A Question for Catholics

[Valletta]

The church existed, yes, but not Roman Catholicism.

Indeed some of the rites, such as the Latin or "Roman" rite, occurred later much due to physical separations. But the Catholic Church did exist:
"they devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers (Acts 2:42). The Catholic mass then, since, and today has the same characteristics.

 

[concretecamper]

Can you show me where in the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Catholic Churches it says that?

Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome accept Trent. Trent says:

"If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema."

That's all I'm saying.

 

[The Liturgist]

Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome accept Trent. Trent says:

"If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema."

That's all I'm saying.

The books in question are, however, found in the historic Greek bibles on which the medieval editions of the Vulgate were based in terms of content.

Additionally, the Council of Trent also mandated the Tridentine mass as a replacement for all liturgies without a 200 year provenance, so many traditional Catholics have argued coherently that the RCC at present is in violation of Trent, and they are probably right.

After all, your church now allows Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrians to partake of the Eucharist, if out of range of one of their own priests, and allows Catholics to receive sacraments from Orthodox and Assyrian clergy.* Such a scenario does not appear to have been envisaged by the Tridentine council.

*Practically speaking, this mainly impacts relations between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church, Syro Malabar Catholic Church and other Catholic churches in Iraq, Iran and India, since most Oriental Orthodox and all Eastern Orthodox clergy will require Catholics in communion with Rome to convert, usually by Chrismation, before allowing them to partake of the Eucharist, whereas the Assyrians will allow anyone who believes in the Nicene Creed and the Real Presence to receive Communion in their parishes.

 

[The Liturgist]

Indeed the rites, such as the Latin or "Roman" rite, occurred some time later much due to physical separations.

All evidence suggests that liturgical diversification began in the first century, while the Apostles were still alive, since the Syriac Aramaic speaking churches established by St. Thomas the Apostle and Saints Addai and Mari of the Seventy in Syria, Mesopotamia and India (where he was martyred in 53 AD, in Kerala, probably at least a decade before the martyrdom of St. Peter and Paul) did not initially have access in their native tongue to the Greek language Gospels being composed by the Four Evangelists.

However, it is true that the liturgy of the pre-schism Roman Church was not translated into Latin until the second century under the initiative of St. Victor, whose main accomplishments as the Roman bishop were the translation of the liturgy and the first Latin Bible, the Vetus Latina (which the liturgy still quotes as it is more elegant than the Vulgate - compare Gloria in Excelsis Deo with the Vulgate’s Gloria in Altissimus Deo).

 

[boughtwithaprice]

And you claim I have an attitude. Good grief.

You still avoid the issue. It was your own words that said it would be a waste of time, not mine.
It is difficult to waste time, yet Our Lord commands us to do it. Love your enemies, do good to those that persecute you, return not evil for evil, the first will be last and the last will be first, esteem all others as better than yourself.
All of that seems absurd to the natural mind, yet those are our orders

I will grant you that my flesh is worthy of contempt. I do not wish to aggrandize myself

You claim to be an orthodox Christian. If that claim is true, then you know the first act of a Christian is self denial. If any man come after me, let him first deny himself, take up his cross and follow in my footsteps. Sound familiar?

I am giving you the opportunity to act as the orthodox Christian whom you purport to be.
Your whole argument with me has been one of self preservation, not self denial

This thread is about our mother Mary. She is our advocate with Christ, as Psalm 45 says she is at His right hand. How does it look to our mother, when two children cannot see beyond themselves and obey the Lord whom they claim to follow?

 

[Valletta]

I won’t speak for Roman Catholics, but in Orthodoxy, Tradition has the Bible at its center, and then radiates outward through the Ecumenical Council and the writings of the Fathers, but the most definitive source of Orthodox doctrine and Sacred Tradition comes from the liturgy itself. One can glean a fair amount from the liturgical texts, which I can help you access, although to really truly appreciate it, one should attend an Orthodox church in person, since there are many details that will not be obvious from the texts and the rubrics, some of which can also be obtained by viewing Orthodox liturgies on YouTube, and I can also link you to some of this material if desired.

If you want a more in depth look at Orthodox-specific views on the subject of the Theotokos and her perpetual virginity, I would recommend Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, as translated by Fr. Seraphim Rose, among other works, and I would be happy to assist you in accessing this material.

I am here to help. I might come across as prickly when it comes to defending Orthodox doctrine, but I have had the pleasure of interacting with you on ChristianForums for some years now, and I do regard you as a friend, and I am prepared to assist you in learning about Orthodoxy.

There may be a difference in definition, with the deposit of the Catholic faith being spoken of as being in two distinct parts--Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Scripture are the books of the Bible chosen by the Church that were allowed to be read at mass. Those books of the Bible are sometimes referred to as liturgical books.

 

[prodromos]

You still avoid the issue. It was your own words that said it would be a waste of time, not mine.
It is difficult to waste time, yet Our Lord commands us to do it. Love your enemies, do good to those that persecute you, return not evil for evil, the first will be last and the last will be first, esteem all others as better than yourself.
All of that seems absurd to the natural mind, yet those are our orders

I will grant you that my flesh is worthy of contempt. I do not wish to aggrandize myself

You claim to be an orthodox Christian. If that claim is true, then you know the first act of a Christian is self denial. If any man come after me, let him first deny himself, take up his cross and follow in my footsteps. Sound familiar?

I am giving you the opportunity to act as the orthodox Christian whom you purport to be.
Your whole argument with me has been one of self preservation, not self denial

This thread is about our mother Mary. She is our advocate with Christ, as Psalm 45 says she is at His right hand. How does it look to our mother, when two children cannot see beyond themselves and obey the Lord whom they claim to follow?

In the early 7th century the Church in Rome taught definitively that Mary died when Pope Sergius I established the Feast of the Dormition of Mary in the liturgical calendar on the 15th of August. The same was taught throughout the Church.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Today, in the Catholic Church, it is now acceptable to believe that Mary did not die, but was assumed bodily into heaven without dying. That is a change in doctrine. The Catholic Church now teaches something contrary to what it originally taught.

 

[Valletta]

In the early 7th century the Church in Rome taught definitively that Mary died when Pope Sergius I established the Feast of the Dormition of Mary in the liturgical calendar on the 15th of August. The same was taught throughout the Church.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Today, in the Catholic Church, it is now acceptable to believe that Mary did not die, but was assumed bodily into heaven without dying. That is a change in doctrine. The Catholic Church now teaches something contrary to what it originally taught.

The words of Pope Sergius I caused a debate among Catholic theologians. Did Pope Sergius definitively say she died? It was settled by a later pope, the answer was that Pope Sergius did not definitively say Mary died.

 

[prodromos]

The words of Pope Sergius I caused a debate among Catholic theologians. Did Pope Sergius definitively say she died? It was settled by a later pope, the answer was that Pope Sergius did not definitively say Mary died.

What complete and utter nonsense.

 

[Valletta]

What complete and utter nonsense.

"2. Having completed the course of her earthly life: Due to the dispute over the fact of Our Blessed Lady's death, the question of the precise scope of the doctrine of the Assumption was likewise a matter of dispute among theologians prior to November 1, 1950. Some maintained that the object of this privilege is the glorious resurrection of the Blessed Virgin, presupposing, therefore, the fact of her death.4 This opinion was based upon the reasoning that in theological investigation we must not separate those truths which are inseparable in Tradition, the Liturgy, and the pious belief of the faithful. This opinion took for granted that the death, glorious resurrection, and bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin were taught as inseparable truths in Tradition and were always believed to be such by the faithful. Other theologians, on the contrary, maintained that the doctrine of the Assumption has within its scope only the glorious Assumption of Mary, body and soul into heaven, whether she died or not.5

The fact of Mary's death and subsequent resurrection is uncertain. We cannot say, therefore, that they are included within the scope of the definition of Pope Pius XII.6 For a Pope defines only what is certain. And should it be established later beyond shadow of doubt that Mary actually died and subsequently rose again before her sacred body saw corruption, this new discovery would have no bearing whatever upon the scope of the definition in the Munificentissimus Deus."

Library : Mary's Death and Bodily Assumption

Mary's Death and Bodily Assumption This article covers the meaning of the dogma of the Assumption, the Assumptionistic Movement, the Magisterial Teaching and belief of the Fathers of the Church.

www.catholicculture.org

 

[tall73]

This thread is about our mother Mary.

Then please stick to that topic. You both can personal message each other to resolve other issues, so the thread doesn't get off topic.

 

[David Lamb]

This thread is about our mother Mary. She is our advocate with Christ, as Psalm 45 says she is at His right hand. How does it look to our mother, when two children cannot see beyond themselves and obey the Lord whom they claim to follow?

This thread is not about my mother. Mary was the mother of my Saviour, not my mother. Psalm 45 isn't about Mary, either. I wonder where you get that idea? Psalm 45:9 says:

“Kings’ daughters [are] among Your honorable women; At Your right hand stands the queen in gold from Ophir.” (Ps 45:9 NKJV)

Mary is not mentioned. In the sense of being descended from King David, she could loosely be called a king's daughter, but there seems nothing to indicate that Mary is meant here.

 

[prodromos]

"2. Having completed the course of her earthly life: Due to the dispute over the fact of Our Blessed Lady's death, the question of the precise scope of the doctrine of the Assumption was likewise a matter of dispute among theologians prior to November 1, 1950. Some maintained that the object of this privilege is the glorious resurrection of the Blessed Virgin, presupposing, therefore, the fact of her death.4 This opinion was based upon the reasoning that in theological investigation we must not separate those truths which are inseparable in Tradition, the Liturgy, and the pious belief of the faithful. This opinion took for granted that the death, glorious resurrection, and bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin were taught as inseparable truths in Tradition and were always believed to be such by the faithful. Other theologians, on the contrary, maintained that the doctrine of the Assumption has within its scope only the glorious Assumption of Mary, body and soul into heaven, whether she died or not.5

The fact of Mary's death and subsequent resurrection is uncertain. We cannot say, therefore, that they are included within the scope of the definition of Pope Pius XII.6 For a Pope defines only what is certain. And should it be established later beyond shadow of doubt that Mary actually died and subsequently rose again before her sacred body saw corruption, this new discovery would have no bearing whatever upon the scope of the definition in the Munificentissimus Deus."

Library : Mary's Death and Bodily Assumption

Mary's Death and Bodily Assumption This article covers the meaning of the dogma of the Assumption, the Assumptionistic Movement, the Magisterial Teaching and belief of the Fathers of the Church.

www.catholicculture.org

Where is the support in the above for your claim that Pope Sergius I did not definitively say Mary died. The above is how you responded to me stating your claim was nonsense, yet there is nothing stating otherwise in the link you posted.

 

[Valletta]

Where is the support in the above for your claim that Pope Sergius I did not definitively say Mary died. The above is how you responded to me stating your claim was nonsense, yet there is nothing stating otherwise in the link you posted.

The original claim is yours, not mine. (So too was the crack: "What complete and utter nonsense.") You stated:

In the early 7th century the Church in Rome taught definitively that Mary died when Pope Sergius I established the Feast of the Dormition of Mary in the liturgical calendar on the 15th of August. The same was taught throughout the Church.

The author of the book I linked to stated "due to the dispute over the fact of Our Blessed Lady's death." a fact is being disputed by Catholics, it is not considered dogma. That Pope Sergius I "probably," as the author states, established the Feast of the Dormition obviously is not sufficient to prove the proposition of some that You know what that's because Mary died. You have not presented any evidence besides your statement that the pope established the feast day in order to support your claim that such a teaching became the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[prodromos]

The original claim is yours, not mine. (So too was the crack: "What complete and utter nonsense.") You stated:

The author of the book I linked to stated "due to the dispute over the fact of Our Blessed Lady's death." a fact is being disputed by Catholics, it is not considered dogma. That Pope Sergius I "probably," as the author states, established the Feast of the Dormition obviously is not sufficient to prove the proposition of some that You know what that's because Mary died. You have not presented any evidence besides your statement that the pope established the feast day in order to support your claim that such a teaching became the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

So when the Pope establishes feast days in the liturgical calendar of the Church, it doesn't necessarily follow that what the feast day celebrates is actually true? So you may celebrate various Saints days, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they are actually Saints? This is a shocking revelation!
There is no dispute that Pope Sergius I established the Feast of the Dormition of Mary in Rome in the early 7th century, and it stood for more than a century before it was extended to a week by another Pope and then renamed the feast of the Assumption of Mary.

Liturgical Year : Activities : The Feast of the Assumption Customs and Traditions

A chief provider and curator of Catholic information on the web since 1996. Our editorial voice, always faithful to the teachings of the Church, assists and inspires Catholic clergy and laity.

www.catholicculture.org

 

[Valletta]

So when the Pope establishes feast days in the liturgical calendar of the Church, it doesn't necessarily follow that what the feast day celebrates is actually true? So you may celebrate various Saints days, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they are actually Saints? This is a shocking revelation!
There is no dispute that Pope Sergius I established the Feast of the Dormition of Mary in Rome in the early 7th century, and it stood for more than a century before it was extended to a week by another Pope and then renamed the feast of the Assumption of Mary.

Liturgical Year : Activities : The Feast of the Assumption Customs and Traditions

A chief provider and curator of Catholic information on the web since 1996. Our editorial voice, always faithful to the teachings of the Church, assists and inspires Catholic clergy and laity.

www.catholicculture.org

A pope has not spoken ex cathedra since 1950, it is a rather rare event. I don't think you should be ridiculing the internal decisions of other religions. What God's Word has revealed to His Church is determined in a thoughtful, deliberative, and prayerful process.

 

[The Liturgist]

A pope has not spoken ex cathedra since 1950, it is a rather rare event. I don't think you should be ridiculing the internal decisions of other religions. What God's Word has revealed to His Church is determined in a thoughtful, deliberative, and prayerful process.

The Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church were undivided during the events which our mutual friend @prodromos is referring to, and I and many others regard our churches as comprising one religion, Christianity, divided by schism, as opposed to being two separate religions. Additionally I do not see that prodromos was ridiculing you at all, but was rather shocked by the idea that a feast could exist for something not defined dogmatically.

While it is true that there have been only two ex cathedra statements made under Papal Infallibility since Vatican I, furthermore, it seems to me to be more complex with regards to statements made before Vatican I. In general, the addition of feasts that have a dogmatic signigance seems like it would be ex-cathedra, and frankly, from the perspective of the Orthodox, who are allowed to receive communion in Catholic churches and vice versa (and I know of at least one Syriac Orthodox parish in the Oriental Orthodox communion that will communicate Catholics), the idea that you could have a feast which has prayers that contain dogmatic statements, without that dogma being official church doctrine, is bewildering. I suspect Anglicans would also be confused by it, and any other denomination that follows the idea of lex orandi, lex credendi.

My understanding by the way, when it comes to this specific controversy, was always that our glorious lady Theotokos and ever Virgin Mary was taken up at the end of her life, which indicates either death or imminent death as opposed to vitality, but I can see how these words could be interpreted as meaning “in the last act of her Earthly life.”

What I have no doubt we can all agree on is that Our Lady is alive in Heaven where she was taken up bodily, and is in the company of St. Elias, St. Moses and most likely St. Enoch, among others.

 

[The Liturgist]

This thread is not about my mother.

Many Christians interpret the adoption of St. John the beloved Disciple in his Gospel account, based on how it is written, as applying to all disciples of Christ, so that for all of us, Our Glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary is a second adoptive mother, who loves us and prays for us to Christ, who is both our supreme judge as Christ Pantocrator, and our Mediator and Intercessor, which is very fortunate for us in terms of our salvation.

 

[prodromos]

A pope has not spoken ex cathedra since 1950, it is a rather rare event.

That is a topic for another thread. It's the parable of the talents, except that this time it was the one given seven talents who buried them in the ground.

 

[David Lamb]

Many Christians interpret the adoption of St. John the beloved Disciple in his Gospel account, based on how it is written, as applying to all disciples of Christ, so that for all of us, Our Glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary is a second adoptive mother, who loves us and prays for us to Christ, who is both our supreme judge as Christ Pantocrator, and our Mediator and Intercessor, which is very fortunate for us in terms of our salvation.

If Christ is our Mediator and Intercessor, as the bible says He is, why do we need Mary to pray for us to Him? We have no example or teaching anywhere in the New Testament of Christians either praying or being taught to pray, to Mary.