SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[mercygate]

Okay…if you can trace the belief in the assumption back to the apostles do so.

They can’t. They don’t have to. The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a dogma, like the Immaculate Conception, that has seeds in Scripture but that has unfolded through history in a logically consistent way by working out the ramifications of earlier teachings. That is what doctrinal development DOES.

Here is an excellent, very brief, treatment of the subject of doctrinal development. This way of working theological points through to their conclusion has a venerable history in the Church dating back to the definition of the Holy Trinity and the hypostatic union. This article can save you reading Newman’s delicious but more exhaustive Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine – which he began writing in protest against the concept but by the time he put down his pen, he was Catholic.

It drives me nuts when Catholics try to suggest that these important and absolutely reasonable dogmas somehow existed in recognizable form in the patristic age. They did not. You can certainly take “Mother of God” back to the patristic age, but certain later teachings simply are not full-grown until they have germinated and grown to fruition in the contemplative heart of the Church.

The development of the Marian dogmas is far more reasonable, consistent, and organic than the millennarian fantasies some of our Fundamentalist friends adhere to with such conviction and vigor.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Pwrlfr:

Okay…if you can trace the belief in the assumption back to the apostles do so

Revelation 12:1-5 woman clothed with the sun is Mary appearing in heaven. How did she get there? She assumed.

 

[mercygate]

I am confused…

You seem to imply that everyone knew what was (NT) scripture by 100 AD, maybe 150 at the latest. Unfortunately this is far from the truth. You can find pieces of the NT Cannon, but you will not find it in its entirity until the middle 300’s. Some thought that Revelations should not be added, others thought things like the apocalypse according to Peter was valid. Point is, until those three councils, there was no official list.

I reiterate, and this is based in Historical fact. The NT list we have today was not agreed upon for nearly 350 years AFTER Christs death. Furthermore, you will find significant DISagreement in countless historical documents up to those three councils…

Finally… Saying that it the CC added them at Trent is dishonest.

1. Once the three councils took place at Hippo, Carthage and Rome, there was almost not disagreement between the differant groups.
2. It is hard pressed to find ANY cannon of scripture that is differant NT or Old between 382 and Martin Luther
3. Eastern Orthodox Churches ALL accept both the New and the Old. You will find some cases where the have 3rd and 4th Mac, but you again will find it hard pressed to find a cannon that is different NT and OT wise.
4. No Christian accepted the Jewish cannon set at the Council of Jamnia until Martin Luther
5. Saying the canon was closed officially PRIOR to Jesus’s birth makes no sense.
6. The reason why it was declared OFFICIALLY at Trent was not because the church added them, but because a small, but very vocal few people at the time were declaring a NEW cannon. Its like saying your father is only your father AFTER he declares it in a legal, and official way.
   The Cannon used by the CC is the SAME cannon used by the church SINCE 380’s. No books were added to that list, or taken away at Trent. Saying that the church added them is a straw man argument using technicalities as it’s evidence.

OS,
I know you have a zeal for the lord, but it is not the Catholic Church that changed the cannon, it was the protest reformation. No amount of history twisting will change that.

In Christ

About a year ago, I was reading Eusebius of Caesarea’s History of the Christian Church, written in the first third of the 4th Century. Eusebius lists as “disputed” James, Jude, 2nd Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, Hebrews and Revelation.

The earliest more-or-less complete Christian codex, the Codex Sinaiticus, which predates the councils of Hippo and Carthage by 60 years, includes the Shepherd of Hermas but does not include Revelation.

So much for complete agreement on the New Testament canon before the third century.

 

[CentralFLJames]

About a year ago, I was reading Eusebius of Caesarea’s History of the Christian Church, written in the first third of the 4th Century. Eusebius lists as “disputed” James, Jude, 2nd Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, Hebrews and Revelation.

The earliest more-or-less complete Christian codex, the Codex Sinaiticus, which predates the councils of Hippo and Carthage by 60 years, includes the Shepherd of Hermas but does not include Revelation.

So much for complete agreement on the New Testament canon before the third century.

Revelation was very controversial and almost didn’t make the cut.

James

 

[mercygate]

I certainly appreciate your candor. It is the object of this forum to learn and it works both ways. I have learned a great deal and am still anxious to learn.

My personal opinion is that the Bible teaches that everyone who has died is in the ground awaiting the resurrection. No one has gone to heaven, as the Scriptures tell us. If they have, then why did Christ say He could raise up David? If we are in heaven when we die, then why do we need a resurrection, since we are already promised a new body?

Glad you like to learn. I like the image in your sig. “One nation, under God” – You can thank the Knights of Columbus for that “under God” part. They spearheaded the effort to add those two words to the pledge of allegiance.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[fbl9]

hi oldscholar i have been reading a few of your posts and can you are a learned person. from what i can observe you may not really know what you are. you are man and man is the only created thing to posess a soul that is a spirit. Spirits do not die with the flesh but go on. that spirit is created by God who judges and if so chooses can destroy it. when one speaks of so and so is in heaven it meant thier spirit is in heaven.as for a new body rember you are but man made from dust and to dust you shall return. the function of a soul is to aminate life ie;the life force of all living things.maybe this will help you or just to create new questions for you.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Revelation 12:1-5 woman clothed with the sun is Mary appearing in heaven. How did she get there? She assumed.

I asked for evidence that the early church held to a belief in the assumption. Can you tell us who the first father was that saw Mary as the woman in Revelations 12?

 

[CentralFLJames]

I asked for evidence that the early church held to a belief in the assumption. Can you tell us who the first father was that saw Mary as the woman in Revelations 12?

Here are a few of the early church believers:
The Early Church Fathers on The Assumption

Pseudo – Melito
(The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300]).

Timothy of Jerusalem
(Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

John the Theologian
(The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).

Gregory of Tours
Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 [A.D. 575]).

Theoteknos of Livias
(Homily on the Assumption [ca. A.D. 600]).

Modestus of Jerusalem
(Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae [ante A.D. 634]).

Germanus of Constantinople
Sermon I [A.D. 683]).

John Damascene
Dormition of Mary [A.D. 697])

Gregorian Sacramentary
Gregorian Sacramentary, Veneranda [ante A.D. 795]).

It’s all pre-protestant rebellion. Let me guess though - this is not going to be early enough right?

James

 

[geraldffff]

It’s all pre-protestant rebellion. Let me guess though - this is not going to be early enough right?

James

It’s enough for me James. I believe in the assumption because for me it dose not make sense to believe other wise. Jesus is God. The flesh body of Jesus came from his mothers body. It seems incredible to me that God would allow this precious flesh to decay. This would be inconsistent.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Here are a few of the early church believers:
The Early Church Fathers on The Assumption

Pseudo – Melito
(The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300]).

Timothy of Jerusalem
(Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

John the Theologian
(The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).

Gregory of Tours
Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 [A.D. 575]).

Theoteknos of Livias
(Homily on the Assumption [ca. A.D. 600]).

Modestus of Jerusalem
(Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae [ante A.D. 634]).

Germanus of Constantinople
Sermon I [A.D. 683]).

John Damascene
Dormition of Mary [A.D. 697])

Gregorian Sacramentary
Gregorian Sacramentary, Veneranda [ante A.D. 795]).

It’s all pre-protestant rebellion. Let me guess though - this is not going to be early enough right?

James

Well, it depends.

If Pseudo – Melito
(The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300]). is accurate than that would be earlier than I have been able to find so that would be pretty good.

OTOH, Gregorian Sacramentary in 795 demonstrates nothing about the 1st century.

 

[guanophore]

You do realize that you are speculating that she was “assumed by the Power of her Divine Son”. There is no evidence in Scripture for this claim.

No, JA4. To recieve the Sacred Traditions handed down to us through the Apostolic Succession is far from a speculation. It is receiving with reverence the Divine Deposit of faith.

 

[guanophore]

They can’t. They don’t have to. The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a dogma, like the Immaculate Conception, that has seeds in Scripture but that has unfolded through history in a logically consistent way by working out the ramifications of earlier teachings. That is what doctrinal development DOES.

Here is an excellent, very brief, treatment of the subject of doctrinal development. This way of working theological points through to their conclusion has a venerable history in the Church dating back to the definition of the Holy Trinity and the hypostatic union. This article can save you reading Newman’s delicious but more exhaustive Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine – which he began writing in protest against the concept but by the time he put down his pen, he was Catholic.

It drives me nuts when Catholics try to suggest that these important and absolutely reasonable dogmas somehow existed in recognizable form in the patristic age. They did not. You can certainly take “Mother of God” back to the patristic age, but certain later teachings simply are not full-grown until they have germinated and grown to fruition in the contemplative heart of the Church.

The development of the Marian dogmas is far more reasonable, consistent, and organic than the millennarian fantasies some of our Fundamentalist friends adhere to with such conviction and vigor.

Well said, mercygate, and thank you!

 

[Pwrlftr]

Here are a few of the early church believers:
The Early Church Fathers on The Assumption
**
Pseudo – Melito
(The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300]).**
Timothy of Jerusalem
(Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

John the Theologian
(The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).

Gregory of Tours
Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 [A.D. 575]).

Theoteknos of Livias
(Homily on the Assumption [ca. A.D. 600]).

Modestus of Jerusalem
(Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae [ante A.D. 634]).

Germanus of Constantinople
Sermon I [A.D. 683]).

John Damascene
Dormition of Mary [A.D. 697])

Gregorian Sacramentary
Gregorian Sacramentary, Veneranda [ante A.D. 795]).

It’s all pre-protestant rebellion. Let me guess though - this is not going to be early enough right?

James

BTW, who wrote pseudo-Melito?

 

[CentralFLJames]

BTW, who wrote pseudo-Melito?

Saint Melito of Sardis (died c.180) was the bishop of Sardis, near Smyrna in Asia Minor, and a great authority. He was a prominent ecclesiastical writer in the latter half of the second century. But, many spurious writings have been attributed to Melito. So there was indeed apparently another person, perhaps a follower of his who wrote under his name. This was common in these days and it need not imply fraud or ill intent; though there was definitely some of that going on too later. So historians called this other person “pseudo-Melitio” to make the distinction as scholarly investigation suggested another man. Unfortunately of Melito’s numerous works almost all have perished,

More early church assumption concepts:

Mary, the holy Virgin, is truly great before God and men. For how shall we not proclaim her great, who held within her the uncontainable One, whom neither heaven nor earth can contain?" Epiphanius, before AD 403, Panarion

*Tertullian
“And again, lest I depart from my argumentation on the name of Adam: Why is Christ called Adam by the apostle [Paul], if as man he was not of that earthly origin? But even reason defends this conclusion, that God recovered his image and likeness by a procedure similar to that in which he had been robbed of it by the devil. It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise through a virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same sex reestablished in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. **That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight” **(The Flesh of Christ 17:4 [A.D. 210]. *

Tertullian is speaking of Adam and Eve as prefiguring Christ and Mary as the new prototypes for a saved humanity. In this manner its a fairly natural exegesis to assume that since God created them according to His image as both male and female and made them of One Flesh it is logical to infer that God would resurrect and assume them whole together as One Flesh - male and female.

Here is an excellent advanced level discussion on Mary for those who want to get more holistic Catholic insight.
Mary Mother of God

When looking for early evidence of Mary’s Assumption people should keep in mind that there was yet NO BIBLE for 400 more years. These latter complex theological issues with Mary were not yet fully understood. Even Christ’s closest followers until the resurrection was upon them did not understand what was happening!

These ECF were all mortal men who had the same limitations each of us has it maturing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It took a while even to develop the principal focus of awe - which was Jesus and His Christology. Also note, this was the first time in human history that humankind had so much divine insight put on its plate to digest. The focus was understanding The Resurrection and the Nature of Jesus fully - all while combating various heresies(Nestorian).

Borrowing from another web site I found (SurprisedByTruth)a poster named artsippo mentions: *Mariology did not become a central concern in systematic theology until the Nestorian controversy where the title “Christotokos” was proposed instead of “Theotokos.” It was after the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD realized that the Marian Title “Theotokos” was crucial to an orthodox Christology that the importance of the BVM in dogmatics was recognized * This explains why we did not get any hard thinking in this area till later.

Truth is axiomatic - it is self evident and does not require proof. The Assumption simply has to be true since it does not violate scripture, it resonates perfectly with the whole Christian salvation story without marooning anyone by gender and it also “feels correct”. It is intrinsically fair and brings salvation to the whole of God’s created human image - female and male. It fits in perfectly with the majestic nature of Jesus (King & Queen) and the prefiguring of the beatific vision implied in marriage and fruits of the union between man and woman - God and His Church. No human could have ever invented this stuff if one had wanted to. The assumption balances and brings order and harmony to things on earth with things on Heaven. It brings a passion and intimate love to the entire bible from cover to cover. The assumption makes the bible not just a book of salvation history and promise but it makes it into a vibrant, ripe, fertile and fruitful love story without ending!

James

 

[Old_Scholar]

Matthew 17: 1-8 Moses and Elijah.
Luke 23:43 The good thieve.

Sorry that won’t do it. No mention of either of them in heaven…

 

[Old_Scholar]

OS, forgive me if I am mistaken, but I think that the principals of hermeneutics, as one of just many approaches to exegesis (and not an objective method itself rather an art) requires focusing the perspective to the understandings of somebody else’s point of view within a circle of concern; rather than centering the stage around the approach.

The pragmatic problems here of course fundamentally become how can any man think to understand the mind of God as He knows himself; and how can one draw a hermeneutic circle around the Universe and heaven?

Who is to say that a prophet (or in the general case a speaker) understands all or even any of the dimensions of a thing he speaks or implies (to wit the humorous and beloved oracle of Yogi Berra)? And who is to say that God did not intend for a later generation to be able to see new meaning in a historical thing from the vantage point of historical experience thus rendering original point of view mute? Do you see the problem with trying to draw a circle around God? That’s a halo with diameter too great to imagine with human intellect.

Personally, I trust the vast intellectual, philosophical, spiritual, traditional and teaching resources of the Catholic Church over ANY thing on the planet. Certainly I hold the pedigree of The Church in much higher esteem over private interpretations not subject to the critical review of The Church or other theological scholars - no matter what method is used and no matter how Greek it sounds. The mythological God Hermes has been rather quiet since Christ was resurrected. Not that hermeneutics is without merit within the discipline of peer reviewed critique - but just how Old of a Scholar are you and do you go back as far as the Early Church Fathers and Church Doctors to self claim a pedigree (and a moniker) that is even in the same league?

James

So then the Jehovah’s Witnesses are just as accurate as the Roman Catholic Church in their teaching. The Watchtower uses the same approach as the RCC. They simply change the Bible to mean whatever they want it to mean and that parallels the RCC point of view. How else could you come up with such ridiculous ideas as the assumption of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, Purgatory, the papacy, praying to the dead, indulgences and all the other things the RCC does that can’t be found in Scripture. Even the early church fathers believed that if it can’t be found in Scripture, then it is false. Too bad the church changed so much.

And the Church of The Latter Day Saints are just as accurate in their beliefs as the Roman Catholics because it the Scripture doesn’t fit, they simply rewrite it. The same as the RCC.

 

[geraldffff]

Sorry that won’t do it. No mention of either of them in heaven…

Originally Posted by Chellow View Post
Matthew 17: 1-8 Moses and Elijah.
Luke 23:43 The good thieve.

Well it sure works for me and I cannot imagine why it would not work for you.

 

[Old_Scholar]

You know, moving this post was just great. There have been 25 pages so far—lots of interest and I only posed 13 questions.

But as of yet, the 13 questions remain unanswered, just as I predicted. It seems all the RCC members simply ignore them. Isn’t that what I said in the very first post?

 

[guanophore]

Sorry that won’t do it. No mention of either of them in heaven…

Why would there be?

Heaven was not open until after the resurrection!
where do you think all the saints went?

what about the souls that were reunited to their bodies?

 

[geraldffff]

So then the Jehovah’s Witnesses are just as accurate as the Roman Catholic Church in their teaching. The Watchtower uses the same approach as the RCC. They simply change the Bible to mean whatever they want it to mean and that parallels the RCC point of view. How else could you come up with such ridiculous ideas as the assumption of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, Purgatory, the papacy, praying to the dead, indulgences and all the other things the RCC does that can’t be found in Scripture. Even the early church fathers believed that if it can’t be found in Scripture, then it is false. Too bad the church changed so much.

And the Church of The Latter Day Saints are just as accurate in their beliefs as the Roman Catholics because it the Scripture doesn’t fit, they simply rewrite it. The same as the RCC.

With the attitude shown in your post I can only feel pity for you because you cannot see and never will if you continue trying to provoke like my brother the Jehovah’s witness. Your rhetoric and his rhetoric are Identical.