R
Randy_Carson
Guest
No, but it would give some evidence of what was believed in the era of the painting.
- Status
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Ok there are a bunch of people responding so I’ll try to catch all of you in one post.
Whether it was the 6th century or 3rd century is irrelevant. I just picked a number out of the sky. The point is you can’t equate a modern definition of a term with an ancient one.
Are there any writings stating that she died? I’m sure there probably are, I’ll look when I get home. I will say even this concept is a great departure in our ways of thinking. Until very recent history all of these writings we cite were not readily available. Moreover almost no one could read anyway. So the faith was transmitted through the life of the Church, the prayers, the readings and very importantly the iconography. So the fact that for centuries all of the iconography shows that the Theotokos died, and that it still shows that today, is all the proof I would need to show it was and is the teaching of the Church. The iconography doesn’t define the doctrine, the doctrine defined the iconography. So yes, as far as we are concerned, the prayers of the Church and the iconography make absolute dogmatic statements.
And…it’s important to make the fact that she died explicit because it is questioned today and the fact that she died makes an essential statement about our salvation. St Gregory the Theologian said “that which is not assumed is not saved.” So in order for Christ to assume all of our human nature he had to receive our human nature from Mary. If she somehow didn’t have our human nature then our nature is not assumed and we are not saved.
Whether it was the 6th century or 3rd century is irrelevant. I just picked a number out of the sky. The point is you can’t equate a modern definition of a term with an ancient one.
Are there any writings stating that she died? I’m sure there probably are, I’ll look when I get home. I will say even this concept is a great departure in our ways of thinking. Until very recent history all of these writings we cite were not readily available. Moreover almost no one could read anyway. So the faith was transmitted through the life of the Church, the prayers, the readings and very importantly the iconography. So the fact that for centuries all of the iconography shows that the Theotokos died, and that it still shows that today, is all the proof I would need to show it was and is the teaching of the Church. The iconography doesn’t define the doctrine, the doctrine defined the iconography. So yes, as far as we are concerned, the prayers of the Church and the iconography make absolute dogmatic statements.
And…it’s important to make the fact that she died explicit because it is questioned today and the fact that she died makes an essential statement about our salvation. St Gregory the Theologian said “that which is not assumed is not saved.” So in order for Christ to assume all of our human nature he had to receive our human nature from Mary. If she somehow didn’t have our human nature then our nature is not assumed and we are not saved.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And this is the same type of error that Protestants make when questioning the Immaculate Conception of Mary…only you have transferred it to the events of the Assumption instead.
Here is why you and they are wrong:
For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)
Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)
However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.
The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.
For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.
Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.
Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: “As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.
Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.
Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.
Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.
Romans 6:23 - Did Mary Die due to the Wages of Sin?
Romans 6:23 (New International Version)
23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Catholic apologist John Salsa wrote:
“Jesus and Mary, even though they were sinless, still inherited the defects of the body, to the extent these defects were not inconsistent with their perfection of grace (this is the teaching of the angelic doctor, Thomas Aquinas). For example, Jesus and Mary had hunger, thirst, and fatigue. These were defects of their human natures that were brought into the world by Adam. These defects are to be distinguished from other defects such as proneness toward evil and difficulty in doing good. Neither Jesus nor Mary suffered from these kinds of defects because they would be inconsistent with their perfection of grace. Thus, if Mary did die, which would be the natural consequence of her human nature, her death cannot be attributed to her having any sin on her soul.”
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.
Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!
Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!
Y
YADA
Guest
Gish I am feeling like I am in a parallel universe …as my experience is that some orthodox will argue for Mary to be “sleeping” and not having died which is the standard belief for Catholics …though I believe the early references to “sleep” mean death …and I have always thought they were poorly catechized …we have those poorly catechized too
sadly. Because I do know what Orthodoxy teachesHowever, if you are saying that Mary’s death is necessary due to her human nature and thus to Christ’s human nature …that is not true. Even if you fail to grasp a concept that with God all things are possible (and they are) or that God just wouldn’t make an exception … We must also ask “Have all human kind suffered physical death?” The answer to that is “No”. For Enoch walked all his day with the Lord and was no more … Then there is Elijah. Both of these people are believed to have been bodily assumed (which contrary to an esrlier post that said Mary assended ‘like Jesus’ - she didn’t) into heaven. Thus -if Mary was bodily assumed into heaven before her physical death she would just have been in very good company, not unique in salvation history.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
I don’t know anything about Protestant errors. They are your children. But if Mary did not inherit our fallen nature why did she need a Savior?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Well the question which accompanies this is for sure Mary was preserved be it at the Annunciation or the IC. How in the world is that different?
S
SteveVH
Guest
She did not inherit our fallen nature because she was prevented from doing so by her Son’s saving sacrifice; a sacrifice that is eternal and not limited to or subject to time. The child she would deliver had first delivered her. Did you miss the analogy about falling into the pit?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Then how will you ever manage to evangelize them or bring them back into your “one, true Church”? See, Joey, it’s not enough for Orthodox to remain comfortable in their ethnic enclaves if you really are the heirs to the great commission. You have to make disciples of ALL nations…even those that are largely Protestant. And that is going to require that you learn something about Protestant errors…just as I am taking the time now to learn about the errors of Orthodoxy.
How so?
If not for the Immaculate Conception, Mary would have inherited original sin just like the rest of us. And, like the rest of us, she would have died as a result of that sin.
However, Mary was prevented from inheriting original sin BY GOD. Therefore, it is my opinion that death was optional for her…and she chose to follow her Son and set an example for us by enduring death with grace.
However, Mary was saved IN ANTICIPATION of receiving that inheritance whereas you and I are saved AFTER receiving it.
Make sense?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Sin implies death. And Baptism per the Creed is for the remission of sin. So we can’t claim ancestral and original and some alternate reality. We need to have the answers for these souls as Randy states.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
I don’t understand your question.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
If she did not have a fallen nature, then Christ did not assume a fallen nature from her and we are all still in our sins.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Mary, like Christ, was like us in every way except sin.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Jesus received his human nature from Mary. He did not assume a fallen nature.
That is what made Him a perfect, unblemished sacrifice
1 Peter 1:17-19
17 Since you call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear. 18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. .
There’s Peter again…strengthening the faith of others.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
The Orthodox Church is here for anyone who desires the truth. I’m afraid the propensity to try and argue yourselves into faith is exactly why Protestantism exists in the first place. I would also point out that while Catholicism is shrinking in Latin America hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans are converting to Orthodoxy. Also Orthodoxy is growing at a much faster rate here in the US than Catholicism is. So much so that the hierarchy of some jurisdictions is made up almost entirely of adult converts.
You both have the same humanistic outlook. You ask the same questions, use the same method of reasoning, make the same assumptions.
This is where the syllogisms become extremely dangerous. Why not just spare His Son the suffering and save us all that way?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
But sitting back and waiting for the lost to find you is not what Jesus commanded you to do, is it? Damn, this explains so much about which I have been belittled for saying in the past.
Since I know that RyanBlack (and others) are monitoring this thread, may I leave it to them to explain to you why this line of reasoning is fallacious? Or so it was explained to me when I questioned how the EO could possibly be the one, true Church when it has NOT made disciples of all nations with anywhere near the success of the Catholic Church.
Or will they remain silent and allow you to get away with something that they called me out for? We’ll see…
That’s intriguing. Could you provide some examples of each of these things?
Many people ask that question, and one answer is that HE COULD HAVE!
However, God chose to follow the plan which included the Incarnation, and so the answer to your question requires greater precision. I will respond with the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 599-618 here:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a4p2.htm
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
The topic please
L
LionHeart777
Guest
I’m backing up a few pages. And I will tie this back in and the thread can continue (perhaps another thread can be split off if people want to continue to discuss the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception)
As stated, I was under the impression that the Assumption of Mary had little Patristic support. I got this idea, I suspect, from listening to the debate between Robert Sungenis and James White on this very topic. (It can be found on YouTube here.) In it, Dr. Ludwig Ott was one Catholic source cited. I have grabbed my copy of “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, and in it Ott says regarding proof for the Assumption of Mary:
“Direct and express scriptural proofs are not to be had.” (pg. 208*) Sungenis then applied that quote to the Fathers to my recollection, essentially saying that direct and express Patristic proofs were not to be had (although some were mentioned.) But the point was they were later (too late for White apparently).
Anyway…
Thank you Randy for supplying the Patristic texts in defense of the Assumption of Mary, and thank you Seraphim for defending why you believe in the Assumption of Mary. My point was to be that since, as I thought, that there was little Patristic support for the Assumption of Mary, and yet you, Seraphim, believed in that, then why would little Patristic support for the link between Isaiah 22 and St. Matthew 16:18-19 prevent you from accepting that link? It would seem to be a moot point now as there is more Patristic evidence than I thought, so I was wrong in stating that there was little Patristic support for the Assumption of Mary.
- Ott, Dr. Ludwig, “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc. Rockford: 1974. Pg. 208
P
prodromos
Guest
The bold text was not even intimated by my post. It seems like you wish to invent reasons to call us pettyIf this is an example of “development of doctrine” heading south its a pretty sad example. We believe that Mary “passed from this life”, did not suffer corruption, and was assumed, body and soul, into heaven. ** And yet this is held up as just one more reason to remain separated.**
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Thank you for your kind words. Give yourself more credit (and me lessYou are welcome … I am sure there are more - we just need to look for them … I think we Catholic Christians don’t take as much notice of things like this being a major connection because the parallels are already made for us - it only becomes necessary to search out when the connection is challenged.
That is part and parcel to our understanding of the whole of the scriptures and how they work together … our Jewish roots and New Testament Church … what was prefigured in the Old Testament being fulfilled in the New …
You and Randy are great resources… You both possess a wonderful scholarly approach - much more so then then I do. I really enjoy your intellect and ability to discuss the topics with such detail and knowledge. While I was working on my Master’s - one of my Professor’s said to me - “I always look forward to reading your papers - they are so ‘folksy’”
- … no matter how many foot notes and citations my papers possessed - I was pretty sure that was not high praise
…but as a small business owner working full time and with employees - it was a minor miracle that I even got my papers written at all
. and many times I knew that miracle was merely by the grace of God.:yup:
) ! I would take your professor’s comment as a positive given that in my mind, the other direction from ‘folksy’ would be snobbish. Besides, they said they looked forward to reading them. I can relate to the balancing act you did, I went back to college to earn my Secondary Teaching Certification and I had a baby girl, a wife, a part-time job, and an hour drive to campus each way. I felt like I was juggling so many balls at once I had to let a few drop here and there.- Status