The Assumption!

  • Thread starter Thread starter twinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_Dawson said:
Sure you can! Read MD: “Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”

There you go!

Prove it.

You can’t.

Aren’t we morally required to believe that a pope expressly declaring dogma in an infallible fashion SAYS he means IN THE SAME DOCUMENT?

If not, why do any of his words mean anything specific at all? Why is the prior discussion there? Is it meaningless gibberish because you WANT it to be meaningless gibberish?

The Catholic Church is JAMMED with people who ignore MD.

You’re fooling yourself, friend.
Click to expand...
Peter-

I’ve read all the posts in this thread, and I have a question.

Why is this so important to you? Every Catholic you are arguing with agrees that Mary was assumed into heaven, but that isn’t enough for you.

I’m all for being precise…anyone who has followed my posts in the Apologetics subforum (where I rarely see you participate, btw) know this is true…but I’m curious as to why this is such a hot button for you.

What gives?
 
Peter_Dawson said:
  1. However, since the liturgy of the Church does not engender the Catholic faith, but rather springs from it, in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree, it follows that the holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ’s faithful. They presented it more clearly. They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.
Click to expand...
RESPONSE:

As has been pointed out, this is not part of the papal teaching.

You have to read all the words. “the holy Fathers and the great Doctors” That’s not the Pope!👍
 
Peter_Dawson said:
Even if we throw out everything but the bold-faced words of MD as the infallibly declared portion, tell me, what did Pius XII mean by the words set forth in blue…

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.

Answer: He meant the words set forth in red, did he not?

They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ

.

I.e., by ignoring the context, aren’t you really doing PRECISELY that which Pius XII expressly declared to be grounds for somebody being non-Catholic?..

45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

I.e., by declaring that Mary didn’t “die,” you are making yourself a non-Catholic.
Click to expand...
RESPONSE:
having completed the course of her earthly life<<<
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Just what the meaning of the words say. Note: They **do NOT **say she died.

Please demonstrat where thepope “defined” that Mary died? He didn’t.😉
 
Randy_Carson said:
Peter-

I’ve read all the posts in this thread, and I have a question.

Why is this so important to you? **Every Catholic **you are arguing with agrees that Mary was assumed into heaven, but that isn’t enough for you.

I’m all for being precise…anyone who has followed my posts in the Apologetics subforum (where I rarely see you participate, btw) know this is true…but I’m curious as to why this is such a hot button for you.

What gives?
Click to expand...
RESPONSE:

At least one doesn’t.😉
 
Didn’t Enoch and Elijah complete the earthly courses of their lives without dying?

The same could be true of Mary.

I think Mary did die and that was a favor granted by God so she could share in what Her Son Jesus went through.

But that is just my opinion–it matters not me whether she died or not–she was assumed bodily into heaven and that has been defined by the Catholic Church and I believe it.
If the Catholic church one day defines that she did in fact die then that would be fine with me too–if not then that is fine also.

The Assumption is defined.

Mary’s death might be hinted at and might be deduced–but it is not certain and not defined by the Catholic Church.
 
Randy_Carson said:
However, it also seems curious that the Holy Father chose his words in such a manner as to leave the question of her death open to speculation.
Click to expand...
I think that he carefully chose his words to leave the question CLOSED to speculation: He says, in Para. 20, that Mary’s “dead body” was preserved from corruption to make it clear, down below, that the meaning of his words is that Mary died.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Didn’t Enoch and Elijah complete the earthly courses of their lives without dying?

The same could be true of Mary.
Click to expand...
Enoch and Elijah were assumed without dying.

Noah was assumed AFTER dying, like Mary.
 
Paragraph 20 says what the holy Fathers and Doctors have preached as fact about Mary dying.

The Pope himself doesn’t state it as a fact.
 
Peter_Dawson said:
Enoch and Elijah were assumed without dying.

Noah was assumed AFTER dying, like Mary.
Click to expand...
Peter

With respect and love among brothers in Christ and Catholics - if it is as clear as you suggest that the Pope inffalibly defined that Mary died in MD - why is it that there seems to be a total absence of that conclusion by apologists and theologians interpreting MD?

To be clear - we agree that MD infallibly defines the assmption - but since you appear to be the only one on this thread who believes it infallibly defines Mary’s death - and since you have been shown links to ETWN presentations and Catholic Answer apologist discussions by some pretty respected Orthodox Catholics that say expressly that this “is not” infallibly defined (Mary’s death) - are you aware of any Catholic apologist interpretations consistent with yours - or are you alone right and everyone else is just misinterpreting this? (and if that is your conclusion - perhaps its worth reflecting on (not your belief that she died - I believe that too - but that her death was infallibly defined?)

Blessings,

Brian
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Paragraph 20 says what the holy Fathers and Doctors have preached as fact about Mary dying.

The Pope himself doesn’t state it as a fact.
Click to expand...
RESPONSE:

You have to learn not to take those “holy Fathers and Doctors” claims as facts.

Did you hear the claim about St. Joseph being Ever Virgin too?

I guess ya’ jus’ gotta’ believe:D
 
adrift said:
Never heard of this? Where is it stated?
Click to expand...
You achieve that result by combining two verses, one that says that he “died,” Genesis 9:29; and the other that says of him, like it says of Enoch, that he “halak’d,” “walked with God,” Genesis 6:9.
 
There is some evidence in Scripture that Moses also died and then was "halak’d, after the fashion of Noah. This was probably included in Scripture to explain how Moses came to be seen in the Transfiguration with “halak’d” Elijah.
 
Randy_Carson said:
I see.

Just to be sure, are you aware that the Catholic Church has defined the Assumption of Mary as a dogma that must be believed by all Catholics?
Click to expand...
RESPONSE

Are you aware that Pope Pius XII’s declaration of the Assumption as dogma **violates **the earlier “infallible” teaching of Vatican I (1866) that the pope **could not pronounce “new” dogma **anything not found in scripture or transmitted by the apostles, ie. the "deposit of faith."

There is then the question if Pius’s decree on the Assumption as merely invalid or actually heretical.

First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 4:

"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.

Evidence for the Assumption by Father William G. Most

“There had been a problem of how the Pope could define the Assumption. There seemed to be nothing in Scripture on it, and what things there were in the Tradition of the Fathers seemed to come not from an apostolic origin, but from some apocryphal stories that circulated chiefly beginning in the fourth century.”
 
Robbinson said:
Peter

are you aware of any Catholic apologist interpretations consistent with yours?

Brian
Click to expand...
Sure! Pope Pius XII! Read Verse 20 of MD.

Or do you think that Pope Pius XII erred in MD?

And then there was St. John Damascene; St. Francis de Sales; St. Alphonsus Ligouri.

You are opposed to all of these, in addition to being opposed to Pope Pius XII.
 
JP_Marat said:
RESPONSE

Are you aware that Pope Pius XII’s declaration of the Assumption as dogma **violates **the earlier “infallible” teaching of Vatican I (1866) that the pope **could not pronounce “new” dogma **anything not found in scripture or transmitted by the apostles, ie. the "deposit of faith."
Click to expand...
Without ascribing to your limitation on the rights of the Magisterium to declare dogma, in fact the Assumption IS, in my opinion, covered in Scipture.

In Revelation 12:14, it is said that the “woman” – Mary’s title in John – was given “the two wings of an eagle.” I believe that this is a reference to the Assumption, using Bible typology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top