K
kaycee
Guest
Sorry, yes, you are correct, I hastily jumped the gun with the List of saints in Hebrews.
While mentioning Hebrews, why do RC’s not pray to dead OT saints.
More eisogesis.
- Status
While mentioning Hebrews, why do RC’s not pray to dead OT saints.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
K
kaycee
Guest
Sorry, you take offense, but the prayers do reflect beliefs, do they not? My reference was not to mock but to show that prayer to Mary in practice is significantly more than just asking a friend to pray for you.
The RC application is clearly a textbook example of another mediator between the believer and Christ.
I certainly understand the practice from 27 years of being Catholic. Prayer to Mary and the Saints is clearly unscriptural on scriptural grounds. Some Catholic theologians readily admit there is no scriptural basis for the practice.
The claim is hollow when compared to the day to day practice.
F
FCEGM
Guest
Who says we don’t? The Church - especially the Carmelite Orders of the Church -celebrates the Feast of St. Elijah, the Prophet on July 20th, fyi. And the Church does call Moses, Abraham, and other Old Testament heroes “saints.” We merely don’t use that popular term for them in the Western (Roman) Church. But, the Eastern Catholic Churches (as well as the Church Fathers) commonly refer to “St. Moses” or “St. Abraham,” etc. ndeed, we in the West used to do the same. If, for example, you travel to the ancient churches in Rome (or throughout Italy, e.g. the Cathedral of San Vitale at Ravenna), you will see mosaics and other ancient images of Old Testament people with the Latin caption reading “Sanctus Moses” (“St. Moses”), etc. So, the Tradition is there for us. The reason you don’t hear a lot of modern Catholics referring to OT people as “saints” is because, in the modern West, we tend to think of a “saint” as someone who has been formally canonized by the Church to be an example of how to live the Christian Gospel (e.g. St. Francis of Assisi, etc.).
K
kaycee
Guest
I am confident that Jesus being sinless did not break ANY commandments.
Sorry, you must be mistaken, I never said Jesus was anything but kind to Mary when asking John to care of her.
K
kaycee
Guest
So in the year 377, Epiphanius states that no one knows what happend to Mary. So we have evidence from a reliable witness that roughly 340 years after the resurrection of Christ, no Christian had ever heard of the assumption of Mary.
The gnostic work Transitus Mariae contains the very first mention of the assumption fable. Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas declared the apochryphal work Transitus Mariae to be heretical and anathematizes its authors and adherents.
Unfortunately, we now have RC doctrine that was derived from heretical and condemned documents. Doctrine that was unknown to the church for almost 600 years!
How can a fable from a condemned gnostic document be allowed into the church 200 years after it was condemned?
K
kaycee
Guest
Can you show me where the Popes who condemned this gnostic gospel, stated what was correct and what was error?
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
And there was no full canon of Scripture after 396 A.D that was put together in the Council of Carthage, and Hippo, which already discuss in another thread. Who decided if the 27 NT are truly Christian Church, or the Trinity which proclaim that Jesus is God in 382 AD. Your logic falls apart.
heretical. Neither Pope Gelsius and Hormisdas called the Assumption or Dormition of Mary heretical. Your text proves that.
Must I quote it again since you apparently missed it. (Her being Mary) “her end no one knows” stated by Epiphanius.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
“If therefore it might come to pass before the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death does reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your mother and take her with you, rejoicing into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: 'Be it done according to your will” (Pseudo-Melito The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17; 300 AD).
“Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption” (Timothy of Jerusalem Homily on Simeon and Anna; 400 AD).
“And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise” (John the Theologian, The Falling Asleep of Mary; 400 AD)
“The Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoinedd to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones…” (Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4; 575-593 A.D.)
“As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.” (Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306, before A.D. 634) “It was fitting…that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinized, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory…should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.” (Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption; before 650
“Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption” (Timothy of Jerusalem Homily on Simeon and Anna; 400 AD).
“And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise” (John the Theologian, The Falling Asleep of Mary; 400 AD)
“The Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoinedd to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones…” (Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4; 575-593 A.D.)
“As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.” (Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306, before A.D. 634) “It was fitting…that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinized, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory…should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.” (Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption; before 650
K
kaycee
Guest
Your comparison makes no sense, we are talking about new extra biblical doctrine, unheard of for the first 400 years, then found in condemned gnostics documents!
So, it’s whatever the church says, in spite of overwhelming historical evidence.
Well, firstly it was totaly unknown to them as Christian doctrine at the time. It’s like saying pope Gelasius did not condemn the Mormons.
Do the popes really need to document the objectional content of every document they condemn before you agree that it is heresy?
Why was the Transitus condemned by the Popes?
Quote away! The church knew nothing about her end for 400 years. Epiphanius had never heard of the assumption of Mary.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
It was called Dormition then. Look kaycee. Let me ask you one question.
Is the concept of bodily assumption into heaven Anti-Biblical?
M
Mickey
Guest
It is still called Dormition in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Mary assumed into heaven period. This was the belief of the ECF and Christians. You are putting yourself at odds with Orthodox who believe in the Dormition of Mary…
I also like to see a quote that the Bodily Assumption of Mary was condemned by a Pope. Well, you can’t find one, kaycee.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
It is. It’s celebrated on Aug 15 much like the Latin Rite of Assumption of Mary.It is still called Dormition in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Biblical Proof text that Assumption is not Anti-Biblical.
Gn 5:24; Hb 11:5; – Enoch taken to heaven without dying
2 Kg 2:11; – Elijah assumed into heaven in a fiery chariot
Mt 27:52; – many saints who had fallen asleep were raised
1 Thess 4:17; – caught up to meet the Lord in the air
1 Cor 15:52; – we shall be instantly changed at the last trumpet
Rom 6:23; – for the wages of sin is death
Rev 11:19; 12:1; – ark in heaven is a woman clothed with the sun.
The basis of the Assumption is based in Scripture and Tradition.
Gn 5:24; Hb 11:5; – Enoch taken to heaven without dying
2 Kg 2:11; – Elijah assumed into heaven in a fiery chariot
Mt 27:52; – many saints who had fallen asleep were raised
1 Thess 4:17; – caught up to meet the Lord in the air
1 Cor 15:52; – we shall be instantly changed at the last trumpet
Rom 6:23; – for the wages of sin is death
Rev 11:19; 12:1; – ark in heaven is a woman clothed with the sun.
The basis of the Assumption is based in Scripture and Tradition.
K
kaycee
Guest
**You are quoting directly from the Gnostic heretical work condemned by Gelasius and Hormisdas! (Transitus Marine, 16, PG 5, 1238) **
"We find an interesting trace of this conviction in a fifth-century apocryphal account attributed to Pseudo-Melito. The author imagines Christ questioning Peter and the Apostles on the destiny Mary deserved, and this is the reply he received: “Lord, you chose this handmaid of yours to become an immaculate dwelling place for you… Thus it seemed right to us, your servants, that just as you reign in glory after conquering death, so you should raise your Mother’s body and take her rejoicing with you to heaven” (Transitus Marine, 16, PG 5, 1238). "
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm55.htm
The facts still show that no one for the first 400 years knew anything about the assumption.
F
Franciscan
Guest
The facts still show that no one for the first 400 years knew anything about the assumption.
That’s a logical fallacy and a leap to a conclusion that cannot be known for sure…
Just because you claim there is no known record (written record) does not show that “no one knew anything about it”.
That’s a logical fallacy and a leap to a conclusion that cannot be known for sure…
Just because you claim there is no known record (written record) does not show that “no one knew anything about it”.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
The earliest is “If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."**You are quoting directly from the Gnostic heretical work condemned by Gelasius and Hormisdas!
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm55.htm
The facts still show that no one for the first 400 years knew anything about the assumption.
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).
not the 400 yrs. It was 377 AD
M
mikeledes
Guest
It is interesting how the epistle of Jude quotes an apocryphal work written over a thousand years after Moses died called “The Assumption of Moses.” We have no documented evidence that Michael had a dispute with Satan over Moses’s body until the first century B.C and the first record we have of it, as I already mentioned, is a 1st century B.C. apocryphal source. Jude hald no qualms in using it.**You are quoting directly from the Gnostic heretical work condemned by Gelasius and Hormisdas!
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm55.htm
The facts still show that no one for the first 400 years knew anything about the assumption.
God Bless,
Michael
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
I am getting VERY FRUSTRATED with your objection, kaycee.**You are quoting directly from the Gnostic heretical work condemned by Gelasius and Hormisdas! (Transitus Marine, 16, PG 5, 1238) **
"We find an interesting trace of this conviction in a fifth-century apocryphal account attributed to Pseudo-Melito. The author imagines Christ questioning Peter and the Apostles on the destiny Mary deserved, and this is the reply he received: “Lord, you chose this handmaid of yours to become an immaculate dwelling place for you… Thus it seemed right to us, your servants, that just as you reign in glory after conquering death, so you should raise your Mother’s body and take her rejoicing with you to heaven” (Transitus Marine, 16, PG 5, 1238). "
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm55.htm
The facts still show that no one for the first 400 years knew anything about the assumption.
The book maybe condemned but the Assumptiopn was NOT!!!
- Status