Mary's Assumption

[Historian]

Tell you what, I re-read the document again tonight highlighting the parts of it that I feel are relevant.

In fact, I had so much highlighted, that I decided to stop.

However, I’m watching Monk tonight, so I’ll take this up later. I’m happy to do this, so you can count on it.

Briefly, paragraphs 3-6 outline the theological basis for the dogma very clearly. 7-12 lay out the faith of the Church and the operation of the Ordinary Magisterium. 13-20 lay out the growth of the belief in the life of the faithful. Paragraphs 20 and beyond lay out the explicit teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

Now, until I address this in more detail, let me ask you this: Can you answer the following from scripture alone:

1. Does Jesus have two natures or one? Two wills or one? Cite the scripture passages in support of your answer.
2. Is God a trinity of persons? Again, I ask you to provide scripture only.
3. Is the Holy Spirit actually the third person of the Trinity consubstantial with the Father and the Son? Limit your response to Bible verses only.

If you find that there are no verses that explicitly address these theological truths, then will you concede that we are able to combine explicit doctrines to arrive at hidden truths?

Would it be reasonable to say that we can view explicit revelation (in its written and non-written forms) as building blocks like the basic elements of the periodic table can be combined to form different compounds of increasing complexity?

RESPONSE:

No. The topic is the Assumption. Lets stick to that one. The question was:

What Sacred Scripture and Apostolic teaching dealing with the Assumption are specifically cited in Munificentissimus Deus? Please provide the citation of the same from Munificentissimus Deus.

Please answer that question.

If no scriptural reference exists and no Apolostolic teaching exists, this then is “NEW DOCTRINE” which, according to Vatican I, is NOT covered by the infallible teaching of the Roman pontiff.

“For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter NOT so that they might, by his revelation, make known SOME NEW DOCTRINE , but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith TRANSMITTED BY THE APOSTLES .” (Vatican I, Session 4)

 

[Thing]

Yes. In fact several times. But I find no specific scriptural support is referenced for the Assumption and the legitimate writngs of the Church Fathers mentioning the Assumption begin about the seventh century. Those hardly support an apostolic tradition.

Perhaps you will cite a specific paragraph that evidences otherwise.

Hey J P,

“Say she died a natural death. In that case she fell asleep in glory, and departed in purity and received the crown of her virginity. Or say she was slain with the sword according to Simeon’s prophecy. There her glory is with the martyrs, and she through WHOM THE DIVINE LIGHT SHONE UPON THE WORLD IS IN THE PLACE OF BLISS WITH HER SACRED BODY. Or say she left this world without dying for God can do what He wills. Then she was simply transferred to eternal glory.” St. Epiphanius 390 ad

 

[ChadS]

RESPONSE:

No. The topic is the Assumption. Lets stick to that one. The question was:

What Sacred Scripture and Apostolic teaching dealing with the Assumption are specifically cited in Munificentissimus Deus? Please provide the citation of the same from Munificentissimus Deus.

Please answer that question.

If no scriptural reference exists and no Apolostolic teaching exists, this then is “NEW DOCTRINE” which, according to Vatican I, is NOT covered by the infallible teaching of the Roman pontiff.

“For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter NOT so that they might, by his revelation, make known SOME NEW DOCTRINE , but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith TRANSMITTED BY THE APOSTLES .” (Vatican I, Session 4)

While you may deem it off topic, and I suspect you do because it proves the point, Randy’s question does have direct bearing on this topic. All the beliefs he asked you to provide scriptural back-up for and only scriptural back-up are beliefs that are universally held across nearly every Christian denomination or sect. Yet, not one of those beliefs is taught explicitly in the Bible as we’ve come to believe it.

By your logic we should discard a lot of what we believe as Christians. I really do think you owe him some explanation on this one.

It also seems that the exact same conversations were held earlier in this thread, too.

ChadS

 

[Randy_Carson]

RESPONSE:

No. The topic is the Assumption. Lets stick to that one. The question was:

What Sacred Scripture and Apostolic teaching dealing with the Assumption are specifically cited in Munificentissimus Deus? Please provide the citation of the same from Munificentissimus Deus.

Please answer that question.

If no scriptural reference exists and no Apolostolic teaching exists, this then is “NEW DOCTRINE” which, according to Vatican I, is NOT covered by the infallible teaching of the Roman pontiff.

“For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter NOT so that they might, by his revelation, make known SOME NEW DOCTRINE , but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith TRANSMITTED BY THE APOSTLES .” (Vatican I, Session 4)

JPMarat-

I know what the topic is…and I’ve agreed to address it.

However, I asked you a couple of rhetorical questions to get you to think.

These questions point to other doctrines which are not explicitly found in scripture, and since you (or most Christians anyway) accept them as true, then the PRINCIPLE of developing implicit doctrines is established.

In light of this (and Chad’s excellent comments above), I think I’ll wait until you have addressed the underlying principle highlighted by my questions before continuing.

Fair is fair.

 

[Historian]

While you may deem it off topic, and I suspect you do because it proves the point, Randy’s question does have direct bearing on this topic. All the beliefs he asked you to provide scriptural back-up for and only scriptural back-up are beliefs that are universally held across nearly every Christian denomination or sect. Yet, not one of those beliefs is taught explicitly in the Bible as we’ve come to believe it.

By your logic we should discard a lot of what we believe as Christians. I really do think you owe him some explanation on this one.

It also seems that the exact same conversations were held earlier in this thread, too.

ChadS

RESPONSE:

He is free to start a thread dealing with other issues.

But he originally made two assertions without evidence.

I have asked that he evidence one - the topic of this thread.

 

[Historian]

JPMarat-

I know what the topic is…and I’ve agreed to address it.

However, I asked you a couple of rhetorical questions to get you to think.

These questions point to other doctrines which are not explicitly found in scripture, and since you (or most Christians anyway) accept them as true, then the PRINCIPLE of developing implicit doctrines is established.

In light of this (and Chad’s excellent comments above), I think I’ll wait until you have addressed the underlying principle highlighted by my questions before continuing.

Fair is fair.

Who is J.P.? Did he raise the same issue on this thread? Actually, it’s a common question in Catholic apologetic circles.

Since you have not answered the question I asked but are avoiding it, it is evident that you can’t answer it and are, for that reason, avoiding it.

That’s a common tactic used by those who make assertions, but when challenged to support them, really can’t.

 

[ChadS]

RESPONSE:

He is free to start a thread dealing with other issues.

But he originally made two assertions without evidence.

I have asked that he evidence one - the topic of this thread.

I believe one of the things you asked was what the Patristic evidence was. Have you read the document Munifecentissimus Deus? There is an entire section that outlines the origins of the patristic thought on this subject. That seems to be able to answer one of your prime objections, I believe.

ChadS

 

[Historian]

Hey J P,

“Say she died a natural death. In that case she fell asleep in glory, and departed in purity and received the crown of her virginity. Or say she was slain with the sword according to Simeon’s prophecy. There her glory is with the martyrs, and she through WHOM THE DIVINE LIGHT SHONE UPON THE WORLD IS IN THE PLACE OF BLISS WITH HER SACRED BODY. Or say she left this world without dying for God can do what He wills. Then she was simply transferred to eternal glory.” St. Epiphanius 390 ad

RESPONSE:

You are quoting correctly, but incompletely. This fourth century Church historian, St. Epiphanius 390 AD, (Haer., lxxix, 11) admits that he knows nothing about any Assumption and further admits that there is nothing in scripture about it. But the Assumption folklore didn’t appear until about a hundred years later in spurious writings. This, of course, refutes any scriptural or apostolic origin for the fact of the Assumption.

 

[Historian]

I believe one of the things you asked was what the Patristic evidence was. Have you read the document Munifecentissimus Deus? There is an entire section that outlines the origins of the patristic thought on this subject. That seems to be able to answer one of your prime objections, I believe.

ChadS

RESPONSE:

The “Patristic evidence” doesn’t begin to appear until the 700’s. If you claim otherwise, please provide the citation.

There is no claim otherwise in Munifecentissimus.

 

[ChadS]

RESPONSE:

The “Patristic evidence” doesn’t begin to appear until the 700’s. If you claim otherwise, please provide the citation.

There is no claim otherwise in Munifecentissimus.

Since you seem extremely well-versed in Patristic evidence, is there Patristic evidence prior to the 700s that denies Mary’s assumption. I would be extremely grateful if you could provide this.

ChadS

 

[Thing]

RESPONSE:

You are quoting correctly, but incompletely. This fourth century Church historian, St. Epiphanius 390 AD, (Haer., lxxix, 11) admits that he knows nothing about any Assumption and further admits that there is nothing in scripture about it. But the Assumption folklore didn’t appear until about a hundred years later in spurious writings. This, of course, refutes any scriptural or apostolic origin for the fact of the Assumption.

St. Epiphanius describes the existing tradition of the Church as he knew them, at that time 390 ad. The uncertainty was whether Mary died a natural death or whether she was martyred or whether she did not suffer death but was translated with her body into heaven. What was not called into question by St. Epiphanius in this quote was Marys’ assumption into heaven, body and soul.

 

[Randy_Carson]

My post above (#116) makes no sense now that Historian has been banned and his posts deleted, but that’s okay by me.

 

[adrift]

The question of where is the evidence that the Assumption was ever condemned in the 7th century or before remains. That is good evidence that it was accepted as tradition before it was set in writing.