Scriptural support for private interpretation of Scripture?

[Church_Militant]

In Rome (Batiffol, Brev. Rom., 134) the oldest and only feast of Our Lady was 1 January, the octave of Christ’s birth. It was celebrated first at Santa Maria Maggiore, later at Santa Maria ad Martyres. The other feasts are of Byzantine origin. Duchesne thinks (Origines du culte chr., 262) that before the seventh century no other feast was kept at Rome, and that consequently the feast of the Assumption, found in the sacramentaries of Gelasius and Gregory, is a spurious addition made in the eighth or seventh century. Probst, however (Sacramentarien, 264 sqq.), brings forth good arguments to prove that the Mass of the Blessed Virgin Mary, found on the 15th of August in the Gelasianum, is genuine, since it does not mention the corporeal assumption of Mary; that, consequently, the feast was celebrated in the church of Santa Maria Maggiore at Rome at least in the sixth century. He proves, furthermore, that the Mass of the Gregorian Sacramentary, such as we have it, is of Gallican origin (since the belief in the bodily assumption of Mary, under the influence of the apocryphal writings, is older in Gaul than in Rome), and that it supplanted the old Gelasian Mass. At the time of Sergius I (700) this feast was one of the principal festivities in Rome; the procession started from the church of St. Hadrian. It was always a double of the first class and a Holy Day of obligation.

The octave was added in 847 by Leo IV; in Germany this octave was not observed in several dioceses up to the time of the Reformation. The Church of Milan has not accepted it up to this day (Ordo Ambros., 1906). The octave is privileged in the dioceses of the provinces of Sienna, Fermo, Michoacan, etc.

The Greek Church continues this feast to 23 August, inclusive, and in some monasteries of Mount Athos it is protracted to 29 August (Menaea Graeca, Venice, 1880), or was, at least, formerly. In the dioceses of Bavaria a thirtieth day (a species of month’s mind) of the Assumption was celebrated during the Middle Ages, 13 Sept., with the Office of the Assumption (double); to-day, only the Diocese of Augsburg has retained this old custom.

Some of the Bavarian dioceses and those of Brandenburg, Mainz, Frankfort, etc., on 23 Sept. kept the feast of the “Second Assumption”, or the “Fortieth Day of the Assumption” (double) believing, according to the revelations of St. Elizabeth of Schönau (d. 1165) and of St. Bertrand, O.C. (d. 1170), that the B.V. Mary was taken up to heaven on the fortieth day after her death (Grotefend, Calendaria 2, 136). The Brigittines kept the feast of the “Glorification of Mary” (double) 30 Aug., since St. Brigitta of Sweden says (Revel., VI, l) that Mary was taken into heaven fifteen days after her departure (Colvenerius, Cal. Mar., 30 Aug.). In Central America a special feast of the Coronation of Mary in heaven (double major) is celebrated 18 Aug. The city of Gerace in Calabria keeps three successive days with the rite of a double first class, commemorating: 15th of August, the death of Mary; 16th of August, her Coronation.

At Piazza, in Sicily, there is a commemoration of the Assumption of Mary (double second class) the 20th of February, the anniversary of the earthquake of 1743. A similar feast (double major with octave) is kept at Martano, Diocese of Otranto, in Apulia, 19th of November.

[Note: By promulgating the Bull Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November, 1950, Pope Pius XII declared infallibly that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was a dogma of the Catholic Faith. Likewise, the Second Vatican Council taught in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium that “the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things (n. 59).”]

 

[Church_Militant]

As for your allegations about Pope St Gelasius I:

See anything that supports it now from a real source that would know. You’ve been lied to.

newadvent.org/cathen/06406a.htm

Pope St. Gelasius I

Died at Rome, 19 Nov., 496. Gelasius, as he himself states in his letter to the Emperor Anastasius (Ep. xii, n. 1), was Romanus natus. The assertion of the “Liber Pontificalis” that he was natione Afer is consequently taken by many to mean that he was of African origin, though Roman born. Others, however, interpreting natione Afer as “African by birth”, explain Romanus natus as “born a Roman citizen”. Before his election as pope, 1 March, 492, Gelasius had been much employed by his predecessor, Felix II (or III), especially in drawing up ecclesiastical documents, which has led some scholars to confuse the writings of the two pontiffs.

On his election to the papacy, Gelasius at once showed his strength of character and his lofty conception of his position by his firmness in dealing with the adherents of Acacius (see ACACIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE). Despite all the efforts of the otherwise orthodox patriarch, Euphemius of Constantinople (q. v.), and the threats and wiles by which the Emperor Anastasius tried to obtain recognition from the Apostolic See, Gelasius, though hard-pressed by difficulties at home, would make no peace that compromised in the slightest degree the rights and honor of the Chair of Peter. The constancy with which he combated the pretensions, lay and ecclesiastical, of the New Rome; the resoluteness with which he refused to allow the civil or temporal pre-eminence of a city to determine its ecclesiastical rank; the unfailing courage with which he defended the rights of the "second " and the “third” sees, Alexandria and Antioch, are some of the most striking features of his pontificate. It has been well said that nowhere at this period can be found stronger arguments for the primacy of Peter’s See than in the works and writings of Gelasius. He is never tired of repeating that Rome owes its ecclesiastical princedom not to an oecumenical synod nor to any temporal importance it may have possessed, but to the Divine institution of Christ Himself, Who conferred the primacy over the whole Church upon Peter and his successors. (Cf. especially his letters to Eastern bishops and the decretal on the canonical and apocryphal books.) In his dealing with the emperor he is at one with the great medieval pontiffs. “There are two powers by which chiefly this world is ruled: the sacred authority of the priesthood and the authority of kings. And of these the authority of the priests is so much the weightier, as they must render before the tribunal of God an account even for the kings of men.” Gelasius’s pontificate was too short to effect the complete submission and reconciliation of the ambitious Church of Byzantium. Not until Hormisdas (514-23) did the contest end in the return of the East to its old allegiance. Troubles abroad were not the only occasions to draw out the energy and strength of Gelasius. The Lupercalia, a superstitious and somewhat licentious vestige of paganism at Rome, was finally abolished by the pope after a long contest. Gelasius’s letter to Andromachus, the senator, covers the main lines of the controversy.

cont’d

 

[Church_Militant]

A stanch upholder of the old traditions, Gelasius nevertheless knew when to make exceptions or modifications, such as his decree obliging the reception of the Holy Eucharist under both kinds. This was done as the only effective way of detecting the Manichaeans, who, though present in Rome in large numbers, sought to divert attention from their hidden propaganda by feigning Catholicism. As they held wine to be impure and essentially sinful, they would refuse the chalice and thus be recognized. Later, with the change of conditions, the old normal method of receiving Holy Communion under the form of bread alone returned into vogue. To Gelasius we owe the ordinations on the ember days (Ep. xv), as well as the enforcement of the fourfold division of all ecclesiastical revenues, whether income from estates or voluntary donations of the faithful, one portion for the poor, another for the support of the churches and the splendour of Divine service, a third for the bishop, and the fourth for the minor clergy. Though some writers ascribe the origin of this division of church funds to Gelasius, still the pontiff speaks of it (Ep. xiv, n. 27) as dudum rationabiliter decretum, having been for some time in force. Indeed, Pope Simplicius (475, Ep. i, n. 2) imposed the obligation of restitution to the poor and the Church upon a certain bishop who had failed in this duty; consequently it must have been already regarded as at least a custom of the Church. Not content with one enunciation of this charitable obligation, Gelasius frequently inculcates it in his writings to bishops. For a long time the fixing of the Canon of the Scriptures was attributed to Gelasius, but it seems now more probably the work of Damasus (367-85). As Gelasius, however, in a Roman synod (494), published his celebrated catalogue of the authentic writings of the Fathers, together with a list of apocryphal and interpolated works, as well as the proscribed books of the heretics (Ep. xlii), it was but natural to prefix to this catalogue the Canon of the Scriptures as determined by the earlier Pontiff, and thus in the course of time the Canon itself came to be ascribed to Gelasius. In his zeal for the beauty and majesty of Divine service, Gelasius composed many hymns, prefaces, and collects, and arranged a standard Mass-book, though the Missal that has commonly gone by his name, the “Sacramentarium Gelasianum”, belongs properly to the next century. How much of it is the work of Gelasius is still a moot question. Though pope but for four years and a half, he exerted a deep influence on the development of church polity, of the liturgy and ecclesiastical discipline. A large number of his decrees have been incorporated into the Canon Law.

In his private life Gelasius was above all conspicuous for his spirit of prayer, penance, and study. He took great delight in the company of monks, and was a true father to the poor, dying empty-handed as a result of his lavish charity. Dionysius Exiguus in a letter to his friend, the priest Julian (P.L., LXVII, 231), gives a glowing account of Gelasius as he appeared to his contemporaries.

As a writer Gelasius takes high rank for his period. His style is vigorous and elegant, though occasionally, obscure. Comparatively little of his literary work has come down to us, though he is said to have been the most prolific writer of all the pontiffs of the first five centuries. There are extant forty-two letters and fragments of forty-nine others, besides six treatises, of which three are concerned with the Acacian schism, one with the heresy of the Pelagians, another with the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, while the sixth is directed against the senator Andromachus and the advocates of the Lupercalia. The best edition is that of Thiel.

The feast of St. Gelasius is kepton 21 Nov., the anniversary of his interment, though many writers give this as the day of his death.

 

[Church_Militant]

as for your misrepresentation of Pope St. Hormisdas: **You’ve been lied to again.
**

newadvent.org/cathen/07470a.htm

Date of birth unknown, elected to the Holy See, 514; d. at Rome, 6 August, 523.

This able and sagacious pontiff belonged to a wealthy and honourable family of Frosinone (Frusino) in the Campagna di Roma (Latium). Before receiving higher orders he had been married; his son became pope under the name of Silverius (536-537). Under Pope Symmachus (498-514) Hormisdas held the office of deacon of the Roman Church and during the schism of Laurentius he was one of the most prominent clerical attendants of Symmachus. He was notary at the synod held at St. Peter’s in 502, and Ennodius of Pavia, with whom he was on friendly terms, expressed the conviction that this Roman deacon, so eminent for piety, wealth, and distinguished birth, would occupy the See of Rome [Ennodii opera, ed. Vogel (Berlin, 1885), 287, 290]. The day after the funeral of Symmachus (20 July, 514) Hormisdas was chosen and consecrated his successor; there is no mention of divisions or disturbances at his election. One of the new pope’s first cares was to remove the last vestiges of the Laurentian schism in Rome, receiving back into the Church such of its adherents as had not already been reconciled. From the beginning of his pontificate the affairs of the Greek Church occupied his special attention. At Constantinople the Acacian schism, which had broken out in consequence of the “Henoticon” of the Emperor Zeno, and which had caused the separation of the Greek and Roman Churches, still held sway (see ACACIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE). The Emperor Anastasius (491-518), Zeno’s successor, maintained the “Henoticon”; he became more and more inclined towards Monophysitism, and persecuted the bishops who refused to repudiate the Council of Chalcedon. The three patriarchs, Macedonius of Constantinople, Elias of Jerusalem, and Flavianus of Antioch had been driven from their sees.

In the midst of this confusion a number of Eastern bishops appealed to Rome during the pontificate of Symmachus, in order that, by the restoration of unity in the Church, their positions might be strengthened and the progress of Monophysitism checked. Symmachus had required them to submit to the condemnation of Acacius, but the Orientals were not ready for this step. Taking advantage of the discontent aroused against Anastasius by his Monophysite tendencies, Vitalian of Lower Moesia, a commander in the army, led a revolt against him. Vitalian demanded, on the one hand, that his office of distribution of the grain for the troops should be restored to him, and, on the other, that the Council of Chalcedon should be recognized and the unity with Rome re-established. He gained numerous adherents and appearing before Constantinople at the head of a large army, defeated the emperor’s nephew, Hypatius; upon this Anastasius was obliged to negotiate with him. One of the terms of Vitalian’s submission was that the emperor should take an oath to convene a synod at Heraclea in Thrace, invite the pope to attend it, and submit to his arbitration the dispute about the See of Constantinople and the other bishoprics in order by this means to restore the unity of the Church. Anastasius accordingly wrote to Hormisdas, 28 Dec., 514, inviting him to the synod on the first of July following. The letter had first to be submitted to Vitalian, whose representative accompanied the bearer to Rome. A second, less courteous communication, dated 12 Jan., was sent by Anastasius to the pope; this merely requested his good offices in the controversy. The emperor evidently wished to prolong the negotiations as he was not really willing to fulfill the promises he had made to Vitalian. The second letter reached Rome before the first one, and on 4 April Hormisdas answered it, expressing his delight at the prospect of peace, but at the same time defending the memory of his predecessors. The bearers of the emperor’s first letter arrived on 14 May. The pope guardedly carried on negotiations, convened a synod at Rome and wrote a letter to the emperor, dated 8 July, in which he announced the departure of an embassy for Constantinople. Meanwhile the two hundred bishops who had assembled on 1 July at Heraclea, separated without accomplishing anything.

cont’d

 

[Church_Militant]

The pope’s embassy to the imperial court consisted of two bishops, Ennodius of Pavia and Fortunatus of Catina, the priest Venantius, the deacon Vitalis, and the notary Hilarius. The letter of Hormisdas to the emperor, dated 1 Aug., 515, is still preserved; so also are the minute instructions given the legates with regard to the position they were to take. If the emperor agreed to the proposals made to him, the pope was ready, if necessary, to appear in person at a council. The pope further sent the formula of a confession of faith (regula fidei) for the Eastern bishops to sign. The embassy brought about no real results; Anastasius, without breaking off the negotiations, gave the envoys an evasive letter for Hormisdas. A new revolt of Vitalian was suppressed, and an imperial embassy, consisting of two high civil officials, came to Rome bringing a letter dated 16 July, 516, for the pope, and one dated 28 July, for the Roman Senate; the aim of the latter was to induce the senators to take a stand against Hormisdas. The senate, however, as well as King Theodoric, remained true to the pope, who saw through the emperor’s crafty manoeuvres. The answer of Hormisdas to the imperial letter was dignified and definite. Meanwhile an additional number of Scythian, Illyrian and Dardanian bishops had entered into relations with Rome, and several of them had also conferred with the papal legates in Constantinople upon the question of the reunion of the Churches. They now submitted to the condemnation of Acacius and signed the confession of faith (regula fidei) of Hormisdas, as did also the bishops of the province of Epirus, who were persuaded thereto by the Roman subdeacon Pullio. This confession of faith, which the pope sent to Constantinople to be signed by all bishops who reunited with the Latin Church, is known as the “Formula Hormisdae” and was repeatedly mentioned at the [First] Vatican Council. It begins with the words: “Prima salus est, regulam rectae fidei custodire et a constitutis Patrum nullatenus deviare. Et quia non potest Domini Nostri Jesu Christi praetermitti sententia dicentis: Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. Haec quae dicta sunt rerum probantur effectibus, quia in sede apostolica immaculata est semper Catholica conservata religio” (The first means of safety is to guard the rule of strict faith and to deviate in no way from those things that have been laid down by the Fathers. And indeed the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church” [Matt., xvi, 18], cannot be disregarded; these things which were spoken are demonstrated by the results, for the Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See). Then follows the condemnation of Nestorius and the other heresiarchs and also of Acacius.

cont’d

 

[Church_Militant]

A second papal embassy consisting of Ennodius of Pavia and Bishop Peregrinus of Misenum had no better success. Anastasius even attempted to bribe the legates, in which, however, he was unsuccessful. They sought on the contrary to circulate secretly the pope’s letters summoning the people to reunite with the Roman Church. When the emperor heard of it he had them brought out of the city by a private gate to the seashore, put on shipboard, and sent back to Italy. Then Anastasius, who had momentarily nothing to fear from Vitalian, wrote an insolent letter to Hormisdas dated 11 July, 517, breaking off the negotiations, and continued to persecute the advocates of union with Rome. On 9 July, 518, he died very suddenly in the midst of a terrible storm. Shortly before that date Timotheus, the heretical Patriarch of Constantinople, had also passed away. The Emperor Justin I (518-527), who succeeded, was an orthodox Christian. The people of Constantinople insisted that the new Patriarch John should anathematize the Monophysite heresy, recognize the definition of Chalcedon, and reunite the Greek Church with Rome. A synod, held at Constantinople, concurred in these views and an imperial envoy departed for Rome to entreat the pope on behalf of the emperor, the latter’s nephew Justinian, and the patriarch to come in person to the Orient, or send a legate for the purpose of re-establishing the unity of the Church. Hormisdas appointed the Bishops [Saint] Germanus [of Capua] and John, a priest Blandus, two deacons, Felix and Dioscurus, and a notary, Peter. They had the same instructions and confession of faith which were given the legates of 515. The embassy was received in Constantinople with great splendour. All the demands of the pontiff were conceded; the name of the condemned Patriarch Acacius as well as the names of the Emperors Anastasius and Zeno were stricken from the church diptychs, the Patriarch John accepted the formula of Hormisdas. On Holy Thursday, 28 March, 519, in the cathedral of Constantinople in presence of a great throng of people, the reunion of the Greek Church with Rome was ratified in the most solemn manner. The greater number of the Eastern and Greek bishops approved and signed the formula of Hormisdas. At Antioch an orthodox patriarch was chosen to replace the heretical Severus.

In the midst of all this activity for the establishment of peace a new quarrel broke out, which turned upon the formula: “One of the Trinity was crucified”. It was promulgated at Constantinople in 519 by John Maxentius and numerous Scythian monks who were upheld by Justinian (Theopaschite controversy). The patriach and the pope’s legates opposed the demand that this formula should be embodied as a dogma of the Church. The monks then proceeded to Rome where they caused some trouble; they also addressed the African bishops then residing in Sardinia. In 521 Hormisdas pronounced that the formula in question, although not false, was dangerous because it admitted of a false interpretation; that the Council of Chalcedon needed no amendment. About this time the African Bishop Possessor, at the instigation of some African monks, appealed to the pope for information regarding the Church’s attitude towards the Bishop of Riez, Provence, whose Semipelagian views coloured his writings. In his reply Hormisdas severely rebuked the quarrelsome spirit of these monks. He did not forbid the reading of the works of Faustus, but decided that what was good in them should be preserved and what was contrary to the doctrine of the Church should be rejected.

Hormisdas caused a Latin translation of the canons of the Greek Church to be prepared by Dionysius Exiguus and issued a new edition of the Gelasian “Decretum de recipiendis Libris”. He sent letters to several bishops in Spain and Gaul on ecclesiastical matters and gave directions regarding church administration. His relations with Theodoric were amicable. The “Liber Pontificalis” enumerates valuable gifts presented to St. Peter’s by this king as well as by the Emperor Justin.

Shortly before his death the pope received tidings that Thrasamund the Vandal King of Northern Africa had died (523), and that the severe persecution of Catholics in that region had consequently ceased. Hormisdas was buried at St. Peter’s. The text of his epitaph has been preserved (De Rossi, “Inscriptiones Christianae urbis Romae”, II, 130).

So then …it would appear that your sources of information are in great error. Did you really think that we couldn’t verify what these men did? If there was such heresy as you allege, we certainly would have record of it. I know you cannot produce the actual documents that you are alleging since they do not exist.
As I said twice before…you’ve been lied to.

 

[Mathetes007]

unworthysinner:

I quote the Catholic pope himself…
In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation. Here we have “infallible” popes declaring something to be a heresy. Then in 1950, Pope Pius XII, another “infallible” pope, declared it to be official Roman Catholic doctrine."

I does not appear that you have read the Gelasian Decree yourself. It does not address the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. The Latin original of this document condemns the writing called “The Passing of Mary” as apocryphal. It also condemns as heretical Tertullian and his writings. Yet he was the first Latin Christian to call God “Trinity.” The Church was not condeming either the Trinity or the Assumption of Mary as it was not addressing these dogmas. It was condemning works that were apocryphal or heretical in nature. It also issued a list of the authentic writings of the Fathers. Primarily, at the beginning of the writing, it set forth the canon of Scripture for Christians. The later Pope you mention merely reaffirmed the canon of Scripture as set out by the pronouncement by the Council of Rome (otherwise known as the Gelasian Decree).

Please cite your source and where in the decree the “Assumption” is condemned.

 

[fcfahs]

Hi Mathetes007, unworthysinner, and Church Militant,

Perhaps this webpage will also help - it’s quite objective and remarkably thorough in it’s
chronologically-ordered presentation of the pro and con arguments surrounding the “death”
of Mary and the dogma of the her Assumption.

It sure helped further clarify for me, the issues you’re discussing!

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Wow, this thread has certainly veered into a branch topic!

Anyways, I was under the understanding that the Assumption of Mary did not deny that she did in fact die. Of the little I’ve read (I’ve readall of* Ineffabilis Deus*, but only some of Munificentissimus Deus), I understand, I think St. Alphonsus Liguori put it best, that, Mary died of love. So, like Pope Pius XII said,

		We pronounce,  			declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate  			Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly  			life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Where is it that you have to believe that she did not die? Ok, sure, Enoch did not die, and Elijah did not die (well, I think would agree there’s sufficient reason to believe they did not die)? Maybe I’m just missing something, and I don’t want to interrupt such a good argument, but maybe there’s some assumptions being made that aren’t necessary. Mary died, and then was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, where, well, I guess her resurrected body was the same body, since it was without sin, and there she is in heaven with the Trinity, in eternal life, not dead.

Is my name still Reformed Rob???

 

[dennisknapp]

Reformed Rob:

Wow, this thread has certainly veered into a branch topic!

Anyways, I was under the understanding that the Assumption of Mary did not deny that she did in fact die. Of the little I’ve read (I’ve readall of* Ineffabilis Deus*, but only some of Munificentissimus Deus), I understand, I think St. Alphonsus Liguori put it best, that, Mary died of love. So, like Pope Pius XII said,

We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Where is it that you have to believe that she did not die? Ok, sure, Enoch did not die, and Elijah did not die (well, I think would agree there’s sufficient reason to believe they did not die)? Maybe I’m just missing something, and I don’t want to interrupt such a good argument, but maybe there’s some assumptions being made that aren’t necessary. Mary died, and then was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, where, well, I guess her resurrected body was the same body, since it was without sin, and there she is in heaven with the Trinity, in eternal life, not dead.

Is my name still Reformed Rob???

You and I both know it is time to become Catholic Rob.

Welcome, Catholic Rob!

Peace