Refutation of the Assumption

  • Thread starter Thread starter Inquirer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Inquirer

Guest
Hi Folks

Has anyone of you seen this refutation by a William Webster? It sounds pretty good because it seems to throw quite a lot of sources and even states that a couple of Popes slamed it as heretical in the 5 and 6th centuries. One was by Pope Gelasius between 494 to 496 A.D in the degree - in Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticus et Apocryphis

The entire decree and its condemnation was reaffirmed by Pope Hormisdas around A.D. 520

He asserts that these facts prove that the early Church viewed the assumption teaching, not as a legitimate expression of the pious belief of the faithful but as a heresy worthy of condemnation.

christiantruth.com/assumption.html

How would you make an answer to that?
 
Inquirer said:
Hi Folks

Has anyone of you seen this refutation by a William Webster? It sounds pretty good because it seems to throw quite a lot of sources and even states that a couple of Popes slamed it as heretical in the 5 and 6th centuries. One was by Pope Gelasius between 494 to 496 A.D in the degree - in Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticus et Apocryphis

The entire decree and its condemnation was reaffirmed by Pope Hormisdas around A.D. 520

He asserts that these facts prove that the early Church viewed the assumption teaching, not as a legitimate expression of the pious belief of the faithful but as a heresy worthy of condemnation.

christiantruth.com/assumption.html

How would you make an answer to that?
Click to expand...
Most of the citations are analytical by supposed historians. None of it from the site you gave officially gave what document condemned the Assumption of Mary.

So your citations is pretty much unreliable.

Second I like to cite Scripture as well in support of the Assumption of Mary.

Revelation 12:1-6 depicts a woman in heaven who is at war with the Dragon. Given the obvious allusion here to Genesis 3:15, and given the fact that Mary is surely the woman anticipated in the typology of Eve, this passage is best understood as depicting Mary symbolically as the physical sign of the eschatological Israel which will fight against the kingdom of the Antichrist. Since the destiny of the eschatological people of God is surely to be caught up to the heavenly throne with the ascended Lord (Rev. 3:21 cf. 11:11-12), it would certainly be fitting for Mary to anticipate this eschatological privilege through her own bodily entrance into heaven. Thus, the present age (climaxing in the events depicted in Daniel 9:27) would be seen as the age of warfare between Mary and her Son on the one hand, and Satan and the kingdom of Antichrist on the other.
 
Those Popes condemned the apocryphal works which contained stories of Mary’s Assumption, not the doctrine of the Assumption itself.
 
The Protoevangelium of James and other apocryphal works contain sometimes ludicrous stories of what Jesus supposedly did, but that doesn’t change the fact that Jesus Christ really lived and was and is Our Lord and Savior.
Not “everything” in the apocryphal books is false, but a lot of the stuff has been embellished.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)
 
Inquirer said:
Hi Folks

Has anyone of you seen this refutation by a William Webster? It sounds pretty good because it seems to throw quite a lot of sources and even states that a couple of Popes slamed it as heretical in the 5 and 6th centuries. One was by Pope Gelasius between 494 to 496 A.D in the degree - in Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticus et Apocryphis

The entire decree and its condemnation was reaffirmed by Pope Hormisdas around A.D. 520

He asserts that these facts prove that the early Church viewed the assumption teaching, not as a legitimate expression of the pious belief of the faithful but as a heresy worthy of condemnation.

christiantruth.com/assumption.html

How would you make an answer to that?
Click to expand...
You mean the Church was discussing the Assumption of Mary as early as the 5th century?

I thought it was a recent invention of the Romish Church! 😛

So it’s either a recent invention or an ancient heresy…

Sheesh, I wish some people would make up their minds! 👍
 
Penitus said:
Those Popes condemned the apocryphal works which contained stories of Mary’s Assumption, not the doctrine of the Assumption itself.
Click to expand...
In the list of apocryphal writings which are to be rejected Gelasius signifies the following work: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus (Pope Gelasius 1, Epistle 42, Migne Series, M.P.L. vol. 59, Col. 162). **This specifically means the Transitus writing of the assumption of Mary. **At the end of the decree he states that this and all the other listed literature is heretical and that their authors and teachings and all who adhere to them are condemned and placed under eternal anathema which is indissoluble. And he places the Transitus literature in the same category as the heretics and writings of Arius, Simon Magus, Marcion, Apollinaris, Valentinus and Pelagius.

**So when Pope Gelasius condemms a work called *“The transitus writing of the assumption of Mary”, ***you dont believe he condemms that teaching??? :confused:

Sola Ecclesia indeed.
 
Randy_Carson said:
You mean the Church was discussing the Assumption of Mary as early as the 5th century?

I thought it was a recent invention of the Romish Church! 😛

So it’s either a recent invention or an ancient heresy…
Click to expand...
It doesnt appear to be one of those either or situations. It is an ancient heresy AND a recent invention.
 
It doesnt appear to be one of those either or situations. It is an ancient heresy AND a recent invention.

Who (Edited by Moderator) are you, a mere layperson,
to declare the ancient belief of the entire Christian Church, East and West, a heresy ???

What breathtaking audacity.
 
Maybe kaycee is being sarcastic (I surely hope so)! by trying to point out the inherent absurdity of something being simultaneously a supposed ‘ancient heresy’ as well as a ‘recent invention’.
 
Read David Armstrong’s refutation here.

He usually does fantastic work.

EDIT: I looked quickly, this may just be Webster refuted in general, and not specifically to this. I’ll keep looking

-Rob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top