The death of the Virgin in RCC imagery

[Dorothea]

It seems I edited my post while you were replying to it. Well, I added a few thoughts to that post about why I believe as I do... including how I trust God alone. I also stated that I do not trust the words of fallible men concerning any matter of the Christian faith which cannot be backed up with Scripture. And because I believe the Bible is true and the only authority for the Christian faith and practice - I will not place any particular church doctrine, dogma or tradition above what is taught in the Word of God. I take God at His Word when He says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." I will reject any doctrine, dogma or tradition concerning faith, salvation, or other matters of the Christian faith that contradicts the Word of God. I'm saying all this again, just in case these specific points on the basis of my faith are viewed as too irrelevant to include in a rebuttal.

I think you truly believe that. You believe what you have posted. But have you considered the possibility (probability more likely) that you are following God's Word or the Bible the way you interpret Him and what you interpret the passages say? so, therefore, you are actually relying on your own intellect and conscience as to what the Bible passages say and mean. What God says, what the Apostles say? That really it's up to your own thoughts as how it is being interpreted since you do not regard any person's teachings of the interpretations to be correct?

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

I didn't know there were Protestants back then, only the RCC

There wasn't even the Roman Catholic Church back then either.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus I didn't know there were Protestants back then, only the RCC

There wasn't even the Roman Catholic Church back then either.

Oh....my bad then

 

[Rhamiel]

There wasn't even the Roman Catholic Church back then either.

well that really depends how how you define the Catholic Church

I can understand why you would day there was no Roman Catholic Church back then

do you understand why I do not agree with you?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

well that really depends how how you define the Catholic Church

I can understand why you would day there was no Roman Catholic Church back then

do you understand why I do not agree with you?

Good question

 

[JacktheCatholic]

There wasn't even the Roman Catholic Church back then either.

We know Peter and Paul started a church in Rome and died there. We know that same Christian church took on the name catholic as the people took on the name christian. We also know that the same church that Peter and Paul started is still where they are buried today and that we call it the Roman Catholic Church. That much we know and even scholars agree on regardless of their religous beliefs.

 

[Criada]

Mod Hat On​

This thread has been cleaned, and a large number of off topic and bickering posts have been removed.
Please stick to discussing the OP rather than arguing about the validity of one another's concept of Church.

Thanks

Mod Hat Off​

 

[bbbbbbb]

You will have to be more specific. I think we all agree with the NT that it is a prophecy of Christ's Passion.

Don't you agree that Calvin's idea that Christ was damned and suffered in hell to be blasphemous?

I cannot comment on tidbits of Calvin's theology as I am not a Calvinist and am unfamiliar with the context. There seems to have been, and still are, a variety of understandings of Ephesians 4:9. Indeed, the Athanasian Creed specifically states that Christ suffered for our sins and descended into hell.

Specifically, the passage quoted in Isaiah 53, which is a prophecy of Christ's passion, states the He (Christ) bore our griefs and sorrows (vs. 4), He was pierced through for our transgressions and rushed for our iniquities (vs. 5), he LORD (God, the Father) caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him (vs. 6), the LORD was pleased to crush Him (Christ), putting Him to grief if He would render Himself as a guilt offering (vs. 10), He (Christ) bore their iniquities (vs. 11), and was numbered with the transgressors, bore the sin of many and interceded for the transgressors (vs. 12).

Can you state, in light of this passage, that Jesus Christ was not the righteous sacrifice for the sin of mankind, bearing the punishment of sin (death) for us?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I did not know that about Calvin's theology. Wow!

I am sure Mary did not sin and I am certain Jesus was not "damned".

So, why did Jesus die?

 

[bbbbbbb]

How so?

There are differences of opinion as to whether or not she actually died prior to her assumption, which is the topic of the thread.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

There are differences of opinion as to whether or not she actually died prior to her assumption, which is the topic of the thread.

From an RCC pov it is not a matter of faith as to whether she died or not, only that she was assumed body and soul into Heaven. I think this is also compatible with the Dormition (spelling?).

 

[bbbbbbb]

Around 400 ad there is a document that has survived that tells of Mary's Assumption.

Link: CHURCH FATHERS: Assumption of Mary

There are more writings but this is written about Mary and her assumption much more pointedly and is quite old.

Old? That is like saying a book written today about events in 1611 that have never been mentioned to the present time, are valid. If I were to tell you that the Great Fire of London was really the work of space aliens, would you believe me?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Pardon me for butting in, but I felt compelled to answer your post with regards to believing the Word of God and the Bible and only that.

The problem I have with this is that I have not met or talked to anyone IRL or in this forum or elsewhere on the net who truly is 100% follower of the Bible. Because they either ignore, omit, or change the Scriptures to what they believe it to say. So, really, these people who call themselves "Bible-believing Christians," is not completely accurate. What these people seem to believe is in their own man-made traditions on how read the Bible and interpret it and how to go about, if at all, doing whatever they want to about the sacraments. IMO, this is the example of the man-made traditions warned about in the very Bible they say they totally 100% follow. I would hope people would know that we can't live by a book (especially the way it is used by some as some type of manual). The Christian life is to be experienced, lived through encountering God in worship, the sacraments, prayer, and yes, reading the Holy Scriptures and other edifying material (but not just the Bible without any of the others I mentioned). What is surprising to many because they are taught to think anything that looks Catholic is man-made tradition and therefore wrong, but truly it isn't. As far as we Orthodox (the Catholics can answer as they have) are concerned, we follow everything in the Bible plus what the Apostles taught orally. So, we follow orally and written just as St. Paul told us to.

Truly, Christ commanded baptism and the eucharist. This is not an option but a command from Him.

Christianity is based on Christ, but also Holy Tradition, which is a four-legged stool. One cannot have one leg of the stool and expect to have it stand on its own.

From what I have observed, our brother LLOJ probably comes closest to "solo scriptura" (his term) than almost anyone else here at CF. Would you not agree?

 

[bbbbbbb]

this thread was not made by "Vatican Christians" but by someone calling the Vaticans beliefs false
I do not use the KJV bible because it was translated by someone outside my Church and has foot notes by theologians who are also outside my Church, since you are not part of my Church i have no argument for you not using the KJV
It is great that you preach the Bible, my favorite are Psalms and Job and Song of Songs and Ecclesiasties and Tobit and the Gospel according to Luke and the Gospel according to John
I have not read all the Bible yet, I am working though the Prophets now, Ezechiel is really good but I am not done with it yet so I can not say if it will be my favorite

I should be more loving too... your humility is touching
God bless you my brother


If you want to be charitable you could add the Anglicans... I do not add them to the short list but someone could make an argument for it

Being the person who created this thread, I take umbrage with your charaterization of myself as "someone calling the Vaticans beliefs false". Please show me anywhere in this thread that I have done so. I have merely raised the question concerning the iconography of the death of the Virgin in Catholic imagery in light of differences of understanding in the Catholic Church concerning whether or not Mary died prior to her Assumption. The Vatican, to my knowledge, has not made a clear statement on the issue one way or the other.

 

[bbbbbbb]

From an RCC pov it is not a matter of faith as to whether she died or not, only that she was assumed body and soul into Heaven. I think this is also compatible with the Dormition (spelling?).

Are there not theological implications to either position?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by JacktheCatholic From an RCC pov it is not a matter of faith as to whether she died or not, only that she was assumed body and soul into Heaven. I think this is also compatible with the Dormition (spelling?).

Are there not theological implications to either position?

What kind would those be

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Old? That is like saying a book written today about events in 1611 that have never been mentioned to the present time, are valid. If I were to tell you that the Great Fire of London was really the work of space aliens, would you believe me?

The problem with your analogy is that the story of Mary's Assumption has been told for many centuries (since at least 400 AD) and the Church remembers.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Are there not theological implications to either position?

I am sure there are theologians that place importance on it. But the Church does not.

 

[Dorothea]

From what I have observed, our brother LLOJ probably comes closest to "solo scriptura" (his term) than almost anyone else here at CF. Would you not agree?

TBH, I haven't actually followed our dear friend and brother, LLOJ's post that were maybe theological. Has he had many? I've seen his posts in agreement with folks, and also his posting of funny cartoons and such. He doesn't seem to be too involved in theology, and maybe that's the point you're trying to make here.

 

[bbbbbbb]

What kind would those be

As I said in previous posts there are a couple which speak to me -

1. If she did not die, it would be proof positive that she was truly sinless because the wages of sin is death. If she did die (physically) it would mean that she partook of the curse of the fall (death) having partaken of Adam's sin.
2. If she did die, one could argue that her death was vicarious and redemptive in nature, making her co-redemptrix as well as Queen of Heaven.

What do you think of these ideas?