The Assumption!

[JP_Marat]

This misrepresents what Father Most article is.
Also from the article

This part is relevant to the discussion

RESPONSE;

I quoted the first paragraph of Fr. Most’s article because it sums up the problem with the Assumption succinctly:

The Assumption of Mary into Heaven
by Father William G. Most

Evidence for the Assumption

"

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.

A Pope is not required to specify precisely where in the sources of revelation he finds a given doctrine. "

And of course, Pope Pius XII couldn’t tell us that probably because he couldn’t find any.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Not at all.

Genesis 5:24 (New International Version)
Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away

Enoch was close to God in this life, and then he “was no more” because God took him.

God assumed Enoch into heaven before he died because Enoch had walked with God.

Your interpretation would read as follows:

Genesis 5:24 (Peter Dawson Version)
Enoch was assumed; then he was no more, because God took him away

Kinda redundant, don’t you think?

I don’t understand your point.

Scripture says that Enoch was “halak’d,” in a long list of cases in which it is said that others “died.”

Scripture says that Noah was “halak’d.”

Guess what: They were both assumed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t understand your point.

Scripture says that Enoch was “halak’d,” in a long list of cases in which it is said that others “died.”

Scripture says that Noah was “halak’d.”

Guess what: They were both assumed.

Peter,

Have you checked Strong’s for the meaning of this word? I don’t find “assumed” anywhere…

 

[JP_Marat]

I’m with Peter Dawson on this one. Here’s why:

The Bereans and the Virgin Mary

When Paul preached the gospel to the Bereans, scripture records that “the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). It can be argued that the Bereans did not practice sola scriptura as did the Thessalonians who actually rejected the gospel, but for the purposes of this discussion, the point will be conceded.

The Bereans searched the scriptures, but they would have searched forever without finding the name of Jesus of Nazareth connected in any way with the messiah whose advent was foretold in the Old Testament prophecies. In order to help the Bereans understand his gospel message, Paul referenced and interpreted the Old Testament passages which supported his teaching and made the necessary connection between the prophecies and the actual events in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul’s authoritative interpretation of the scriptures was required in order for the Bereans to correctly understand that Jesus was the messiah foretold in the Old Testament.

In light of this, is it really so different when the Catholic Church authoritatively teaches that Mary was assumed into heaven or that she is the Queen of Heaven? Like the Bereans, we can search in vain for explicit references to these things, and yet the Church, by virtue of its Apostolic Authority, has infallibly defined the doctrine of the Assumption by interpreting scripture. The verse, of course, is Revelation 12:1 which reads: “A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.” Here, the Church finds a clear reference to Mary, her bodily Assumption and her position as Queen of Heaven.

It is the authoritative Apostolic interpretation of the Catholic Church which helps us to see the truths in scripture that we, like the Bereans, may not find if left to our own devices.

RESPONSE:

Poor analogy. In the case of the Assumption, we know when the story began. In the fourth of fifth century. There is noting in scripture of the writings of the early Church fathers about it. In fact, an early church historian claims he know nothing about it.

Catholic Encyclopedia
"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:

(Note Andrew, Damascene, and Modus were 7th century personages).

And this:" Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that **he knew nothing **definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11)."

So clearly this yarn is neither in scripture nor the apostolic teachings. It was first just a story, which became a pious legend, and recently (1950) an “infallible” dogma.

 

[Robbinson]

RESPONSE:

Poor analogy. In the case of the Assumption, we know when the story began. In the fourth of fifth century. There is noting in scripture of the writings of the early Church fathers about it. In fact, an early church historian claims he know nothing about it.

Catholic Encyclopedia
"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:

(Note Andrew, Damascene, and Modus were 7th century personages).

And this:" Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that **he knew nothing **definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11)."

So clearly this yarn is neither in scripture nor the apostolic teachings. It was first just a story, which became a pious legend, and recently (1950) an “infallible” dogma.

JP Marat - since you reject this particular infallible doctrine, and never responded to whether you belief in the resurrection of Christ (the most fundamental Catholic/Christian belief), what about the Immaculate Conception? - do you deny that fundamental infallible doctrine as well? and, if so, on what basis (not judging, but trying to understand) do you call yourself “Catholic” in your status?

Blessings,

Brian

 

[adrift]

RESPONSE;

I quoted the first paragraph of Fr. Most’s article because it sums up the problem with the Assumption succinctly:

The Assumption of Mary into Heaven
by Father William G. Most

Evidence for the Assumption

"

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.

A Pope is not required to specify precisely where in the sources of revelation he finds a given doctrine. "

And of course, Pope Pius XII couldn’t tell us that probably because he couldn’t find any.

It is a dishonest attempt to make it look like this is a summation that reflects what Fr. Most said. Further more you compound this by adding your comment

And of course, Pope Pius XII couldn’t tell us that probably because he couldn’t find any

making it appear that Father Most said it. When he did not say anything remotely like it. In fact what he did say

The universal teaching of the authorities of the Church by itself, he tells us, gives us a proof

shows how deceitful it is to quote a part of the article and leaving the impression that Father Most supports what you wrote.

 

[adrift]

(d. 403) acknowledged that **he knew nothing **definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11)."

So clearly this yarn is neither in scripture nor the apostolic teachings. It was first just a story, which became a pious legend, and recently (1950) an “infallible” dogma.

The only yarn being spun is your claims. Father Most in his article says two things which you ignore

1. This teaching is found at a **very early date **in the liturgical books
2. Finally, since the Church has never sought for bodily relics of the Blessed Virgin, nor exposed them for the veneration of the faithful, we have an argument which can be considered as ‘practically a proof by sensory experience’
   Also
   Apocryphal treatise only means it was not inspired not false.
   De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis only meant that St. Melito wasn’t the author.

 

[JP_Marat]

It is a dishonest attempt to make it look like this is a summation that reflects what Fr. Most said. Further more you compound this by adding your comment making it appear that Father Most said it. When he did not say anything remotely like it. In fact what he did say shows how deceitful it is to quote a part of the article and leaving the impression that Father Most supports what you wrote.

RESPONSE

Quoting verbatim from the first paragraph of Fr. Most’s article:

Evidence for the Assumption

“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.”

What part of this paragraph are you denying that Fr. Most wrote?

Which part of what Fr. Most said in this paragraph do you claim is not factual?

If you dispute Fr, Most’s statements, please provide a citation to scripture which specifically reports the bodily assumption of Mary. And/or provide any evidence or writing prior to the 4th century attesting to belief in the Assumption.

If you can’t, than accept the factual nature of Fr. Most’s first paragraph

And if you understand quotation marks, you will be able to determine when I am writing something or quoting something someone else has written. You will note that I identify the source of my quotations.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Peter,

Have you checked Strong’s for the meaning of this word? I don’t find “assumed” anywhere…

It’s Hebrew word #1980 in Strong’s.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It’s Hebrew word #1980 in Strong’s.

Yes, it is. I checked Strong’s before my last post.

Unless I’m missing it, I do not find “assumed” as one of the possible meanings there.

Do you?

If not, what other meaning are you using to support your interpretation:

Genesis 5:24 (Peter Dawson Version)
Enoch was assumed; then he was no more, because God took him away

First he was assumed…then he was no more. That makes no sense…being “no more” happened when he was assumed not after.

The actual text reads more logically:

Genesis 5:24 (New International Version)
Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away

Enoch walked with God (staying close to His will); then he was no (longer on this earth) because God (assumed him into heaven).

Halak does not translate as “assumed”, and I do not find support for your conclusions about Noah.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Unless I’m missing it, I do not find “assumed” as one of the possible meanings there.

Strong’s is a Protestant publication. (It concordizes the KJV, doesn’t it?) How many Protestant publications are going to begin creating scholarship comprising groundwork for Catholic doctrine?

Although sometimes used in Catholic material, the NIV is also a Protestant source. Again, how many Protestant publications are going to begin creating scholarship comprising groundwork for Catholic doctrine?

They are very conscious of words like “assumed.”

To check the NIV for accuracy, I compared your recitation with that of Cathoilic translator, scholar and saint, Jerome, in Jerome’s Vulgate.

The “clincher” word in your Protestant NIV version, is the word “then.” “Then” changes everything in that sentence. It turns the meaning of “halak” upside-down, from an alternative to death (in the previous and following verses) – namely, assumption while alive – to Enoch just being a good little boy.

Note the way the verse reads without the word “then”…

“B]Enoch walked with God, he was no more, because God took him away”

Without “then,” it’s a completely different verse, where “halak” (“walked”) DOES seem to mean “assumed,” doesn’t it?

So, what does Jerome, a Hebrew-and-Greek-speaking scholar with better access to manuscripts than any modern scholar, say? Does Jerome include “then” in his Latin rendering?..

“ambulavitque cum Deo** et non apparuit** quia tulit eum Deus”

“et non apparuit” is unambiguous. It means, “And was not seen.”

Do you see the word “then” there?

Sorry, friend, it’s not!

Jerome was using the Alexandrian Canon, the Greek version of Hebrew language predecessors.

Let’s see how the Masoretic text of our Jewish brothers render the verse…

And Enoch walked with God, and he was not; for God took him.

“AND he was not.”

Do you see the word “then”? I don’t.

That changes everything.

I’ll trust Jerome, and a Masoretic text, long before I’ll trust a version by translators who find Mary’s subsequent assumption repulsive.

So, sorry, friend. I am unpersuaded. “Halak,” “walked” with God, means “assumed,” as far as I can see.

 

[JP_Marat]

The only yarn being spun is your claims. Father Most in his article says two things which you ignore

1. This teaching is found at a **very early date **in the liturgical books
2. Finally, since the Church has never sought for bodily relics of the Blessed Virgin, nor exposed them for the veneration of the faithful, we have an argument which can be considered as ‘practically a proof by sensory experience’
   Also
   Apocryphal treatise only means it was not inspired not false.
   De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis only meant that St. Melito wasn’t the author.

RESPONSE:

1. The liturgical books begain to be written about the 7th century. The “very early date” is about 500 years after the deposit of faith (scripture and teachings of the apostles) was closed.
2. That the Church had no idea where the body of Mary is buried **is hardly proof **that Mary was assumed. And you could make the same argument for St. Joseph too.
3. The 4th or 5th century writing you are refering to was written as a yarn by an unknown author. Of course it isn’t inspired.

Merriam-Webster defines “Apocryphal” as (1) noncanonical (2)** spurious**. Their definition of “Spurious” is (1) **not genuine **(2) false.

The avoid your mistakes, before defining a word, use a reputable dictionary.

 

[adrift]

RESPONSE

Quoting verbatim from the first paragraph of Fr. Most’s article:

I am not disputing Father only your dishonest use. You do not convey the entire meaning of his writing giving a false impression to what he wrote.

 

[adrift]

Merriam-Webster defines “Apocryphal” as (1) noncanonical (2)** spurious**. Their definition of “Spurious” is (1) **not genuine **(2) false.

The avoid your mistakes, before defining a word, use a reputable dictionary.

I made no mistake but you did.

Note your first definition Non-canonical. Of course these books were not genuine in the sense that they were not inspired. However, that does not mean that what was written in them were lies. We get the names of Mary’s parents from them and it is thought to be reliable because it was written by those close in time.

Some may embody at least a few trustworthy oral traditions, e.g., the Gospel of Peter, and According to the Hebrews.

 

[adrift]

THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A BELIEF SINCE APOSTOLIC TIMES
Father Clifford Stevens

The Assumption is the oldest feast day of Our Lady, but we don’t know how it first came to be celebrated.

Its origin is lost in those days when Jerusalem was restored as a sacred city, at the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine (c. 285-337). By then it had been a pagan city for two centuries, ever since Emperor Hadrian (76-138) had leveled it around the year 135 and rebuilt it as in honor of Jupiter.

The doctrine is rather part of the oral tradition, handed down over the centuries. It was therefore certainly revealed because, in reply to the questions, the Catholic bishops of the world all but unanimously expressed the belief that this was part of the divine revelations. In explaining the grounds for the Church’s belief, Pius XII singled out the fact that Mary was the Mother of God; as the body of Christ originated from the body of Mary (caro Jesu est caro Mariae); that her body was preserved unimpaired in virginal integrity, and therefore it was fitting that it should not be subject to destruction after death; and that since Mary so closely shared in Christ’s redemptive mission on earth, she deserved to join him also in bodily glorification.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Strong’s is a Protestant publication. (It concordizes the KJV, doesn’t it?) How many Protestant publications are going to begin creating scholarship comprising groundwork for Catholic doctrine?

Although sometimes used in Catholic material, the NIV is also a Protestant source. Again, how many Protestant publications are going to begin creating scholarship comprising groundwork for Catholic doctrine?

They are very conscious of words like “assumed.”

To check the NIV for accuracy, I compared your recitation with that of Cathoilic translator, scholar and saint, Jerome, in Jerome’s Vulgate.

The “clincher” word in your Protestant NIV version, is the word “then.” “Then” changes everything in that sentence. It turns the meaning of “halak” upside-down, from an alternative to death (in the previous and following verses) – namely, assumption while alive – to Enoch just being a good little boy.

Note the way the verse reads without the word “then”…

"B]Enoch walked with God, he was no more, because God took him away

"

Without “then,” it’s a completely different verse, where “halak” (“walked”) DOES seem to mean “assumed,” doesn’t it?

So, what does Jerome, a Hebrew-and-Greek-speaking scholar with better access to manuscripts than any modern scholar, say? Does Jerome include “then” in his Latin rendering?..

“ambulavitque cum Deo** et non apparuit** quia tulit eum Deus”

“et non apparuit” is unambiguous. It means, “And was not seen.”

Do you see the word “then” there?

Sorry, friend, it’s not!

Jerome was using the Alexandrian Canon, the Greek version of Hebrew language predecessors.

Let’s see how the Masoretic text of our Jewish brothers render the verse…

And Enoch walked with God, and he was not; for God took him.

“AND he was not.”

Do you see the word “then”? I don’t.

That changes everything.

I’ll trust Jerome, and a Masoretic text, long before I’ll trust a version by translators who find Mary’s subsequent assumption repulsive.

So, sorry, friend. I am unpersuaded. “Halak,” “walked” with God, means “assumed,” as far as I can see.

Peter-

I am aware of the fact that Strong’s is a Protestant publication, thank you. Sheesh. Is everyone who disagrees with you a complete idiot? Or have we studied, also?

The best I can see for your “Jewish” rendering is two sequential events. Enoch 1) walked with God and 2) he was not.

Since you believe “walked with God” means “assumed”, let’s simply substitute it into the passage.

Enoch was assumed, and he was not; for God took him. Why is it that “he was not”? Because God took him (ie, assumed him).

Your rendering says that Enoch A) was “taken into heaven” and B) was not because God assumed him.

Since A and B are the same things, this is absurdly redundant.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I made no mistake but you did.

Note your first definition Non-canonical. Of course these books were not genuine in the sense that they were not inspired. However, that does not mean that what was written in them were lies. We get the names of Mary’s parents from them and it is thought to be reliable because it was written by those close in time.

The Deuterocanonical books (called “the Apocrypha” by Protestants) are inspired and part of the canon of the Catholic Church.

 

[JP_Marat]

THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A BELIEF SINCE APOSTOLIC TIMES
Father Clifford Stevens

RESPONSE:

The folklore about the Assumption began in the 4th or 5th century. There is nothing about it in scripture or the writings of the Church Fathers until about the 7th century.

The fact that the bishops in 1950 were “almost unanimous” about the Assumption is no evidence at all. The bishops were unanimous prior to 1633 that the earth did not move and the sun revolved around the earth. Until 1900 they were unanomous that slave ownership was in keeping with the divine and natural law.

The Assumption story began with some spurions writings, later became a pious legend, and recently an “infallible” doctrine because the pope, who realized that it would be very popular, declared that it was infallible.

However, Vatican I clearly stated that the pope could not create new doctrine not found in the scripture and the teachings of the apostles. Pius XII violated this infallible teaching.

So even if you believe in papal infallibility, the Assumption pronouncement contradicted an earlier “infallible” teaching of the Vaican Council.

 

[Randy_Carson]

RESPONSE:

The folklore about the Assumption began in the 4th or 5th century. There is nothing about it in scripture or the writings of the Church Fathers until about the 7th century.

The fact that the bishops in 1950 were “almost unanimous” about the Assumption is no evidence at all. The bishops were unanimous prior to 1633 that the earth did not move and the sun revolved around the earth. Until 1900 they were unanomous that slave ownership was in keeping with the divine and natural law.

The Assumption story began with some spurions writings, later became a pious legend, and recently an “infallible” doctrine because the pope, who realized that it would be very popular, declared that it was infallible.

However, Vatican I clearly stated that the pope could not create new doctrine not found in the scripture and the teachings of the apostles. Pius XII violated this infallible teaching.

So even if you believe in papal infallibility, the Assumption pronouncement contradicted an earlier “infallible” teaching of the Vaican Council.

Since the bishops of the Church were quick to respond to false teachings (such as Jerome’s response to Helvidius’ denial of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary), perhaps you could provide some quotes from or links to the Fathers refutation of the novelty that Mary was assumed into heaven.

Thanks in advance.

 

[nuntym]

RESPONSE:

The fact that the bishops in 1950 were “almost unanimous” about the Assumption is no evidence at all. The bishops were unanimous prior to 1633 that the earth did not move and the sun revolved around the earth. Until 1900 they were unanomous that slave ownership was in keeping with the divine and natural law.

Do you have credible evidence? If so, please post your evidence and citations.

Not just an undocumented ramble.