Feast of Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

[BrianH]

Well, Brian, there are places in Scripture that say some day we will be glorified after we are purged of sin…Mary and Christ were without sin and they were resurrected…

Sure but being glorified does not equate with a dogmatic insistence on the Assumption
And for Catholics it is required with a capitol R

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
So that is sufficient enough to make it false? Where is the concrete historical and empirical evidence Matthew really wrote Matthew?

Well first, I do not know that Matthew did write Matthew but there is more evidence than the Assumption. Matthew’s authorship is attested to in the 2nd century.

What evidence? Scripture explicitly says it? If not,then what makses you even believe the evidence attested in the 2nd century? BTW: Who attested it? The ECF or scripture?

Ephiphanius wrote a very strongly and articulate defense of Mary in his book Panarion in 377 ADish. He is an ardent defender of her perpetual virginity. But when it comes to what happened at the end, this bishop, this author states

Quote:
The holy virgin may have died and been buried-her falling asleep was with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death. Or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing what he wills. No one knows her end.

Its on page 619 of that work. Its hard to find online but can be with some searching.

Okay…and? One man’s work makes it the final word?

 

[BrianH]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
So that is sufficient enough to make it false? Where is the concrete historical and empirical evidence Matthew really wrote Matthew?

What evidence? Scripture explicitly says it? If not,then what makses you even believe the evidence attested in the 2nd century? BTW: Who attested it? The ECF or scripture?

Okay…and? One man’s work makes it the final word?

He was the first person to write about it from everything I can tell. He was probably the respected historian of his time. He was a Bishop. I do believe him over conflicting apocryphal accounts that start to appear a hundred or so years later.

As far as Matthew, I have read a lot on it. I know that few scholars believe he wrote it. I know some do. It does not matter either way to me. It used to but not so much now. I am not invested enough in that topic to argue either way but I would discuss it I suppose if its interesting to you

 

[Nicea325]

He was the first person to write about it from everything I can tell. He was probably the respected historian of his time. He was a Bishop. I do believe him over conflicting apocryphal accounts that start to appear a hundred or so years later.

As far as Matthew, I have read a lot on it. I know that few scholars believe he wrote it. I know some do. It does not matter either way to me. It used to but not so much now. I am not invested enough in that topic to argue either way but I would discuss it I suppose if its interesting to you

Yes but you also did not add this line from Epiphanius:

Did she die? We do not know. At all events, if she was buried, she had no carnal intercourse. . . . Or she remained alive, since **nothing is impossible with God **and he can do whatever he desires" (Panarion, haer. 78, nn. 10-11,23: G.C.S., 37, 461-462; 474).

Scripture does not record an event, it does not follow that the event did not happen. Scripture does not record Paul or Peter’s journey to Rome, and they were both martyred there while the Bible was still being written. It would be unscriptural and unreasonable to conclude that the dogma of Mary’s Assumption is false because it is not mentioned explicitly in Scripture.

Nothing in scripture indicates what the canon of the New Testament should be, but this silence in no way hindered the Church from exercising the authority given to her by Christ (Matt. 16:15-19, 18:17-18) to decide the canon. Just as the fourth-century Church had authority to determine that twenty-seven books belonged in the New Testament, the nineteenth-century Church had the authority to dogmatically define Mary’s Assumption into heaven.

 

[dvdjs]

Well you are a long way from stupid my friend.

The two feasts are very close but not exactly the same. The Assumption celebrates her being assumed bodily into heaven and is somewhat ambiguous as to whether or not she actually died. The Dormition, or Koímēsis celebrates her death (or “falling asleep”) and her glorification. We are completely unambiguous as to the fact that she actually died.

Actually ih the liturgy the Orthodox are explicit about her falling asleep. Death is explicilty noted only by by paradox and exception - even to the point of specifically referring to her dormition as “deathless”. Indeed, as she has been translated to heaven, body and soul what is the significance of quibbling about her “death”? And Orthodox liturgy is completely explicit about her translation from earth to heaven.

To Catholics she is the great exception to the rest of humanity, being immaculately conceived. For us she is the great example.

Being exemplary and exception are not mutually exclusive. In fact, that are necessarily linked: to be the greatest example is to be a great exception.

She had to trample down death by death just like her Son did, and just as each of us will have to do. The only way to be resurrected with Christ is to die with Him and she shows us the perfect example.

I’ve never heard this apart from the loose talk on the internet. I think that the conquering of death was accomplished by Christ alone; we are participants in that victory as beneficiaries of a gift. We share in eternal life through his death and resurrection, not by recapitulating his victory by our death and resurrection,

 

[BrianH]

Yes but you also did not add this line from Epiphanius:

Did she die? We do not know. At all events, if she was buried, she had no carnal intercourse. . . . Or she remained alive, since **nothing is impossible with God **

 

[Nicea325]

Yes I did.

 

[BrianH]

BrianH;6965804:

The argument against the Assumption is based upon historical record? Care to show me the vast historical evidence Peter was crucified upside down? What about Paul? Or do you reject the belief Peter was crucified upside down?

God has never heard of her Assumption? According to who? You? The Methodist Church? Baptists? As stated,if you accept the authority of the church to canonize 27 NT books in our Bibles in the 4th century,why is it impossible to do the same in the 19th century? Jesus said He would guide His church into all truth, never said say He would do it instantly.

Yes, the historical record indicates that it was first specifically stated by a man who was both historian and an ardent defender of Mary that no one knows what happened to her. IF anyone would know, a Bishop, historian, and a man with a love of the Virgin Mary enough to pen a book would know.
I do not know if Peter was crucified upside down. I have read about it at some time but have no specific recall. Its not something I think about too often but certainly his bravery is to be commended.
No, God was not the subject of that sentence. The subject was meant to be Ephiphanius whom I mentioned the sentence before, not by name though. I keep having to look to spell it So lets call him Bishop E
Your underlying premise is the Catholic Church has authority in one area (which is not even really the case. The Church did remain without a consistent 27 book NT canon post the councils you referenced)
It is possibly to acknowledge the contributions of the undivided church and not hold the divided church is infallible. I do not think there is a strong case to be made that the undivided church accepted the Assumption.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well you are a long way from stupid my friend.

The two feasts are very close but not exactly the same. The Assumption celebrates her being assumed bodily into heaven and is somewhat ambiguous as to whether or not she actually died. The Dormition, or Koímēsis celebrates her death (or “falling asleep”) and her glorification. We are completely unambiguous as to the fact that she actually died.

To Catholics she is the great exception to the rest of humanity, being immaculately conceived. For us she is the great example. She had to trample down death by death just like her Son did, and just as each of us will have to do. The only way to be resurrected with Christ is to die with Him and she shows us the perfect example. She shows us exactly what our destiny is by living the perfect Christian life and dying the perfect Christian death.

At least that’s how I understand it.

In Christ
Joe

Of interest may be this entry from the CCC

**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.507

The footnote 507: Byzantine Liturgy, Troparion, Feast of the Dormition, August 15th.

 

[BrianH]

I should say I understand why the authority argument is a done deal for you.
Not being a Catholic though, and not accepting their authority, the argument underwhelms. I have nothing against it except I really do not believe it. But if I ever converted, I would have to go another group. The Marian dogmas being declared infallible in general have that effect on me. Which is rather unfortunate actually but such is life:shrug:
The non-Catholic forum would be rather boring if Catholics did not engage in the reasons for said beliefs though

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;6966374:

Yes, the historical record indicates that it was first specifically stated by a man who was both historian and an ardent defender of Mary that no one knows what happened to her. IF anyone would know, a Bishop, historian, and a man with a love of the Virgin Mary enough to pen a book would know.
I do not know if Peter was crucified upside down. I have read about it at some time but have no specific recall. Its not something I think about too often but certainly his bravery is to be commended.
No, God was not the subject of that sentence. The subject was meant to be Ephiphanius whom I mentioned the sentence before, not by name though. I keep having to look to spell it So lets call him Bishop E
Your underlying premise is the Catholic Church has authority in one area (which is not even really the case. The Church did remain without a consistent 27 book NT canon post the councils you referenced)
It is possibly to acknowledge the contributions of the undivided church and not hold the divided church is infallible. I do not think there is a strong case to be made that the undivided church accepted the Assumption.

Your underlying premise is the Catholic Church has authority in one area (which is not even really the case. The Church did remain without a consistent 27 book NT canon post the councils you referenced)

So in other words,the church could have existed minus the Bible,since it is the church Jesus promised to guide till the end,not a book. Yet either way, it was the church,which gave us a canon set back in the 4th,so again,why can’'t have done the same in the 19th century? How do you and I know it will not define another dogma in 100 years? 200 years?

 

[BrianH]

BrianH;6966449:

So in other words,the church could have existed minus the Bible,since it is the church Jesus promised to guide till the end,not a book. Yet either way, it was the church,which gave us a canon set back in the 4th,so again,why can’'t have done the same in the 19th century? How do you and I know it will not define another dogma in 100 years? 200 years?

You have made a statement a few times about the 4th century that the facts do not seem to support. Based upon what I have read anyway.
The differing canons of Christianity indicate that it was not set in the 4th century. Some of the other groups which were part of the undivided church have different books. :shrug:I own several of these Bibles. The EO use some different books. I have spent a great deal of time trying to find an English translation of the 80 plus canons of some of the Orthodox (non-Eastern). I do not believe most of the churches formally defined a canon. Maybe they did. But history really indicates the scope of the 4th century councils was limited to their regions. Otherwise everyone would agree. I will continue to look at all of the churches that were part of the undivided Church but am really quite content at this time. Although I suppose that could change.
And now we are completely off of the historicity of the Assumption and I bid this thread goodbye:thumbsup:

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;6966748:

You have made a statement a few times about the 4th century that the facts do not seem to support. Based upon what I have read anyway.
The differing canons of Christianity indicate that it was not set in the 4th century. Some of the other groups which were part of the undivided church have different books. :shrug:I own several of these Bibles. The EO use some different books. I have spent a great deal of time trying to find an English translation of the 80 plus canons of some of the Orthodox (non-Eastern). I do not believe most of the churches formally defined a canon. Maybe they did. But history really indicates the scope of the 4th century councils was limited to their regions. Otherwise everyone would agree. I will continue to look at all of the churches that were part of the undivided Church but am really quite content at this time. Although I suppose that could change.
And now we are completely off of the historicity of the Assumption and I bid this thread goodbye:thumbsup:

Nonetheless, you still read and accept the current Bible you own,regardless if it has 66 or 73 or 78 books. Are we all doomed,since the OT canon is still an issue?

More important, you still fail to dodge my statement:

Christ gave His church full authority and if it defined and made official numerous core doctrines in the early centuries,why is it impossible to have done the same in the 19h century for the Assumption?

Do you think Christians living during the time of 3rd and 4th centuries were saying: The church cannot define and make official doctrines 400 years later.

Are you serious? Are you claiming it was not a fact the Catholic Church decided the current canon of the 27 NT books? The issue here is not the agreement on the canon,regardless of region. The main issue here is about AUTHORITY,because regardless how many books your Bible contains,it was the church Christ gave full authority to give us any Bible.

 

[BrianH]

BrianH;6967112:

Nonetheless, you still read and accept the current Bible you own,regardless if it has 66 or 73 or 78 books. Are we all doomed,since the OT canon is still an issue?

More important, you still fail to dodge my statement:

Christ gave His church full authority and if it defined and made official numerous core doctrines in the early centuries,why is it impossible to have done the same in the 19h century for the Assumption?

Do you think Christians living during the time of 3rd and 4th centuries were saying: The church cannot define and make official doctrines 400 years later.

Are you serious? Are you claiming it was not a fact the Catholic Church decided the current canon of the 27 NT books? The issue here is not the agreement on the canon,regardless of region. The main issue here is about AUTHORITY,because regardless how many books your Bible contains,it was the church Christ gave full authority to give us any Bible.

LOL No we are not doomed in any way. Its not at all impossible for a person who accepts the authority of the Catholic Church to think that.
I would rather talk about paint drying than the canon but I will elaborate a little. There are several groups who trace their history through Apostolic Succession to the Apostles. In my life I have visited several of them and read some on them. They have different canons and books. I actually lean towards the ones that have no been exclusionary about other books. But that would involve driving 3 or 4 hours maybe once a month if I joined one, which I am not that opposed to. So thats just free info kind of an FYI
The undivided church did not declare the Assumption dogma and the other groups have not as far as I know. From what I can tell and have researched the 27 book canon was asserted prior to these councils, at least that is what my history book says. I would have to look up his name but an Eastern bishop in 367 AD prior to any council said. Regional synods are not infallible and if they were why did it take 3 or 4 of them to do the trick
I do not think it did. I think they were locally influential. From what I remember reading people in certain parts held out about Revelation, 2nd Peter and Jude…its been 3 years or so since I took that class…
Listen, you believe in the authority of the Catholic Church to declare things in the 19th century
I do not.
PS
I really am not trying to argue. I could care less if people believe it. I am simply saying the historical record does not offer support for it until much much later. The very first person who writes about it, and remember this person is a Bishop, historian, and even wrote a book definding all Marian dogmas says no one knows. So…I believe him:shrug:

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325;6968092:

LOL No we are not doomed in any way. Its not at all impossible for a person who accepts the authority of the Catholic Church to think that.
I would rather talk about paint drying than the canon but I will elaborate a little. There are several groups who trace their history through Apostolic Succession to the Apostles. In my life I have visited several of them and read some on them. They have different canons and books. I actually lean towards the ones that have no been exclusionary about other books. But that would involve driving 3 or 4 hours maybe once a month if I joined one, which I am not that opposed to. So thats just free info kind of an FYI
The undivided church did not declare the Assumption dogma and the other groups have not as far as I know. From what I can tell and have researched the 27 book canon was asserted prior to these councils, at least that is what my history book says. I would have to look up his name but an Eastern bishop in 367 AD prior to any council said. Regional synods are not infallible and if they were why did it take 3 or 4 of them to do the trick
I do not think it did. I think they were locally influential. From what I remember reading people in certain parts held out about Revelation, 2nd Peter and Jude…its been 3 years or so since I took that class…
Listen, you believe in the authority of the Catholic Church to declare things in the 19th century
I do not.
PS
I really am not trying to argue. I could care less if people believe it. I am simply saying the historical record does not offer support for it until much much later. The very first person who writes about it, and remember this person is a Bishop, historian, and even wrote a book definding all Marian dogmas says no one knows. So…I believe him:shrug:

I understand and I am not trying to argue either. However, I disagree 100% with the following statement you said:

I am simply saying the historical record does not offer support for it until much much later. The very first person who writes about it, and remember this person is a Bishop, historian, and even wrote a book definding all Marian dogmas says no one knows.

The above has some errors from a historical aspect. First,you cannot make conclusions strictly on any ancient civilization,religion,culture,customs,etc based on limited historical evidence.Second, the ancients did not keep track of history in the sense we perceive history per se today. As stated,there is no concrete certitude that Matthew really wrote Matthew,because it was not uncommon to have an author use the name of a mentor or teacher.Most support for Matthew as the author of the Gospel is based off the early church traditions,the church fathers and simply faith.

Finally, if I am correct, it was not until the early 200s, Origen of Alexandria may have been using the same 27 books found in modern New Testament editions;and yet,there is not a lot of historical evidence to support of 27 NT canon during the first 200 years of the early church. Does it make it false?

BTW: Simply because you believe the church has no authority to declare doctrines in the 19th century still does not rebuke the facts it had done the same centuries before…

 

[BrianH]

The above has some errors from a historical aspect. First,you cannot make conclusions strictly on any ancient civilization,religion,culture,customs,et c based on limited historical evidence.Second, the ancients did not keep track of history in the sense we perceive history per se today. As stated,there is no concrete certitude that Matthew really wrote Matthew,because it was not uncommon to have an author use the name of a mentor or teacher.Most support for Matthew as the author of the Gospel is based off the early church traditions,the church fathers and simply faith.

Finally, if I am correct, it was not until the early 200s, Origen of Alexandria may have been using the same 27 books found in modern New Testament editions;and yet,there is not a lot of historical evidence to support of 27 NT canon during the first 200 years of the early church. Does it make it false?

I do not believe that Christian doctrine has limited historical evidence for the first five hundred years. The Ante-Nicene Fathers number ten thick hard back volumes but there is even more than that from the first three hundred years. I like to go to a Eastern Orthodox bookstore in town and you can literally see a room of books from the first 500 years.
The historical data is plentiful. In this case, I believe the absence of mention and then the first direct mention being a what it is…but I have my view and you have yours.

 

[Nicea325]

I do not believe that Christian doctrine has limited historical evidence for the first five hundred years. The Ante-Nicene Fathers number ten thick hard back volumes but there is even more than that from the first three hundred years. I like to go to a Eastern Orthodox bookstore in town and you can literally see a room of books from the first 500 years.
The historical data is plentiful. In this case, I believe the absence of mention and then the first direct mention being a what it is…but I have my view and you have yours.

Well understood,but like I said,it is a fact the church had authority to declare doctrines in the first 500 years,but in no shape negates it from doing the same the proceeding centuries,whether you accept it or not.

 

[Lapell]

I know what you are saying…I have heard from several priests – at Mass – that we don’t call her Theotokis…but ironically we have her feast day January 1— solemnity of Mary, Mother of Christ…of course he is God…so that Makes Mary Mother Of God…

There is something missing here…do I have to go ask the priests what the issue is???

Orthodox/Catholic…no difference to me…I was quoting pastors…just like it has not been formally defined Mary is Mediatrix…Mary Full of Grace through whom all graces and blessings of Jesus Christ flow through to our humanity…

AND…the pastor of our church has the icon of Theotokis in our chapel… in the very place where he made his remarks…

no more comment here…

Kathleen, the late Pope John Paul II himself used to call Mary the Theotokos, not just when he would meet the Greeks, but also in an encyclical on the Blessed Virgin Mary. And though we may not use the name Theotokos ourselves per se (in the Greek), don’t we call her “Mother of God”? which happens to be what Theotokos exactly means…
"Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

 

[KathleenGee]

I have told Catholics in the past when the NW had areas of alot of dissension against Rome that I am a John Paul II Catholic. I have kept all his writings going back to 1991 when collecting the Sunday Visitor’s ‘The Pope Speaks’ magazine.

Yes, I know John Paul II did that…it is the truth…I call her that…I am merely repeating what my pastor and another priest said…that formally, the Church does not…

I do not see much difference – really between Orthodox and Latin – to have the division we have…it is more cultural to me…I pray we are one…

 

[Lapell]

I have told Catholics in the past when the NW had areas of alot of dissension against Rome that I am a John Paul II Catholic. I have kept all his writings going back to 1991 when collecting the Sunday Visitor’s ‘The Pope Speaks’ magazine.

Yes, I know John Paul II did that…it is the truth…I call her that…I am merely repeating what my pastor and another priest said…that formally, the Church does not…

I do not see much difference – really between Orthodox and Latin – to have the division we have…it is more cultural to me…I pray we are one…

It’s probably because we rarely pray in Greek, and only to say: Kyrie Eleison… We still say it, but not in the Greek.
I would have no objection if any one would use the Greek word, though!