The death of the Virgin in RCC imagery

[Catherineanne]

not in context. Yes, Jesus did many other things...I see no mention of Mary there.

Those who have eyes to see, let them see.

 

[98cwitr]

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Very good point. I am in agreement that one can or cannot believe this teaching and still be saved. However, to elevate it to the stature of something as essential as the Trinity either debases those dogmas or opens the door to heresy (division of the church over non-dogmatic issues).

I agree. Well said.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Does it? Have you been to my church?

I treat Scripture as it should be treated, as the divinely inspired texts of God.

Divinely inspired .. since the Bible says the divine "Is Love" .

be more loving in your interpretation . you can't possibly see everything every passage means . and cannot expect everyone to come to your conclusion . it's just not realistic .

 

[ivebeenshown]

I agree. Well said.

To those who disobey certain dogma, such as those which relate to the manner in which worship and assembly should be held, and the clergy and etc., what does one Marian dogma matter? Such beings openly disregard far more essential dogma than just the Marian ones, and it would seem likely to me that the rejection of Marian dogma is rooted in this aversion to other foundational dogma -- that the attitude of rebellion and 'sticking it to the man' would lead one to reject the Assumption without any valid reason for opposition.

Especially when their precious 'bible' tells of Enoch and Elijah being assumed.

 

[98cwitr]

I dont expect anyone to come to my conclusions.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I dont expect anyone to come to my conclusions.

I'll keep that in mind when reading your future posts . thank you for the clarification .

 

[98cwitr]

I'll keep that in mind when reading your future posts . thank you for the clarification .

Thank you and please do.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Huh? Why are Feeneyites like the KKK? I mean, I think their denial of the efficacy of baptism of desire and baptism of blood are incorrect and contrary to the teaching of the Church since Augustine and the immemorial practices of the Church (such as that catechumens who die prior to baptism are counted the same as those who have been baptized and accorded a Catholic funeral and burial). Feeneyism is a hypercorrection against the false ecumenism that Fr. Feeney was rightly worried about. But how in the world did you go from that to the KKK?

Fr. Feeney, among his various beliefs, was also an extreme racist and anti-Semite. One might easily conclude that he was the Catholic form of the KKK (although, of course, the KKK itself was virulently anti-Catholic). The KKK was also composed of primarily Southerners who were, historically Democratic. The Democratic party of that time was racist in the South, but tempered by northern anti-racist tendencies. Thus, I do not see the larger number of errors of doctrine with those who deny the physical death of Mary as with the number of errors promulgated by Fr. Feeney. Nor do I see these individual fomenting division in the Catholic Church, but I may be quite incorrect about this as I only have a limited view as to what is actually happening inside the Catholic Church.

Most KKK members have traditionally been Democrats, so is that the comparison? I'm lost.

So then the original topic of this thread, that Mary died prior to her resurrection and translation into Heaven, is no surprise to anyone -- it is, by far, the prevailing belief.

Agreed.

It is not necessary to prove each and every one of the Church's teachings to have been written about by an Apostle. It is enough to prove that the apparent Catholic Church is the true Catholic Church and then to adhere to what She teaches as the Word of God.

Well said. First comes faith in the Catholic Church, then follows faith in everything it teaches. The difficulty frequently comes with matters such as this which have been open to varying views and no clearly dogmatic interpretation has been provided; rather, statements are provided which permit opposing opinions to be reasonably deduced. We have the Dogma of the Assumption which, theoretically, ought to have settled this question, but instead has been left open to two very divergent views.

Catholic dogma is not based on private revelations. Private revelations -- even if they do not conflict with the faith an appear to be pious or even have miraculous approbation -- are, by their very nature, private and not intended for the Church as a whole. We adhere to the teachings of the Apostles, which are vetted by Scripture and reason. The various stories of the Dormition, although they give us context and fill out what we know (like the Acts of Peter and Paul), are not the final basis for our belief or the dogmatic definition.

Am I correct in understanding the the final basis for your belief is a dogmatic statement from the Pope?

Why are written accounts so necessary? One thread insisted that a teaching had to be included in some writing prior to AD 70 -- 37 years after Pentecost. Some scholars don't even say that all the books of the New Testament were written by then. There are no actual copies of any of the writings which actually date back that far, it's a textual thing, there aren't copies even of the Gospels that date back before AD 200 (and these were only discovered in the 20th c., prior to that, no one had any that they could date back before the 4th or 5th c.). So it's not as though we have everything that has ever been written and we can just flip through a library and see when things start being written about. We have scattered and fragmentary evidence.

We do have, however, a body of literature which the Church (not just one segment of the Church) agreed under the guidance of God, the Holy Spirit, is the infallible and inerrant Word of God. This body of literature, e.g. the Bible (specifically the New Testament canon) was distinguished from a multitude of contemporaneous literature and elevated to a position where it is to be taken as a thoroughly accurate and reliable record. This body provides a (some would say the) lodestone against which all other information is judged. Thus, when a Mormon insists that the Trinity is not true, one can easily reject their teaching by showing the truth of the Trinity from the Bible (and yes, I know the argument that "Trinity" is not in the Bible).

One of St. Augustine's arguments for the existence of Original Sin is that the Church baptizes infants. Now, nowhere that I know of, is there evidence of any sort of arguments on the question of baptizing infants, whenever it is written about, it is just something that is done. Epiphanius, as discussed earlier, says that there are varied accounts and he may be right but we certainly know what was the prevailing account.

One can easily develop an argument for the existence of Original Sin without resorting to infant baptism to justify the argument. One need look no further than Psalm 51:5 to find that taught in the Bible.

If we were talking about any secular, non-miraculous event, would there be any doubt that these records were true? Of course not, we have multiple variations on the story that exist, which are not the basis for but rather the evidence of this event being part of the teachings of the Apostles.

If, for example, I were to write a lengthy tome explaining how North America was blasted by an enormous meteor in 1676 would there be any doubt that my record was true? Of course there would be - on several levels. First, there are no records from that year or until the time I wrote my book that such an event occurred. Second, there is no physical evidence that survives of such an occurrence. Third, it contradicts all other evidence. However, if I were to get the leader of my religion to state that it was, indeed, true and is a matter of utmost certainty so that one's salvation depends upon it, it would become an entirely different matter.

This is not at all unlike poor Copernicus and the flat earth theory. However, I will not go there, for your sake.

The Bible was not written as a manifesto for a religion, it is wrong to look at it that way. It was Authored by God, yes, but that doesn't make it definitive -- it doesn't mean that the Apostles never taught things that they didn't also write about. St. Paul even says so explicitly:

True.

St. John ends his Gospel by saying:

Also true.

St. Luke, who was not an Apostle, opens his by saying:

I don't get your connection here.

There was a body of teaching which existed outside and apart from the New Testament. We can deduce some of the teachings of the Church based on what is written about in the New Testament, and indeed these words are Divinely inspired, but it is still to the teachings given to the Church which are the real substance of the faith. I said in another thread that we do not build our Church on what the New Testament says, but rather the New Testament was based on our Church. It is wrong to look at the New Testament as a blueprint for building a man-made church, but rather it is written about the faith of the Church founded by Christ on the Apostles, the Church which still exists today.

Thank you for the clear distinction. Herein lies the significant difference. You have faith in your Church apart from all else. Thus, your Church is the self-defining source of Truth for you. So, if your Church determines that something is true that contradicts previously held truths, it has absolute freedom to reject those truths as, at best, errors, or, at worst, outright falsehoods. The only absolute is the fact that the Church is Truth Incarnate.

For myself, Truth Incarnate is the Word of God, Jesus Christ. There is every reason that He is given the title, Word of God, linking Him ineffably to the revealed and written Word of God, the Bible. I note that He is not called the Church of God but is called the Head of His body, the Church. The Church is subordinate to its Head and its Head is the revelation of God to mankind, Apart from the written Word of God we would know nothing concerning Jesus Christ other than, perhaps oral fables and myths, some of which might be true and many, if not most or all, might be quite false.

The vast majority of the Christian world accepts that Mary was died, raised from the dead and taken, body and soul, into Heaven. This is what the Church teaches and there has been no corruption in Her teachings -- this we must accept by faith, based on the evidence presented to us. It is part of an integrated system -- you cannot take one teaching away without the rest falling apart.

I love the picture. However, as our Orthodox brethren (and sisters) will attest, one can be Orthodox without believing one way or the other concerning the physical death of Mary. The issue (gospel) in Christianity hinges entirely upon the death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and second coming of Jesus Christ and not upon any other person. I would be the last person to deny that a person cannot be a faithful Catholic who happens to believe that Mary, being sinless, was assumed directly into heaven, having finished the course of her life on earth.

 

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

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?
​

God ultimately, of course, but us as well by saving more souls and building the kingdom of heaven on earth -- that is, the Church Militant.

It was nearly 1900 years actually after the Dormition. But if you want to know why, read the document: Pope Pius XII -- Munificentissimus Deus

There was a popular effort to have the Assumption declared as dogma, just as the Fifth Marian Dogma efforts have been going on for the past several decades. So then the Holy See made a survey of bishops, asking them what they thought and what those in their diocese thought. The only people who objected were a small number who were concerned that declaring it to be a dogma of the faith might effect reunification efforts with the Eastern Orthodox (this is also a concern for the Fifth Marian Dogma).

The universality of this teaching is such that:



St. Vincent of Lerins, who I referred to earlier, defined Catholic teaching as:



Thus because the belief in Mary's Assumption has been believed "everywhere, always, by all" (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus), we can be certain that it is part of the Catholic faith. What Pope Pius XII did in 1950 was elevate the Assumption from the level of dogma by reason of the universal and ordinary Magisterium (which is that "everywhere, always, by all") to the level of the extraordinary Magisterium (the level of which dogmas are defined formally by Ecumenical Councils or, in at least two cases, by the pope) and give it a formal definition.

Why do this? Why does the Queen of England have so many titles? For example, Queen Elizabeth II was:

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem.

Why? Because it accords her more honor. The more honor we accord Mary, the more honor we accord the One who formed and fashioned her as the crowning glory of His Creation. The more honor and praise we give to God, the more graces He gives to us (through the hands of Mary). That is why it is important. That is also why the Fifth Marian Dogma is important -- because the Church desperately needs the maternal love and guidance of Our Blessed Mother in order to restore her and to save souls.

I thought that was the Spirit's and Christ's job.

But, how would that work? How does Mary do that job? IOW do people feel more akin to the Virgin than to Christ? Is it easier to approach her than God?

 

[bbbbbbb]

they are resolved for us. you are the guys with issues

If they are fully resolved for you, why do most Catholics disagree with the minority who hold to a deathless Assumption? If the minority are in error, are they not guilty of mortal sin?

 

[ivebeenshown]

If the minority are in error, are they not guilty of mortal sin?

Correct, they are not guilty of mortal sin.

 

[AveMaria_45]

Originally Posted by Standing Up
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?

Looking at how mean you people are i think ALL OF YOU could benefit from acting more like Mary. most of you are acting more like tools than like Mary

 

[ivebeenshown]

Looking at how mean you people are i think ALL OF YOU could benefit from acting more like Mary. most are actilng more like tools than like Mary

That's unnecessary...

 

[bbbbbbb]

The RCC does not teach what you think it does. The assumption of Our Lady follows her dormition, aka her death to this world.

Unfortunately, as you can see with posts earlier in this thread, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not state this explicitly. One can imply it from the Cathecism even as many faithful Catholics have implied that the Assumption was not preceded by physical death.

 

[AveMaria_45]

Looking at how mean you people are i think ALL OF YOU could benefit from acting more like Mary. most of you are acting more like tools than like Mary

That's unnecessary...

I dont think so. when people behave badly in the name iof the Bible they should be told so.

 

[Catherineanne]

Unfortunately, as you can see with posts earlier in this thread, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not state this explicitly. One can imply it from the Cathecism even as many faithful Catholics have implied that the Assumption was not preceded by physical death.

One can infer a lot of things. That does not make them teachings of the RCC. Any RC in any doubt simply has to ask any priest, to get the answer.

 

[98cwitr]

Looking at how mean you people are i think ALL OF YOU could benefit from acting more like Mary. most of you are acting more like tools than like Mary

oh my at the irony and hypocrisy in this post Does the RCC teach these things too?

 

[Catherineanne]

If they are fully resolved for you, why do most Catholics disagree with the minority who hold to a deathless Assumption? If the minority are in error, are they not guilty of mortal sin?

It is not a sin to misunderstand doctrine. It is only a sin if a priest were to knowingly and purposefully promulgate false doctrine.

None of us gets to eternity because of the heterodoxy of our theology. We get there through Christ.

Just as well, really.

 

[Catherineanne]

oh my at the irony and hypocrisy in this post Does the RCC teach these things too?

Funny how you see irony and hypocrisy in what AM writes, while I see and hear only pain.

I wonder why that is?