The death of the Virgin in RCC imagery

[PilgrimToChrist]

Umm..why does it matter

Because that was what was being asserted -- that everything that is not explicitly in the Bible is necessarily false.

 

[Standing Up]

Because that was what was being asserted -- that everything that is not explicitly in the Bible is necessarily false.

Wouldn't say "false", but rather, not necessary for salvation. Sure wouldn't be foolish enough to build a dogma w/out scripture.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I still don't see a relation between the RC's version of the PV/Assumption of Mary and the Trinity

http://www.christianforums.com/t7400512/
Did Jesus have brothers and sisters born of Mary

Nor do I. This thread seems to be getting off track.

 

[98cwitr]

You wouldn't know that from many threads on here. How many Baptists do you know have a love and devotion to Our Lady?



You clearly don't understand the Catholic teaching and practice.



Again, you clearly don't understand.

It has no basis or requisite. Loving Mary has nothing to do with loving Christ other than the love which we should have for each and every soul placed on this earth for his or her intended purpose. You find a person to be outside a state of grace, yet in your church; and the congregation and the priests walk out justified.

Back on track here, as far as "inspired" writing is concerned; I do not find nor acknowledge any divine inspiration other than that spoken of in the Holy Bible...the rest is dust. Therefore, all this false doctrine about Mary's resurrection is make-believe and has no truth in it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You'd think the Apostles would have listed the canon of the New Testament too, but they didn't. Silence on Mary's death one way or the other is not puzzling if you understand that the Church's doctrine can develop. It's faulty to impose the unbiblical doctrine that every facet of God's revelation is revealed explicitly in Scripture. So I don't think this "they would have said something" rule of yours is applicable.

(Even so, I would argue that Mary's assumption is implicit once you wrap your mind around the typology of Mary as Ark of the Covenant, etc... but I digress)

It would require a great deal of warping to get my mind around the typology of Mary as Ark of the Covenant, etc., but you digress.

Still, my point has been made multiple times by others here at CF that a truly amazing miracle of the Assumption should have had some historical reference, either in scripture or in other sources, but it does not. What does seem peculiar is that the New Testament does record many post-Ascension miracles such as the healing of the paralytic at the Temple, but does not even allude to the much more amazing miracle of the Assumption.

 

[Standing Up]

It would require a great deal of warping to get my mind around the typology of Mary as Ark of the Covenant, etc., but you digress.

Still, my point has been made multiple times by others here at CF that a truly amazing miracle of the Assumption should have had some historical reference, either in scripture or in other sources, but it does not. What does seem peculiar is that the New Testament does record many post-Ascension miracles such as the healing of the paralytic at the Temple, but does not even allude to the much more amazing miracle of the Assumption.

Good point. Given it's a dogma for some, you'd think they'd have mentioned it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, Mary did not labor under the effects of Original Sin, so she did not die as part of that. But she could have simply died, not as punishment, but merely to show the power and promise of God (as with the blind man regarding whom the Jews asked, "Who sinned that this man be born blind?").

St. John of Damascus (Damascene) says:



I think he is alluding to what the Apostle says about the Resurrection:



St. Francis de Sales writes:



If the martyrs went to their death singing praises of the Divine Love and were overjoyed to unite themselves with Christ's Passion and Death, how much more did His Mother unite herself to His Passion and Death and thus she suffered spiritually and physically throughout her life, died and was raised from the dead -- in union with her Son.




If Paul can say this, how much more can Mary, of whom Simeon said:



Mary suffered throughout her whole life, especially at the Crucifixion, as St. John says:





Mary was in pain to deliver not Christ as an infant but the infant Church born from His side:



Christ bore the Church from His side while dead just Adam bore Eve from his side after God put him into a deep sleep.

So Mary's sufferings throughout her life did indeed involve our redemption. Indeed, all our sufferings involve our redemption. Redemption is just more complex than you want to make it out to be.


Not really, Elijah and Enoch were taken to Heaven without first dying and they had Original Sin (and probably actual sins).

Christ died and He did not contract Original Sin. Therefore death is a punishment for Original Sin but it does not follow that everyone who dies is suffering the effects of Original Sin -- since neither Christ nor His Mother suffered those effects.

We have been "chewing" on these for more than 1500 years. These are not new discussions.

Thanks for your ruminations. Yes, I agree that this is hardly a new discussion. However, there are aspects of the discussion which do remain unresolved, not in Christendom in general, but in Catholicism in particular. As has been posted here, there are Catholics who disagree with the view that Mary died at all. Their theology of the Assumption differs significantly from your own.

Thanks again.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Good point. Given it's a dogma for some, you'd think they'd have mentioned it.

I also agree. If this was so incredibly important to our faith and salvation, then you would think God would have mentioned something about it in His Word... if it were that important. However, Mary is not mentioned after the 1st chapter of Acts.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Wouldn't say "false", but rather, not necessary for salvation. Sure wouldn't be foolish enough to build a dogma w/out scripture.

Well, that is what '98cwitr' said:

The basis of my accusations are still related to the topic at hand. How in the world does the RCC come up with some made up, false doctrine that the virgin Mary was resurrected and ascended to heaven. There is no basis to this whatsoever. What is the RCC going to come up with next? Santa Claus and the Easter bunny are actually real?

He doesn't just say that believe in Mary's Assumption is a theologoumena or pious opinion (as the Anglicans and Lutherans do, the Orthodox and Catholics prior to 1950), he positively asserts that it is "made up" and "false" with "no basis... whatsoever", on par with "Santa Claus" and "the Easter bunny".

Why believe in the Assumption? Because the Church teaches it. Because the Church teaches it as a dogma, I have more faith that the Assumption happened than I do that the Boston Massacre (as mentioned before) happened. The Church has proven its Divine nature and infallibility, my American history teacher has not.

So yes, the Church teaches that these writings we call the "Old and New Testaments" are the work of God the Holy Ghost and thus are infallible. This does not mean that everything that the Church teaches -- that is, that everything in the faith that the Apostles handed down to us (Deposit of Faith) is explicitly stated in the Bible.

it is not necessary for salvation,

It is necessary to hold everything the Church teaches. It was defined dogmatically not to combat any particular heresy (as most dogmas had been prior to this) but rather to inspire greater Marian devotion. The Church has the power to bind and to loose, we are therefore bound to believe that it happened with "divine and Catholic faith" because the Church has declared it to have been part of the teachings of the Apostles, that is, the Deposit of Faith or the Word of God. Thus rejection of any one of the things that the Church requires us to believe dogmatically is rejection of the Church. This is the definition of heresy.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Of course, this doesn't make all Protestants necessarily formal heretics, but that is perhaps another topic.

 

[98cwitr]

Your church is lying to you.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

98cwtr your church lies to you . being under the law is a sure fire way to fall from grace .

 

[98cwitr]

98cwtr your church lies to you . being under the law is a sure fire way to fall from grace .

What law? And how do you know my church?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

What law? And how do you know my church?

Your church that tolerates or supports the teaching you are espousing on this thread . you treat the scriptures as though they were the old testament law .

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

It has no basis or requisite. Loving Mary has nothing to do with loving Christ other than the love which we should have for each and every soul placed on this earth for his or her intended purpose.

And Mary's role is unique and the highest.

You find a person to be outside a state of grace, yet in your church; and the congregation and the priests walk out justified.

I don't understand what you are trying to say in this sentence.

Back on track here, as far as "inspired" writing is concerned; I do not find nor acknowledge any divine inspiration other than that spoken of in the Holy Bible...the rest is dust. Therefore, all this false doctrine about Mary's resurrection is make-believe and has no truth in it.

Do you have any basis for your belief?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Thanks for your ruminations. Yes, I agree that this is hardly a new discussion. However, there are aspects of the discussion which do remain unresolved, not in Christendom in general, but in Catholicism in particular. As has been posted here, there are Catholics who disagree with the view that Mary died at all. Their theology of the Assumption differs significantly from your own.

Thanks again.

It's not part of the official dogma. But the idea that she never died wasn't known until the 17th century and has always been an assertion by a very small number of people. I would say that her Dormition has been believed "always, everywhere and by all" (which is the definition of Catholicity by St. Vincent of Lerins) and therefore can't really be contested.

One might also say that Feeneyism -- the denial of the efficacy of baptism of desire and baptism of blood -- is not unorthodox since Fr. Feeney was reconciled without recanting and the monastery he founded is in full communion. But Feeneyism is held by only a tiny minority of Catholics and the immemorial practice and the Doctors of the Church are against them. Therefore, their position can be dismissed fairly easily.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I also agree. If this was so incredibly important to our faith and salvation, then you would think God would have mentioned something about it in His Word... if it were that important. However, Mary is not mentioned after the 1st chapter of Acts.

He did, you just identified God's Word with the Bible and the Bible alone. Why?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Your church is lying to you.

Do you have evidence or just baseless assertions?

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's not part of the official dogma. But the idea that she never died wasn't known until the 17th century and has always been an assertion by a very small number of people. I would say that her Dormition has been believed "always, everywhere and by all" (which is the definition of Catholicity by St. Vincent of Lerins) and therefore can't really be contested.

One might also say that Feeneyism -- the denial of the efficacy of baptism of desire and baptism of blood -- is not unorthodox since Fr. Feeney was reconciled without recanting and the monastery he founded is in full communion. But Feeneyism is held by only a tiny minority of Catholics and the immemorial practice and the Doctors of the Church are against them. Therefore, their position can be dismissed fairly easily.

I don't think that it is really fair to equate Feeneyism with the belief that Mary did not taste death. In my understanding, such a comparison is like comparing the Ku Klux Klan with the Democratic Party.

I do agree, however, that the historicity of the belief in the physical death of Mary is unassailable. The opposing view, as you have correctly stated, cannot be traced prior to the seventeenth century and depends in large part upon a view of divine revelation. Such a view is hardly unknown within the Catholic Church as evidenced by various evolutions of doctrines which have little or no traceable history to the Apostolic era.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-


It is necessary to hold everything the Church teaches. It was defined dogmatically not to combat any particular heresy (as most dogmas had been prior to this) but rather to inspire greater Marian devotion.-snip-

Why do you think that they believe that it is important to inspirre greater Marian devotion? Why do they think greater Marian devotion is a positive or necessary thing? Who benefits? IOW, the dogma wasn't declared for the first 1800 years, why now?

 

[Dorothea]

Good point. Given it's a dogma for some, you'd think they'd have mentioned it.

Yes, it's quite serious if it's a Dogma! We don't have the assumption of the Theotokos as a dogma because it isn't necessary to believe this for our salvation. We are free to believe this or not (we all mostly believe it, but it's not vital for our souls).