I reject some dogmas

[Jon_S_1]

If you are asking me if I put scripture above tradition, then yes. This is even more applicable since the assumption was not mentioned by any of the church father before the 5th century. How can it be tradition if none of them mentioned it? It is because it was foreign to them.

You place scripture above the tradition from which it was written and recognized as scripture…how strange. Without the tradition there is no scripture.

 

[adf417]

If you are asking me if I put scripture above tradition, then yes. This is even more applicable since the assumption was not mentioned by any of the church father before the 5th century. How can it be tradition if none of them mentioned it? It is because it was foreign to them.

I think someone said earlier that there must be an underlying factor to the questions in the OP and I believe we have found it. I don’t think pondering the above dogmas will do you much good untill you tackel the “which came first” question, Tradition? or Written Scripture?

Peace!!!

 

[Whemsworth]

I think someone said earlier that there must be an underlying factor to the questions in the OP and I believe we have found it. I don’t think pondering the above dogmas will do you much good untill you tackel the “which came first” question, Tradition? or Written Scripture?

Peace!!!

There is no evidence for the assumption in tradition. In fact, the first reasonable mention, according to Church, is found in St. John Damascene who lived in the 700’s. This is a blatantly obvious historical (not to mention Biblical) vacuum concerning Mary’s Assumption. Obviously, such a dogma, such an all-important essential of the Christian church, would have been mentioned by at least some of the Church Fathers within the first few centuries

 

[Jon_S_1]

There is no evidence for the assumption in tradition. In fact, the first reasonable mention, according to Church, is found in St. John Damascene who lived in the 700’s. This is a blatantly obvious historical (not to mention Biblical) vacuum concerning Mary’s Assumption. Obviously, such a dogma, such an all-important essential of the Christian church, would have been mentioned by at least some of the Church Fathers within the first few centuries

What about the fact that the magesterium has spoken on it. It’s above your pay grade. The orthodox and Catholics both hold some version of this. It is part of the tradition.

Not all tradition is written down. That makes it no less tradition. That said, I am pretty sure I have found significant evidence for those. Perhaps if I find time I will look it up for you.

 

[adf417]

There is no evidence for the assumption in tradition. In fact, the first reasonable mention, according to Church, is found in St. John Damascene who lived in the 700’s. This is a blatantly obvious historical (not to mention Biblical) vacuum concerning Mary’s Assumption. Obviously, such a dogma, such an all-important essential of the Christian church, would have been mentioned by at least some of the Church Fathers within the first few centuries

I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. John 16:12

But do not fear…

I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Mt 28:20

Whems, let the Holy Spirit do His thing whenever He wants to.
Peace!!!

 

[Vico]

There is no evidence for the assumption in tradition. In fact, the first reasonable mention, according to Church, is found in St. John Damascene who lived in the 700’s. This is a blatantly obvious historical (not to mention Biblical) vacuum concerning Mary’s Assumption. Obviously, such a dogma, such an all-important essential of the Christian church, would have been mentioned by at least some of the Church Fathers within the first few centuries

Three early:

Pseudo – Melito

If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do 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” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300]).

Timothy of Jerusalem

Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).
John the Theologian

The Lord said to his Mother, “Let your heart rejoice and be glad. For every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens”. . . And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise (The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).

 

[AmbroseSJ]

There is no evidence for the assumption in tradition. In fact, the first reasonable mention, according to Church, is found in St. John Damascene who lived in the 700’s. This is a blatantly obvious historical (not to mention Biblical) vacuum concerning Mary’s Assumption. Obviously, such a dogma, such an all-important essential of the Christian church, would have been mentioned by at least some of the Church Fathers within the first few centuries

Good, you have apparently taken a look at Munificentissimus Deus.

Your difficulty with this doctrine appears to be related to your apprehension stated thus:

such a dogma, such an all-important essential of the Christian church, would have been mentioned by at least some of the Church Fathers within the first few centuries

However the reason it is an “all-important essential” now, is that the Church has defined this doctrine, and only within the past 60 years or so. So the Tradition that is rests upon is still MANY CENTURIES of waxing belief, liturgy, and writing. The fact that scant mention is made in the first ages has more to do with the fact that there were far more important and central Church doctrines being developed and defined relating especially to Christology. As another poster has already said, everything Jesus (through the Holy Spirit by the Church) has to tell us cannot be done all at once, but must unfold in a natural progression according to the Will of God. It is unreal to imagine that everything we hold NOW in 2016 would have been discussed in writings that survived down to our own time from the first ages of the Primitive Church.

 

[steve_b]

Good, you have apparently taken a look at Munificentissimus Deus.

Your difficulty with this doctrine appears to be related to your apprehension stated thus:

such a dogma, such an all-important essential of the Christian church,  would have been mentioned by at least some of the Church Fathers within  the first few centuries

He didn’t respond to me, but as I pointed out to him, even the Jews believe and have believed in praying for the dead. One could ask WHY? #88

What I didn’t show him was the Church history, and that even though the name for this process wasn’t defined by name by the Church till much later, the belief in the process was there from the beginning.

The Roots of Purgatory

Purgatory

 

[Whemsworth]

Good, you have apparently taken a look at Munificentissimus Deus.

Your difficulty with this doctrine appears to be related to your apprehension stated thus:

However the reason it is an “all-important essential” now, is that the Church has defined this doctrine, and only within the past 60 years or so. So the Tradition that is rests upon is still MANY CENTURIES of waxing belief, liturgy, and writing. The fact that scant mention is made in the first ages has more to do with the fact that there were far more important and central Church doctrines being developed and defined relating especially to Christology. As another poster has already said, everything Jesus (through the Holy Spirit by the Church) has to tell us cannot be done all at once, but must unfold in a natural progression according to the Will of God. It is unreal to imagine that everything we hold NOW in 2016 would have been discussed in writings that survived down to our own time from the first ages of the Primitive Church.

If it had been essential for the Christian faith it surely would have been mentioned. Since it was not it must not have been considered such. I thank you all for your responses and I will pray over it.

 

[steve_b]

If it had been essential for the Christian faith it surely would have been mentioned. Since it was not it must not have been considered such. I thank you all for your responses and I will pray over it.

As an aside

Re: Munificentissimus Deus ewtn.com/LIBRARY/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.htm

did you see all the references at the end of the document, in particular the scriptural references?

ENDNOTES
1. Rom 8:28.
2. Gal 4:4.
3. Cf. Hentrich-Von Moos, Petitiones de Assumptione Corporea B. Virginis Mariae in Caelum Definienda ad S. Sedem Delatae, 2 volumes (Vatican Polyglot Press, 1942).
4. Acts 20:28.
5. The Bull Ineffabilis Deus, in the Acta Pii IX, pars 1, Vol. 1, p. 615.
6. The Vatican Council, Constitution Dei filius, c. 4.
7. Jn 14:26.
8. Vatican Council, Constitution Pastor Aeternus, c. 4.
9. Ibid., Dei Filius, c. 3.
10. The encyclical Mediator Dei (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XXXIX, 541).
11. Sacramentarium Gregorianum.
12. Menaei Totius Anni.
13. Lk 22:32.
14. Liber Pontificalis.
15. Ibid.
16. Responsa Nicolai Papae I ad Consulta Bulgarorum.
17. St. John Damascene, Encomium in Dormitionem Dei Genetricis Semperque Virginis Mariae, Hom. II, n. 14; cf. also ibid, n. 3.
18. St. Germanus of Constantinople, In Sanctae Dei Genetricis Dormitionem, Sermo I.
19. The Encomium in Dormitionem Sanctissimae Dominae Nostrate Deiparae Semperque Virginis Mariae, attributed to St. Modestus of Jerusalem, n. 14.
20. Cf. St. John Damascene, op. cit., Hom. II, n. 11; and also the Encomium attributed to St. Modestus.
21. Ps 131:8.
22. Ps 44:10-14ff.
23. Song 3:6; cf. also 4:8; 6:9.
24. Rv 12:1ff.
25. Lk 1:28.
26. Amadeus of Lausanne, De Beatae Virginis Obitu, Assumptione in Caelum Exaltatione ad Filii Dexteram.
27. Is 61:13.
28. St. Anthony of Padua, Sermones Dominicales et in Solemnitatibus, In Assumptione S. Mariae Virginis Sermo.
29. St. Albert the Great, Mariale, q. 132.
30. St. Albert the Great, Sermones de Sanctis, Sermo XV in Annuntiatione B. Mariae; cf. also Mariale, q. 132.
31. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., I, lla; q. 27, a. 1; q. 83, a. 5, ad 8; Expositio Salutationis Angelicae; In Symb. Apostolorum Expositio, a. S; In IV Sent., d. 12, q. 1, a. 3, sol. 3; d. 43, q. 1, a. 3, sol. 1, 2.
32. St. Bonaventure, De Nativitate B. Mariae Virginis, Sermo V.
33. Song 8:5.
34. St. Bonaventure, De Assumptione B. Mariae Virginis, Sermo 1.
35. St. Bernardine of Siena, In Assumptione B. Mariae Virginis, Sermo 11.
36. Ibid.
37. St. Robert Bellarmine, Conciones Habitae Lovanii, n. 40, De Assumption B. Mariae Virginis.
38. Oeuvres de St. Francois De Sales, sermon for the Feast of the Assumption.
39. St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Part 2, d. 1.
40. Eph 5:27.
41. I Tim 3:15.
42. St. Peter Canisius, De Maria Virgine.
43. Suarez, In Tertiam Partem D. Thomae, q. 27, a. 2, disp. 3, sec. 5, n. 31.
44. Gen 3:15.
45. Rom 5-6; I Cor. 15:21-26, 54-57.
46. I Cor 15:54.
47. The Bull Ineffabilis Deus, loc. cit., p. 599.
48. I Tim 1:17.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

If it had been essential for the Christian faith it surely would have been mentioned. Since it was not it must not have been considered such. I thank you all for your responses and I will pray over it.

Good decision.

You must decide if you are a bible Christian, rather than a Catholic. If the former, you will never be satisfied with Catholic answers. Not that Catholicism is not biblical, it is. But the problem is the Catholic Church is a Divine Institution, founded by, and led TO THIS DAY, by our founder, Jesus Christ. We don’t EVER contradict the Bible, but there are things in Catholicism today, which have been revealed (by the Church) which in the primitive Church were merely latent, not explicit. It is a delicate distinction and one that is important to grasp. God bless!

 

[adf417]

Good decision.

You must decide if you are a bible Christian, rather than a Catholic. If the former, you will never be satisfied with Catholic answers. Not that Catholicism is not biblical, it is. But the problem is the Catholic Church is a Divine Institution, founded by, and led TO THIS DAY, by our founder, Jesus Christ. We don’t EVER contradict the Bible, but there are things in Catholicism today, which have been revealed (by the Church) which in the primitive Church were merely latent, not explicit. It is a delicate distinction and one that is important to grasp. God bless!

 

[Tomdstone]

We don’t EVER contradict the Bible,

Some will disagree:
Call no man father
Unless you hate you mother and father you cannot be my disciple
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything
Is wisdom good or bad?
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
Ascension:
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man.John 3:13
“And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” (2KI 2:11)
Assumption of Mary?
Women ar to wear headcovering in church 1Cor 11.

 

[Whemsworth]

As an aside

Re: Munificentissimus Deus ewtn.com/LIBRARY/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.htm

did you see all the references at the end of the document, in particular the scriptural references?

ENDNOTES
1. Rom 8:28.
2. Gal 4:4.
3. Cf. Hentrich-Von Moos, Petitiones de Assumptione Corporea B. Virginis Mariae in Caelum Definienda ad S. Sedem Delatae, 2 volumes (Vatican Polyglot Press, 1942).
4. Acts 20:28.
5. The Bull Ineffabilis Deus, in the Acta Pii IX, pars 1, Vol. 1, p. 615.
6. The Vatican Council, Constitution Dei filius, c. 4.
7. Jn 14:26.
8. Vatican Council, Constitution Pastor Aeternus, c. 4.
9. Ibid., Dei Filius, c. 3.
10. The encyclical Mediator Dei (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XXXIX, 541).
11. Sacramentarium Gregorianum.
12. Menaei Totius Anni.
13. Lk 22:32.
14. Liber Pontificalis.
15. Ibid.
16. Responsa Nicolai Papae I ad Consulta Bulgarorum.
17. St. John Damascene, Encomium in Dormitionem Dei Genetricis Semperque Virginis Mariae, Hom. II, n. 14; cf. also ibid, n. 3.
18. St. Germanus of Constantinople, In Sanctae Dei Genetricis Dormitionem, Sermo I.
19. The Encomium in Dormitionem Sanctissimae Dominae Nostrate Deiparae Semperque Virginis Mariae, attributed to St. Modestus of Jerusalem, n. 14.
20. Cf. St. John Damascene, op. cit., Hom. II, n. 11; and also the Encomium attributed to St. Modestus.
21. Ps 131:8.
22. Ps 44:10-14ff.
23. Song 3:6; cf. also 4:8; 6:9.
24. Rv 12:1ff.
25. Lk 1:28.
26. Amadeus of Lausanne, De Beatae Virginis Obitu, Assumptione in Caelum Exaltatione ad Filii Dexteram.
27. Is 61:13.
28. St. Anthony of Padua, Sermones Dominicales et in Solemnitatibus, In Assumptione S. Mariae Virginis Sermo.
29. St. Albert the Great, Mariale, q. 132.
30. St. Albert the Great, Sermones de Sanctis, Sermo XV in Annuntiatione B. Mariae; cf. also Mariale, q. 132.
31. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., I, lla; q. 27, a. 1; q. 83, a. 5, ad 8; Expositio Salutationis Angelicae; In Symb. Apostolorum Expositio, a. S; In IV Sent., d. 12, q. 1, a. 3, sol. 3; d. 43, q. 1, a. 3, sol. 1, 2.
32. St. Bonaventure, De Nativitate B. Mariae Virginis, Sermo V.
33. Song 8:5.
34. St. Bonaventure, De Assumptione B. Mariae Virginis, Sermo 1.
35. St. Bernardine of Siena, In Assumptione B. Mariae Virginis, Sermo 11.
36. Ibid.
37. St. Robert Bellarmine, Conciones Habitae Lovanii, n. 40, De Assumption B. Mariae Virginis.
38. Oeuvres de St. Francois De Sales, sermon for the Feast of the Assumption.
39. St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Part 2, d. 1.
40. Eph 5:27.
41. I Tim 3:15.
42. St. Peter Canisius, De Maria Virgine.
43. Suarez, In Tertiam Partem D. Thomae, q. 27, a. 2, disp. 3, sec. 5, n. 31.
44. Gen 3:15.
45. Rom 5-6; I Cor. 15:21-26, 54-57.
46. I Cor 15:54.
47. The Bull Ineffabilis Deus, loc. cit., p. 599.
48. I Tim 1:17.

I have read those sources, but nothing cite anything prior to the 600’s. It is claimed that the assumption is Tradition and came from the apostles. If this was so there would be other references outside of a source that was condemned as heretical by two Popes.

 

[Whemsworth]

As an aside

Re: Munificentissimus Deus ewtn.com/LIBRARY/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.htm

did you see all the references at the end of the document, in particular the scriptural references?

ENDNOTES
1. Rom 8:28.
2. Gal 4:4.
3. Cf. Hentrich-Von Moos, Petitiones de Assumptione Corporea B. Virginis Mariae in Caelum Definienda ad S. Sedem Delatae, 2 volumes (Vatican Polyglot Press, 1942).
4. Acts 20:28.
5. The Bull Ineffabilis Deus, in the Acta Pii IX, pars 1, Vol. 1, p. 615.
6. The Vatican Council, Constitution Dei filius, c. 4.
7. Jn 14:26.
8. Vatican Council, Constitution Pastor Aeternus, c. 4.
9. Ibid., Dei Filius, c. 3.
10. The encyclical Mediator Dei (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XXXIX, 541).
11. Sacramentarium Gregorianum.
12. Menaei Totius Anni.
13. Lk 22:32.
14. Liber Pontificalis.
15. Ibid.
16. Responsa Nicolai Papae I ad Consulta Bulgarorum.
17. St. John Damascene, Encomium in Dormitionem Dei Genetricis Semperque Virginis Mariae, Hom. II, n. 14; cf. also ibid, n. 3.
18. St. Germanus of Constantinople, In Sanctae Dei Genetricis Dormitionem, Sermo I.
19. The Encomium in Dormitionem Sanctissimae Dominae Nostrate Deiparae Semperque Virginis Mariae, attributed to St. Modestus of Jerusalem, n. 14.
20. Cf. St. John Damascene, op. cit., Hom. II, n. 11; and also the Encomium attributed to St. Modestus.
21. Ps 131:8.
22. Ps 44:10-14ff.
23. Song 3:6; cf. also 4:8; 6:9.
24. Rv 12:1ff.
25. Lk 1:28.
26. Amadeus of Lausanne, De Beatae Virginis Obitu, Assumptione in Caelum Exaltatione ad Filii Dexteram.
27. Is 61:13.
28. St. Anthony of Padua, Sermones Dominicales et in Solemnitatibus, In Assumptione S. Mariae Virginis Sermo.
29. St. Albert the Great, Mariale, q. 132.
30. St. Albert the Great, Sermones de Sanctis, Sermo XV in Annuntiatione B. Mariae; cf. also Mariale, q. 132.
31. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., I, lla; q. 27, a. 1; q. 83, a. 5, ad 8; Expositio Salutationis Angelicae; In Symb. Apostolorum Expositio, a. S; In IV Sent., d. 12, q. 1, a. 3, sol. 3; d. 43, q. 1, a. 3, sol. 1, 2.
32. St. Bonaventure, De Nativitate B. Mariae Virginis, Sermo V.
33. Song 8:5.
34. St. Bonaventure, De Assumptione B. Mariae Virginis, Sermo 1.
35. St. Bernardine of Siena, In Assumptione B. Mariae Virginis, Sermo 11.
36. Ibid.
37. St. Robert Bellarmine, Conciones Habitae Lovanii, n. 40, De Assumption B. Mariae Virginis.
38. Oeuvres de St. Francois De Sales, sermon for the Feast of the Assumption.
39. St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Part 2, d. 1.
40. Eph 5:27.
41. I Tim 3:15.
42. St. Peter Canisius, De Maria Virgine.
43. Suarez, In Tertiam Partem D. Thomae, q. 27, a. 2, disp. 3, sec. 5, n. 31.
44. Gen 3:15.
45. Rom 5-6; I Cor. 15:21-26, 54-57.
46. I Cor 15:54.
47. The Bull Ineffabilis Deus, loc. cit., p. 599.
48. I Tim 1:17.

The scriptures listed are a little out of context to justift a doctrine that has no connection to the apostles. No disrespect. Psalm 11 is about the temple, revelation 12:1 was known histroically to describe israel, etc.

 

[Whemsworth]

We are going in circles. I honestly appreciate the responses and material. Maybe I should do what an earlier poster said and just be a 100% Bible Christian instead of a 75% Catholic. Thanks and God bless.

 

[steve_b]

The scriptures listed are a little out of context to justift a doctrine that has no connection to the apostles. No disrespect. Psalm 11 is about the temple, revelation 12:1 was known histroically to describe israel, etc.

With all due respect

Re: “temple”

• We are temples of God 1 Corinthians 3:16 , 1 Corinthians 3:17 , 1 Corinthians 6:19
• Is Mary less? Mary carries within her God the son, the Messiah, the word of God, the high priest, the bread of life.

You will see another analogy of Mary to that description as follows

Re: Rev 12:
Who is the woman being described by John? It’s Mary Apocalypse (Revelation) 12 read the notes

AND

Back up 1 chapter to the end of Ch 11.

Rev 11: [19] And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail.

What does the ark contain

• the word of God (the stone tablets)
• The staff of Aaron, (representing the royal priesthood)
• The manna (bread of life)

sound familiar?

Because of who was inside Mary, THAT’s why Mary is called the Ark of the New Covenant ALSO…

In Rev 12:1 John sees “the woman” IN HEAVEN and describes NOT a spirit but a woman clothed as a queen. And at the end of Ch 12 John says, Satan goes to make war on her offspring, which are who? “those who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ”.

ALL that is talking about the Blessed mother…MARY.

We are going in circles. I honestly appreciate the responses and material. Maybe I should do what an earlier poster said and just be a 100% Bible Christian instead of a 75% Catholic. Thanks and God bless.

“Bible Christians” aren’t really Bible Christians. If they really knew the bible, they would be Catholic