The death of the Virgin in RCC imagery

[98cwitr]

idk, why?

 

[bbbbbbb]

That language is not really what the RCC says. Our Lady died, the apostles gathered to grieve her loss, and at some point afterwards her body was assumed into heaven. This is NOT the same thing as an earthly resurrection. As far as anyone here on earth knew, she died and then her body disappeared. She was not seen again, eating and drinking after her death, as the Lord was.

Just as Our Lord lives in heaven in his human body, just as he did on earth, so his mother is beside him, also still in her human form. There is precedent for this in the OT. Enoch also was assumed into heaven, and so was Elijah. For a description of how this happens, take a look at 2 Kings 2 11-12. Elisha could see the angels and therefore is able to describe to us what happens. We do not have the same description in Acts because the dormition happened long after it was written, and Luke is focussing on Paul's ministry. We also don't have the death of Peter and Paul, or of James and John, but we know that they happened, and we know how. The early church revered there memory, and kept it alive.

For most of us, the angels take our souls to God, and our bodies are left until the Resurrection of the Dead; St Cuthbert describes seeing the soul of St Aiden being taken this way, when he was a shepherd on a hillside. For some very few souls, the body is also taken into heaven, but we can see from the OT that there is a precedent for this. Elijah was not resurrected; he was assumed into heaven. The same is true of Our Lady.

Therefore the language of resurrection is not appropriate, and is not anything to do with Catholic teaching. If you are going to rail against Catholic teaching, the least you could do is to find out what that teaching actually entails.

Things are getting interestinger and interestinger all the time. I now understand that you believe that Mary died, but was not brought back to life and raised from the dead (resurrected); rather, her lifeless body was taken to heaven (assumed). Am I correct in thinking that you actually believe that at some point this lifeless body was brought back to life? Or is the body still quite lifeless, although in heaven? The definition of resurrection is to bring to life someone that has died.

There are innumerable cases of individuals whose bodies have disappeared following their deaths. Shall we assume that some, or all, of these individuals were also assumed into heaven?

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

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

Oh, come on now, brother. That is not what the Bible teaches on how we should behave toward one another.

 

[98cwitr]

Shall the name calling go unrebuked? Matthew 5:22

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

Two points:

1. No denomination has ever elevated the matters of worship and assembly to the level of infallible dogma requisite for salvation. There are only four Dogmas in the Catholic Church which have been enunciated as dogmas and these are the four Marian Dogmas. Although there is general concensus that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is dogmatic in nature, it has never been declared to be Dogma nor does it address matters or worship and assembly.
2. Catrholic dogma does not state that Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven. If they were, then we know they did so without dying. If Assumption is going to heaven apart from death, then the majority of Catholics (at least according to PilgrimtoChrist) are in error because they believe that Mary died prior to her Assumption.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Correct, they are not guilty of mortal sin.

If a dogma is essential to one's salvation and one must believe it in order to be saved, why would it not be a mortal sin if one disbelieved it?

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

Would that it were so! I have discovered much to my chagrin that not all priests teach all the same things all of the time. The best source for a Catholic to turn to is the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, Unfortunately, even that has its limitations and is open to interpretations on varying issues. Like the Bible, it does not answer every possible question that can be raised. Thus, priests frequently interpret it differently. A typical example would be the hugely varying understandings of Purgatory that are believed and taught today in the Catholic Church.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

Absolutely! I shudder to think of my fate apart from the mercy and grace of Jesus Christ.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Absolutely! I shudder to think of my fate apart from the mercy and grace of Jesus Christ.

I have to say amen to that.

 

[ivebeenshown]

1. No denomination has ever elevated the matters of worship and assembly to the level of infallible dogma requisite for salvation. There are only four Dogmas in the Catholic Church which have been enunciated as dogmas and these are the four Marian Dogmas. Although there is general concensus that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is dogmatic in nature, it has never been declared to be Dogma nor does it address matters or worship and assembly.

Are anathemas 'dogma' enough for you? There are very particular things about worship/assembly that are dogmatic; I'll give you one word: Eucharist.

2. Catholic dogma does not state that Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven. If they were, then we know they did so without dying. If Assumption is going to heaven apart from death, then the majority of Catholics (at least according to PilgrimtoChrist) are in error because they believe that Mary died prior to her Assumption.

There's your assumption: "If Assumption is going to heaven apart from death..."

Assumption just means a person was entirely and bodily assumed to heaven, dead or not. Please feel free to show me any official statement claiming otherwise.

If a dogma is essential to one's salvation and one must believe it in order to be saved, why would it not be a mortal sin if one disbelieved it?

Your question was not about a dogmatic statement. "Mary died" or "Mary did not die" is not part of the dogma, therefore, it is not a mortal sin for people to believe either way.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Are anathemas 'dogma' enough for you? There are very particular things about worship/assembly that are dogmatic; I'll give you one word: Eucharist.

I will gladly admit that the Cathechism of the Catholic Church has much, indeed to say concerning liturgy, the Eucharist, baptism, sacraments, etc. However, in my brief overview of it I do not see that any of these teachings are declared to be dogma which is absolutely essential to one's salvation. In fact, concerning baptism, the Catechism makes it expressly clear that other trinitarian baptisms outside of the Catholic Church are, indeed, valid. On the other hand, the Council of Trent pronounced a number of anathemas against Protestants. These anathemas have never been revoked. None, to my understanding, relate to forms of worship and assembly.

There's your assumption: "If Assumption is going to heaven apart from death..."

Assumption just means a person was entirely and bodily assumed to heaven, dead or not. Please feel free to show me any official statement claiming otherwise.

Well, I suppose that is your assumption given the fact that you do not have any official statement claiming what Assumption actually means. There are Catholics, such as PilgrimtoChrist, who disagree with your definition. That is one of the problems with this Dogma - the lack of clarity regarding its actual meaning.

Your question was not about a dogmatic statement. "Mary died" or "Mary did not die" is not part of the dogma, therefore, it is not a mortal sin for people to believe either way.

Very well. Let us examine some of the implications of the Dogma.

If Mary was sinless (the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception) and death is the wages of sin (Romans 3:23) then Mary could not have died because she had no sin for which wages were due. Thus, according to some Catholics, Mary must have been assumed to heaven while yet alive, having completed her course on earth. To believe otherwise would constitute a mortal sin because it would deny the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

If death is entirely unrelated to sin (despite what the Bible states) and Mary's physical death was merely a unique event unknown to any other individual, then the door is flung open to all manner of possible heresies claiming unique situations. An absurd example might be the "fact" that John the Baptist possessed seven individual heads because there are seven skulls of his that have been completely authenticated and consecrated by the Church. To hold any heresy constitutes a mortal sin, would you not agree?

 

[WordofFaith1]

Are anathemas 'dogma' enough for you? There are very particular things about worship/assembly that are dogmatic; I'll give you one word: Eucharist.



There's your assumption: "If Assumption is going to heaven apart from death..."

Assumption just means a person was entirely and bodily assumed to heaven, dead or not. Please feel free to show me any official statement claiming otherwise.

Your question was not about a dogmatic statement. "Mary died" or "Mary did not die" is not part of the dogma, therefore, it is not a mortal sin for people to believe either way.

"Mary did not die" ?

That would be a deception. It is just plain silly!

 

[ivebeenshown]

"Mary did not die" ?

That would be a deception. It is just plain silly!

Why? Even Paul says Enoch did not taste death.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Very well. Let us examine some of the implications of the Dogma.

If Mary was sinless (the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception) and death is the wages of sin (Romans 3:23) then Mary could not have died because she had no sin for which wages were due. Thus, according to some Catholics, Mary must have been assumed to heaven while yet alive, having completed her course on earth. To believe otherwise would constitute a mortal sin because it would deny the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

If death is entirely unrelated to sin (despite what the Bible states) and Mary's physical death was merely a unique event unknown to any other individual, then the door is flung open to all manner of possible heresies claiming unique situations. An absurd example might be the "fact" that John the Baptist possessed seven individual heads because there are seven skulls of his that have been completely authenticated and consecrated by the Church. To hold any heresy constitutes a mortal sin, would you not agree?

The problem with your statements is the assumption that Paul meant a physical, bodily death in Romans 6:23, rather than the eternal and spiritual consequences.

In fact, Romans 6 in itself confirms that the 'death' spoken of is of the spiritual, eternal nature: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

 

[98cwitr]

Why? Even Paul says Enoch did not taste death.

The OT also accounts for Enoch's ascension. No where in the Bible does it account for Mary's alleged resurrection nor ascension. I think that is the resounding hangup for the rest of us.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Kepha;Alot of Catholics believed She died before being Assumed. Not sure what the problem is here actually.

Ambiguity in tradition, rendering it unreliable.

The Dogma reads that at the end of Her earthly life, Mother Mary was Assumed into Heaven. It doesn't say She was Assumed into Heaven without seeing death.

Even tho that is the definition of assumption? Otherwise anybody who dies & goes to heaven is "assumed" into it, making Mary's having done so nothing special.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The OT also accounts for Enoch's ascension. No where in the Bible does it account for Mary's alleged resurrection nor ascension. I think that is the resounding hangup for the rest of us.

Well, yeah. There are many things that happened in world history that are not in the bible. I don't really see why it becomes so controversial about Mary... even though I used to do that. It seems a lot like 'I just don't WANT to believe the mother of God was resurrected and assumed into heaven even though Enoch was assumed and Lazarus was resurrected, just because this church I don't like believes it.' Not saying that is always the case.

Even tho that is the definition of assumption? Otherwise anybody who dies & goes to heaven is "assumed" into it, making Mary's having done so nothing special.

Not everyone is bodily assumed before the resurrection, so yeah, it's a pretty high honor.

 

[Optimax]

Why? Even Paul says Enoch did not taste death.

There is scripture that confirms Enoch.

Gen 5:24
And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
KJV


If you can produce scripture that as clearly confirms that Mary was "taken" by God that would do a lot to convince.

 

[98cwitr]

Well, yeah. There are many things that happened in world history that are not in the bible.

This is quite true, yet when it involves the resurrection of the Mother of the Christ, you'd think it'd be in there wouldn't you? Especially if the apostles were literally there to record it (allegedly). You don't find that though and it's not. It's all hearsay...and you can't spell heresy without hearsay.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There is scripture that confirms Enoch.

Gen 5:24
And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
KJV

If you can produce scripture that as clearly confirms that Mary was "taken" by God that would do a lot to convince.

Isn't the Bible just wonderful

Hebrew 11:5 To faith Enoch was translated/meteteqh <3346> (5681) of the no to be perceiving death,
and not was found thru translating/meteqhken <3346> (5656) him.
For the God, before the translation/metaqesewV <3331> of him, he has been witnessed to have well pleased to the God
[Gene 5:24]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7426625-12/#post54498783
Hebrews 7:12