went beyond anything reasonable?

The exact meaning of “rather free” doesn’t include your interpretation that Pope Pius is being sarcastic. So if it’s exact meaning we want, you haven’t given it. I agree with him that theologians have been rather free in their use of events and expressions from Scripture to support the Assumption, following in the footsteps of the Fathers. I just don’t infer that Pius is undermining the support of Scripture for the Assumption when the context demonstrates the opposite. Clearly.

.

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

If you like I can use creative imagination and create scriptural support for the story that Jesus and Elvis are touring the universe in a UFO. But should that be believed?

I agree with him that theologians have been rather free in their use of events and expressions from Scripture to support the Assumption, following in the footsteps of the Fathers. <<

That may be the understatement of all time. Will you believe my UFO story too?

 

[tdgesq]

Yes. As I have demonstrated, they were wrong. The passages quoted make no reference to an Assumption. Their interpretations are, at best, wishfull thinking.

Slow down. I already know that you believe the Scriptural passages in MD make no reference to the Assumption. I don’t take issue with that here. I do take issue with your claim that Pope Pius professes that the Scriptural passages in MD do not refer to the Assumption.

Yes. It made no sense for Pius XII to either quote them . . . .

Let’s take this part first. We aren’t talking about an ultimate conclusion of the Assumption that you find to be wrong because of faulty premises. We are talking about the claim in your opening post on this thread:

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.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2982778&postcount=1

If Pius didn’t buy into the Scriptural support, then why is it found all over the place in MD? You’ve spent some time treating those Scriptural verses. What a phenomenal waste if you can just as easily point out that Pius doesn’t believe there is any Scriptural support. But you can’t. Why? Because he cites with approval multiple biblical verses in spite of your interpretation of his “rather free” language. Language that makes remarkable sense if you understand it to mean that many a theologian have no problem seeing the Assumption symbolized in Scripture. Your alternative interpretation leaves us with a sophomoric facial contradiction that isn’t supported by anything else that the Pope says.

or to claim as a fact the Assumption which is not found in scripture or the teachings of the Apostolic fathers.

The second part. You can make that claim, and perhaps I’ll even take the time to respond. But you can’t come to this conclusion on the basis that Pius XII himself states in MD that there isn’t any such support.

In fact, ex cathedra statements cannot creat new dogma according to Vatican I.

I don’t know what this has to do with anything, but I agree with you to the extent that there isn’t any new general revelation. Only dogmatic definition of such revelation that is already implicitly present in the Church.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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

 

[tdgesq]

Well folks, I’m afraid we’ve now left the realm of honest scholarship and entered into the distasteful world of motives. You bring this upon yourself Les.

Munificentissimus #29

St Anthony of Padua is said to have found scriptural support for the Assumption in Isaiah 61:13 “I will glorify the place of my feet.” The reasoning is that since Mary’s womb once contained Jesus’ feet, obviously she had to be assumed into heaven. That’s really a stretch.

Also, “Arise, Oh Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark which you have sanctified.” As has been shown, the Ark contained the Law of Moses and thus was a symbol of Israel. There’s no Assumption mentioned.

“(They) have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption.” Pope Pius XII

Your last sentence within the quote does not appear in paragraph 29; it appears in paragraph 26. There is no indication that it modifies anything in paragraph 29. Please post a retraction and explain what would motivate you to misquote the Apostolic Constitution of a Pope in this way.

Then it would make no sense for Pius to go ahead and quote the very Scriptural passages that he doesn’t find support the Assumption.<<

Who claimed he made sense?

The problem is that it makes so little sense that it can’t be believed. The only conclusion that you can rationally draw is that the Pope is teaching as truth things he doesn’t believe - that is - the witness of Scripture to the Assumption. I didn’t want to accept that is what you were getting at, but the remainder of your posts now make it clear.

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

So Pius was being dishonest in teaching that the scriptural basis as given by the Doctors of the Church support the Assumption. But in “a rare moment of candor” the Pope shows us that he doesn’t really believe what he is teaching in the Apostolic Constitution. You might have been able to get away with this a little bit easier if your profile didn’t identify you as Catholic.

If you like I can use creative imagination and create scriptural support for the story that Jesus and Elvis are touring the universe in a UFO. But should that be believed?

I agree with him that theologians have been rather free in their use of events and expressions from Scripture to support the Assumption, following in the footsteps of the Fathers. <<

That may be the understatement of all time. Will you believe my UFO story too?

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.

 

[tdgesq]

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

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.

 

[Little_Les]

Munificentissimus Deus #30

During the Middle Ages, Albert the Great gathered earlier writings and the liturgy (presumably of the Assumption which began to develop around 600 A.D.), and concluded that the Assumption was fact. Actually, then, he merely repeated earlier claims (already shown to be not based on scripture nor existing in any writing before 500 A.D.). He did claim that Mary was exempted from the fourfold curse laid upon Eve, i.e., Mary would not experience any pain in childbirth.

This again disproves that Rev 1:12 :
“A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.” in any way applied to Mary.

 

[Little_Les]

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.

 

[Little_Les]

Munificentissimus Deus #32

And the “Seraphic Doctor” (that would be St. Bonaventure who died about 1275) is said to have found proof of the Assumption in
Songs 8:5:

“D 1 Who is this coming up from the desert,
leaning upon her lover?
G Under the apple tree I awakened you;
it was there that your mother conceived you,
it was there that your parent conceived.”

And from this he concluded that "From this we can see that she is there bodily…her blessedness would not have been complete unless she were there as a person.”

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.

 

[Little_Les]

Summary:

We’ve shown that MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS paragraphs 27-32says nothing about any fact of the Assumption. And Rev 1:1-2 , not only says nothing about any Assumption, but doesn’t even apply to Mary. Rather it describes Israel. And Tdgesq’s final reference to Luke 1:28: “And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” obviously says nothing about any Assumption either. Q.E.D.

 

[Little_Les]

Perhaps it would apply. If you believe that St. Joseph was dead by the time Jesus began his ministry, which many theologians do considering his absence at that time in the Scriptures, and that the bodies of the Saints arose after Jesus’ Resurrection as stated in Matt. 27:52. You also neglected to mention in paragraph 33 of MD (that you improperly quoted btw) the theology of the Schools. In conjunction with Scripture and the conclusion that she was free of original sin led many to deduce that her body was incorruptable and in preparation for her bodily assumption. Further comment is probably warranted here, but it will have to do for now. The fact that relics would have been sought but were not found is not as weak an argument as you suggest.

QUOTE]

(1) Yes indered.

Matt 27:51-53 “And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split,
tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.” (NAB)

And where did these bodies go? Are they still hanging out in downtown Jerusalem?

Yes. The "theology of the schools’’ and the claim that Mary, being free from Original Sin was incorruptible is based on the preternatural gifts. Since she would not die, she would not corrupt. And, as has been stated, she would not experience any pain in childbirth as the “woman clothed with the sun” in Rev 1:1-2 did.

But wasn’t Mary suppose to have “fallen asleep” a euphanism for dying?

Her body was misplaced;hence the Assumption legend was born.

 

[Little_Les]

Originally Posted by Little Les
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.

This isn’t precisely true either. Have you read the apocryphal literature? I have not, but not all pseudo literature is on equal footing as far as what is to be believed and what is to be rejected. It also makes no sense to me that Pius or the bishops would base anything on works they knew to be unreliable in the particulars. And you have left out perhaps the best argument that MD has to offer. Nearly the entire episcopate agreed with the Pope on this matter. Even if all Eastern Bishops did not participate, the view on the Dormition is well known among the Orthodox. 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.

(1) It happened and its history; or it didn’t happen and its fiction.

(2)>>It also makes no sense to me that Pius or the bishops would base anything on works they knew to be unreliable in the particulars.<<

It doesn’t make any sense to me but they’ve done it.

(3) >>Dormition is well known among the Orthodox.<<

Yes the story began in the east around the sixth century. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“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.”

(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!