Protestants have traditions

[Randy_Carson]

Any luck providing the text of Homily on Simeon and Anna Randy?

Two points:

First, last night and independently of your posts, I came across some information that has given me cause to question Pseudo-Melito myself. Since, I, as a Catholic epologist, do not want to have my sources called into question, I will withdraw my quotation of this author.

Second, I have just read your post concerning the text of Homily on Simeon and Anna, and I will endeavor to provide additional documentation. However, a quick Google search found numerous references to him including:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrologia_Graeca

and the more scholarly

links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-6032(198606)40%3A2%3C169%3ALPOCTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V

which unfortunately requires a subscription.

 

[BrianH]

This has come up on this very forum as well:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=116667
Gottle of Geer posted this from a website:

“9. For a critique of the teaching of Timothy of Jerusalem and the various manuscripts in which his doctrine may be found, cf. M. Jugie, La mort et l’Assomption de la Sainte Vierge (Citta del Vaticano, 1944), p. 70ff. Cf. B. Capelle, Les homilies liturgiques du pretendu Timothee de Jerusalem, in Ephemerides Liturgicae, Vol. 63, 1949, pp. 5-26. After a very thorough and scholarly investigation the author concludes that **Timothy is an **unknown ****author who lived between the sixth and seventh centuries (p. 23).”

This man and Pseudo M are posted all over the internet on Catholic websites with a bogus date of 380 AD or 400 AD.

Neither is correct it appears

 

[BrianH]

Two points:
First, last night and independently of your posts, I came across some information that has given me cause to question Pseudo-Melito myself. .

Of course, I would never think that MY little posts would cause an apologist to question their sources. I understand fully this is just a coincidence!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Of course, I would never think that MY little posts would cause an apologist to question their sources. I understand fully this is just a coincidence!

If it were truly your comments that caused me to question my post, I would never have given you the satisfaction of knowing it!

In all seriousness, I will try my best to provide you with answer that you find reasonably tolerable (acceptable is too much to hope for).

However, I am coming at this from an entirely different perspective; namely, that Jesus founded an infallible Church which teaches a doctrine which I accept.

It is the Church, not the Bible, which is the pillar and bullwark of the truth (cf. 1 Tim 3:15), and Jesus said, “He who hears you (the Apostles), hears me.”

But I understand your weakness (sola scriptura), so I will endeavor to tie these things as best I can to the early Church though I myself no longer need such proof-texts personally.

Ironically, I don’t think it will make one bit of difference to you in your faith walk if I am successful or not in doing so.

Denial is funny like that. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

POPE JOHN PAUL II
GENERAL AUDIENCE
Wednesday, 9 July 1997

Mary is first creature to enjoy eternal life

1. The Church’s constant and unanimous Tradition shows how Mary’s Assumption is part of the divine plan and is rooted in her unique sharing in the mission of her Son. In the first millennium sacred authors had already spoken in this way.
   Testimonies, not yet fully developed, can be found in St Ambrose, St Epiphanius and Timothy of Jerusalem. St Germanus I of Constantinople (†730) puts these words on Jesus’ lips as he prepares to take his Mother to heaven: “You must be where I am, Mother inseparable from your Son…” (Hom. 3 in Dormitionem, PG 98, 360).

In addition, the same ecclesial Tradition sees the fundamental reason for the Assumption in the divine motherhood.
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 Mariae, 16, PG 5, 1238). It can therefore be said that the divine motherhood, which made Mary’s body the immaculate dwelling place of the Lord, was the basis of her glorious destiny.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_09071997_en.html

And suddenly, we’re not just referencing some no-name apologetics website, are we?

 

[Randy_Carson]

400 AD?? John had some serious longevity…whoa…
Could you mean this?

I will stop there for now, you have got some powerful allies on your side:

Pseudo M.

Timothy of Jerusalem…whoever he is

and a 400 year old man!

Actually, give my previous post, I’m starting to think I do have some powerful allies on my side if John Paul II quoted or referenced them.

BTW, John the Theologian is not the same person as John the Apostle.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[BrianH]

But I understand your weakness (sola scriptura), so I will endeavor to tie these things as best I can to the early Church though I myself no longer need such proof-texts personally.

I am curious why you think I am Sola Scriptura.

 

[BrianH]

POPE JOHN PAUL II
GENERAL AUDIENCE
Wednesday, 9 July 1997

Mary is first creature to enjoy eternal life

1. The Church’s constant and unanimous Tradition shows how Mary’s Assumption is part of the divine plan and is rooted in her unique sharing in the mission of her Son. In the first millennium sacred authors had already spoken in this way.
   Testimonies, not yet fully developed, can be found in St Ambrose, St Epiphanius and Timothy of Jerusalem. St Germanus I of Constantinople (†730) puts these words on Jesus’ lips as he prepares to take his Mother to heaven: “You must be where I am, Mother inseparable from your Son…” (Hom. 3 in Dormitionem, PG 98, 360).

In addition, the same ecclesial Tradition sees the fundamental reason for the Assumption in the divine motherhood.
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 Mariae, 16, PG 5, 1238). It can therefore be said that the divine motherhood, which made Mary’s body the immaculate dwelling place of the Lord, was the basis of her glorious destiny.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_09071997_en.html

And suddenly, we’re not just referencing some no-name apologetics website, are we?

I am aware of this quote, I found it in my search. Perhaps he reads the same bad websites?

 

[BrianH]

Actually, give my previous post, I’m starting to think I do have some powerful allies on my side if John Paul II quoted or referenced them.

BTW, John the Theologian is not the same person as John the Apostle.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

theologian.org/stjohnlife.html

The Life of St John the Theologian

---

St John was a fisherman by trade, the son of Zebedee (i.e., “the son of thunder”) and Salome, the daughter of Joseph the betrothed of Mary the Theotokos; hence, he was a step-cousin of the Saviour. When the Lord Jesus called him and his brother James to follow him, they left their father Zebedee with the fishing nets. From that time on he followed Christ wherever he went. He was present with Peter and James at the raising of Jairus’ daughter and at our Lord’s Transfiguration, and he laid his head upon the breast of Christ at the Last Supper. At the crucifixion, John stayed with Christ when all the other disciples had fled, and Jesus entrusted him with taking care of his Mother; the gospel of St John tells us that he cared for her until her falling asleep.

After the Dormition of the Theotokos, St John and his disciple St Prochoros (with whom he is almost always depicted in icons) departed to Asia Minor to preach the gospel, primarily in Ephesus. Because of the success of his evangelism, the pagans became infuriated and sent him to Rome to stand before the Emperor Dometian. He was tortured before the emperor, but he was not harmed by any of the tortures: flogging, poisoning, and being put into boiling oil. The emperor became afraid at his miraculous survival, and sent him away to exile on the island of Patmos, where he continued his ministry of converting the pagans to right belief, and where he composed the Apocalypse (the book of Revelation), followed by his gospel and his three catholic epistles.

There is some dispute among his biographers as to his age at the time of his falling asleep: reports range between 95 and 120 years old. There is a tradition that when he had reached a ripe old age, he took seven of his disciples and instructed them to dig a grave in the form of a cross. When they had completed digging it, the old man climbed down into the grave and commanded that they bury him. When the faithful later opened the grave, they found it empty. Some have speculated that this was to fulfill Christ’s words in the 21st chapter of the gospel of St John, in which Christ predicts Peter’s imprisonment and death; Peter asks the Lord what will happen to John, and Christ says, “If I will that he tarry until I come, what is that thee? Follow thou me.” The other disciples speculated that John would not die. Thus, the emptiness of St John’s grave has been claimed as proof that he did not die, but will remain alive until the Lord comes.

A miracle was reported for many years on 8 May: a fine dust or manna arose from his grave, from which those suffering from diseases were cured.

The feast of St John’s repose is celebrated on 26 September, with a lesser feast on 8 May commemorating the miraculous manna

 

[BrianH]

The Apostle and Evangelist St. John, called the Theologian, was the son of Salome and Zebedee, a fisherman of Galilee. Zebedee possessed rather vast holdings, workers and was a member of some importance in the Jewish community, having access to the high priest. John’s mother Salome is mentioned in the ranks of women who served God with their possessions.

John was at first the pupil of St. John the Baptist

.
fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/saints/john_evangelist.htm

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am curious why you think I am Sola Scriptura.

Yeah, I was Methodist, and I know my dad (who still attends the Methodist church) is not a particularly strong on this doctrine.

However, apart from sola scriptura and sola fide, why be Protestant?

 

[Randy_Carson]

theologian.org/stjohnlife.html

Ah…an Orthodox website.

Don’t you normally call him “John the Evangelist” or “John the Apostle”?

I know I do.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Could you mean this?

"This Greek narrative is one of the earliest witnesses to the “Bethlehem” traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition, so-called because some of their events take place in Bethlehem. This is in contrast to other early traditions in which the setting is limited to Jerusalem. This narrative is probably from the sixth century,"
uoregon.edu/~sshoemak/texts/dormitionG2/dormitionG2.htm

I agree that the link you provided cites this as being from the sixth century. This is interesting since the site I originally drew it from dated it from 400 AD as I originally posted.

Therefore, since I would hold you to a very high standard of accuracy, it is only fair that I be held to the same degree of rigor. I will re-date this in my file as a seventh century source instead of a fifth century source until I am able to verify anything earlier.

Better to be safe than sorry when doing apologetics.

As for the quotes from Pseudo-Melito and Timothy of Jerusalem (Antioch?), I will stand by my quotation given that the Vatican has sought fit to quote them, also.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Catholic Encyclopedia states the following:

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholicfaith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

Here the quote that I cited previously is dated from the “fourth or fifth century” - which at least vindicates the dating of my previous post.

Wikipedia places it later.

Your pick as to which is more reliable.
.

 

[BrianH]

The Catholic Encyclopedia states the following:

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholicfaith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

Here the quote that I cited previously is dated from the “fourth or fifth century” - which at least vindicates the dating of my previous post.

Wikipedia places it later.

Your pick as to which is more reliable.
.

I am familiar with the quote…page 72 of my book

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am familiar with the quote…page 72 of my book

Which book is that, Brian?

I apologize that I am unfamiliar with your name…

And btw, since you were already familiar with it…why did you bust my chops about it being from 400AD? You knew I had a source that dated it earlier than the cite you linked to…even if you didn’t agree with it.

 

[BrianH]

Which book is that, Brian?

I apologize that I am unfamiliar with your name…

And btw, since you were already familiar with it…why did you bust my chops about it being from 400AD? You knew I had a source that dated it earlier than the cite you linked to…even if you didn’t agree with it.

A Workman Confronts Catholicism
Gone to printer. Not to worry, it will never be well known, I do not think. When done (two to six months I have been told), I will send you a copy …to a neutral address of course. Its small, under 200 pages, it looks at Catholic claims (some of them in all fairness) in light of the Bible and the Ante-Nicene Fathers from a layman’s (2nd Timothy 2:15) perspective. Short, brief, to the point.
Anyway,
Catholic websites always take 20 to 200 years off all their sources when you look at the range of possible dates. If you dont believe me, go to any of them and then a scholarly (academic)source.
Clement 80 AD etc etc
Simple question, do YOU think it is odd that what would be the second greatest proof of Christianity (the physical and, one would think, historically verifiable assumption of the mother of Christ) goes unmentioned for (insert your own number) years but yet plenty of ECF’s discuss OTHER assumptions, as well Mary on **hundreds ** (break out all 9 volumes and check) of occasions?
Odd? It makes good apologists stumble. Heck, Bonocore says it was kept secret so it would not take emphasis off of Christ…from the same people of course who say that praying to Mary does not take emphasis off Christ.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have several follow up questions.

1. Are you, in fact, a sola scripturist?
2. Do Methodists observe Traditions that are neither explicitly or implicitly found in scripture? By “capital T” Traditions, I mean those beliefs which are binding upon the consciences of all believers?
3. When did John the Theologian ( ) die?
4. Was Ignatius of Antioch a disciple of John the Theologian?
5. Are you comfortable with the following dates (if not, provide alternates):

Clement of Rome (reigned 88-97)
Ignatius of Antioch (d.c.107)
Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403)
Council of Chalcedon (451)
Juvenal (d.458)
Pseudo-Augustine (c.500)
Gregory of Tours (c.538-593)
Germanus I, Patriarch of Constantinople (d.733)
Andrew of Crete (c.660-740)
John Damascene (676-749)

1. Was Mary conceived without sin?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Randy_Carson]

A Workman Confronts Catholicism
Gone to printer. Not to worry, it will never be well known, I do not think. When done (two to six months I have been told), I will send you a copy …to a neutral address of course.

I would be delighted to receive it.

Simple question, do YOU think it is odd that what would be the second greatest proof of Christianity (the physical and, one would think, historically verifiable assumption of the mother of Christ) goes unmentioned for (insert your own number) years but yet plenty of ECF’s discuss OTHER assumptions, as well Mary on **hundreds **(break out all 9 volumes and check) of occasions?

How is the assumption of Mary a proof of Christianity?

The Jews who opposed the Church would simply have pointed to Enoch, Moses and Elija - all of whom were assumed into Heaven either before or after death.

However, if God chose to take the bodies of these OT saints to heaven in a special way (and the scriptures cannot be refuted or denied about this), then why would he not honor His own Mother in similar fashion?

 

[BrianH]

1. Are you, in fact, a sola scripturist?

No, and that is causing a slew of problems for people who think I should be going one route

1. Do Methodists observe Traditions that are neither explicitly or implicitly found in scripture? By “capital T” Traditions, I mean those beliefs which are binding upon the consciences of all believers?

No as you state it no.

1. When did John the Theologian ( ) die?

During the reign of Trajan, most likely. Papias, even Eusebius cannot really stand the guy, could be wrong. Although of course he was right about the millenial reign of Christ…

1. Was Ignatius of Antioch a disciple of John the Theologian?

He does not say he is. Spurious letters attempt to make him such

1. Are you comfortable with the following dates (if not, provide alternates):

Clement of Rome (reigned 88-97)

80-105 CE

Ignatius of Antioch (d.c.107)

When did he die? That is probably close.

Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403)

yes, and the others are close enough

1. Was Mary conceived without sin?
   No

Thanks in advance.