The Assumption Of The Blessed Virgin

[garydench]

If they were 'fully' defined by "mother", why Luther?

Luther believed that Our Lady was assumed into Heaven, just as he accepted her perpetual virginity.

His stand against the Church was a mixture of pride, politics, and a renegade Dominican Friar.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Luther believed that Our Lady was assumed into Heaven, just as he accepted her perpetual virginity.

... and many Christians think she didn't. Do you have a point?


You DO know that the Assumption of Mary is NOT dogma in Lutheranism. It's not even doctrine. It's not even a common pious opinion. Now, do some Lutherans agree with Luther on this point? Yes. My pastor is one of them. You'll also find that there are Lutherans who believe there's life on other planets (my pastor is one of them) and even some Lutherans who think that Obama was a better choice than McCain (YIKES!). But there's no dogma in Lutheranism about life on other planets or about Obama. The reality is that there's only one denomination on the planet and in all of Christian history that has a dogma (and that singular denomination such only since 1950 - at least with that status) about any "assumption" of Mary, in fact that has ANY dogma concerning what happened to Mary at her death or undeath AT ALL - ANY dogma about ANY of that at all. Just one denomination has. Yours.



.

 

[jckstraw72]

The reality is that there's only one denomination on the planet and in all of Christian history that has a dogma (and that singular denomination such only since 1950 - at least with that status) about any "assumption" of Mary, in fact that has ANY dogma concerning what happened to Mary at her death or undeath AT ALL - ANY dogma about ANY of that at all. Just one denomination has. Yours.

this really isnt a good point at all, since the Catholics have faaaaaaaaaar more Christians than any other Church, and all the Protestants only exist out of protest of Rome, so of course they dont share such beliefs. Those who dont believe are consciously choosing to NOT believe something that the vast majority of Christians believe in.

 

[PETE_]

That assumes that all the Catholics agree and as with many issues they do not. Many Catholics I encounter IRL know nothing or very little about what the church teaches on issues such as this.

 

[jckstraw72]

true true, i still dont think he makes a good point. he says that against Catholics all the time and all it means is all the other denominations are choosing not to accept. it doesnt in any way make the point he thinks it does.

 

[bbbbbbb]

this really isnt a good point at all, since the Catholics have faaaaaaaaaar more Christians than any other Church, and all the Protestants only exist out of protest of Rome, so of course they dont share such beliefs. Those who dont believe are consciously choosing to NOT believe something that the vast majority of Christians believe in.

Tut, tut, Jckstraw. As is typical you seem to conveniently overlook those pesky EOC and OOC who are not Protestants and who exist in enormous numbers and who have never had anything remotely resembling a dogma of the assumption. I think you may discover, if the numbers are tallied, that your church, numerically, is in the minority on this issue.

However, whether one person or a billion people earnestly believe or disbelieve this dogma does not establish its veracity or lack thereof. It is a dogma conceived within the Catholic Church in 1950 which ought to say something. The fact that this "truth" eluded other denominations as dogmatic, absolute truth and continues to elude them for so long must mean something, don't you agree?

 

[Catholic_NE]

IMHO, we don't know everything - and don't need to.

I quite agree. That's why I don't support the movement to dogmatically define "Co-redemptrix".

Protestantism is who has lost all concept of mystery. Protestantism is like medieval scholasticism on steroids, attempting to explain everything according to reason only.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that they've lost all concept of mystery; but I quite agree with you that that's truer of Protestants than it is of RCs.

 

[Catholic_NE]

BTW, this is one of the things I deeply respect about Orthodoxy and conservative/traditional Anglicanism (yes, Virginia, such DOES exist, lol) as well as my own Lutheranism. IMHO, we ALL probably could use a dose of humility and a reminder that we aren't called to be "know-it-alls" but to fall at the feet of God in awe and wonder.

Amen!

 

[lionroar0]

Tut, tut, Jckstraw. As is typical you seem to conveniently overlook those pesky EOC and OOC who are not Protestants and who exist in enormous numbers and who have never had anything remotely resembling a dogma of the assumption. I think you may discover, if the numbers are tallied, that your church, numerically, is in the minority on this issue.

However, whether one person or a billion people earnestly believe or disbelieve this dogma does not establish its veracity or lack thereof. It is a dogma conceived within the Catholic Church in 1950 which ought to say something. The fact that this "truth" eluded other denominations as dogmatic, absolute truth and continues to elude them for so long must mean something, don't you agree?

Jack is EOC.

They celebrate the Dormition of Mary which has similarities to the Assumption.

Peace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

IMHO, we don't know everything - and don't need to.

I quite agree. That's why I don't support the movement to dogmatically define "Co-redemptrix".

... as a Catholic, I'm sure you DO accept the unique Catholic dogmatization of Transubstantiation, the Infallibility of the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, etc. - all made dogmas since Luther was excommunicated. While other denominations don't necessary DENY all these; they may even welcome the belief in some of them, only one insists upon them as dogmatic facts of the highest importance and certainty - necessary for salvation. One of them is the topic of this thread.



Thank you; and welcome to our little internet community! I've notice that you've replied to several of my posts - in helpful and respectful ways. I look forward to getting to know you better!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Catholic_NE]

... as a Catholic, I'm sure you DO accept the unique Catholic dogmatization of Transubstantiation, the Infallibility of the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, etc. -

Well ... yes and no. I accept that each of those teachings are true, but I don't believe that it was a good idea to make them dogmas.

You may already know this, but even Cardinal Newman -- a great hero to a lot of conservative Catholics -- said in no uncertain terms that it was a bad idea for Vatican I to dogmatically define Papal Infallibility (notwithstanding the fact that he agreed with the truth of the teaching).

all made dogmas since Luther was excommunicated. While other denominations don't necessary DENY all these; they may even welcome the belief in some of them, only one insists upon them as dogmatic facts of the highest importance and certainty - necessary for salvation. One of them is the topic of this thread

Thank you; and welcome to our little internet community! I've notice that you've replied to several of my posts - in helpful and respectful ways. I look forward to getting to know you better!


Pax


- Josiah

Why thank you.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

... as a Catholic, I'm sure you DO accept the unique Catholic dogmatization of Transubstantiation, the Infallibility of the Papacy, the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, etc. -

Well ... yes and no. I accept that each of those teachings are true, but I don't believe that it was a good idea to make them dogmas.

AAHHHHHHHHHHH.....
You and I need to get to know each other


Lutherans don't deny any of the current RCC Marian dogmas. We probably are less comfortable with the Coredemtrix (not YET dogma) and the Mediatrix of All Graces (I think this is dogma). But we dont deny any of them. My Lutheran pastor rather passionately embraces all of them - although not always in EXACTLY the same sense that I think the official RCC does. But, in Lutheranism (as much of traditional Protestantism) we have something called "pious opinion." This is a historic, traditional view that is neither confirmed nor rejected by Scripture and thus regarded as permitted opinion. My pastor believes that Mary was a perpetual virgin. At least one in my church just as strongly believes such not the case. Neither condemns the other, for no one embraces either view as dogma. Truth is: this is a very ancient view that, for centuries, was strongly ecumenical. Lutherans embrace those that embrace it (as Luther himself did), but condemn no one who does not.

You may already know this, but even Cardinal Newman -- a great hero to a lot of conservative Catholics -- said in no uncertain terms that it was a bad idea for Vatican I to dogmatically define Papal Infallibility (notwithstanding the fact that he agreed with the truth of the teaching).

I did NOT know that - but find that FASINATING.

I hope to see you around Theology! And to discuss things with you!





Pax!


- Josiah




.

 

[jckstraw72]

if he agreed with it then why was he opposed to proclaiming it dogmatically?

 

[bbbbbbb]

if he agreed with it then why was he opposed to proclaiming it dogmatically?

It would seem that if truth is truth (absolute and unchanging) then to proclaim it as such ought to be the privilege, if not duty, of a Christian.

However, I think Cardinal Newman's objections probably centered upon the definition of dogma, which is a truth that must be believed and embraced by every person in order to attain salvation, as CaliforniaJosiah has pointed out regarding the four Marian dogmas. One of the results of this dogmatic proclamation (which, I believe, concerned Cardinal Newman and many others) was a terrible schism within the Polish Catholic Church, which remains to this day.

 

[Catholic_NE]

if he agreed with it then why was he opposed to proclaiming it dogmatically?

Non-sequitor. Believing something is true doesn't oblige one to want to dogmatically define it. (By the same token, we might ask why the Eastern Orthodox haven't dogmatically defined Mary's Assumption, seeing as they believe in it.)

 

[Catholic_NE]

We probably are less comfortable with the Coredemtrix (not YET dogma) and the Mediatrix of All Graces (I think this is dogma).

No, that one isn't a dogma either.

The RCC has dogmatically defined three Marian teachings: theotokos, Immaculate Conception, and Assumption.

Additionally, Mary's perpetual virginity is called a "dogma" because the Council of Trent anathematized anyone who denies it. (Strictly speaking, I think it should just be called a "mandatory belief" rather than a "dogma"; but that's a pretty technical distinction.)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No, that one isn't a dogma either.

The RCC has dogmatically defined three Marian teachings: theotokos, Immaculate Conception, and Assumption.

Additionally, Mary's perpetual virginity is called a "dogma" because the Council of Trent anathematized anyone who denies it. (Strictly speaking, I think it should just be called a "mandatory belief" rather than a "dogma"; but that's a pretty technical distinction.)

Is the CC the only Denomination that has that teaching? Another words, what other Denominations/Sects outside of Catholicism teaches that. Thanks

 

[bbbbbbb]

Is the CC the only Denomination that has that teaching? Another words, what other Denominations/Sects outside of Catholicism teaches that. Thanks

Next to the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches come closest, although they have never declared these things to be dogmas which must be believed in order to saved. Other churches such as the Anglicans and Lutherans contain members who believe these, as well in varying degrees but only as matters of personal opinion.

 

[Ave Maria]

I don't know if I believe in the assumption of Mary or not. I mean, Enoch was assumed in to Heaven (or was it Elijah?) so it's entirely possible that Mary was assumed in to Heaven as well.

 

[Rhamiel]

I don't know if I believe in the assumption of Mary or not. I mean, Enoch was assumed in to Heaven (or was it Elijah?) so it's entirely possible that Mary was assumed in to Heaven as well.

good point, also, it would not be in the Bible because it does not fit into the Bible, like how other miracles have happened since the Bible was written