Mariolatry?

The Liturgist said:

Not my words. You are overstating what I said for dramatic effect and claiming I drew a conclusion which I did not.

Click to expand...

Then please, do not let me put words in your mouth. Feel free to go ahead and show scripture proof. I wait in great anticipation.

jas3 said:

This is what's known as moving the goalposts. You were originally saying that the Dormition was inauthentic because it was attested to from the third century, when you thought the Council of Nicaea was held. Now that your error has been pointed out, you've changed your argument to say that there's not a "specific date" when the tradition was "accepted," which is absurd in itself.

Oh, but it's too late for you to pivot to latching on to the "4th-5th century" line, because you clearly were claiming (and bolded and highlighted for me) that the Dormition was one of those no-good third century traditions.
I am curious if you are able or willing to answer any of his questions from post #420. Do you know how many western bishops were at the council? More importantly, if you see the Council of Nicaea as a damaging influence on Christianity, do you reject the Nicene Creed?

Click to expand...

There is also the fact that my statements in post 395 and 400 are being misrepresented.

The Liturgist said:

Now you’re putting words in my mouth. I said in post 395 the event was not recorded in surviving scripture. It is scripturally supported, however, for example, by the Magnificat and other texts, and by the example of what happened to the Holy Prophets St. Elias and St. Enoch and the body of St. Moses.

I specifically rejected the idea that the Magnifcat was unscriptural in post 400.

Click to expand...

The Magnificat is not scripture. The Magnificat is named after its first word in the 4th century Vulgate Bible, based on Luke 1:46–55, and continues to be widely used to date by Roman Catholics, Anglicans and the Eastern Orthodox.[

When? There seems to be a commonality here between the third fourth and fifth century, as I have mentioned repeatedly.

This is the time period where the church was becoming westernized. Your sources themselves attest to the fact that they are not canon, they are not scripture, nor were they in the early church. And this is where I bid you a fond farewell, because this is going nowhere fast

I'm still not clear on what the accusation of the church being "westernized" at the time of Nicaea means.

hislegacy said:

The Magnificat is not scripture.

Click to expand...

Yes it is. Luke 1:46-1:55

hislegacy said:

Your own reference place it in the third or fourth or fifth century.

Golly, what have I been saying?

Click to expand...

Protestantism originated in the sixteenth century. The Assumption/Dormition of the Blessed Mary is believed to have occurred around thirteen hundred years prior to the advent of Protestantism.

There's evidence of the dormition pre-Nicene. The Hieromartyr Dionysius the Areopagite wrote about Her “Falling-Asleep” in the 1st century. The ascension or assumption of Mary is in the works of Meliton, Bishop of Sardis in the 2nd century.
Those 1st and 2nd century accounts are consistent with the Ante-Nicene Fathers The Book of John Concerning the Falling Asleep of Mary. (linkage to CCEL ANF08. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Ageby Philip Schaff)

George95 said:

Is it because it is not mentioned in Scripture?

Click to expand...

Note that I did not state the Dormition was unsupportable in either post 382, 395 or 399. Indeed in post 399 I expressly stated it was not unscriptural. And furthermore I have also stated that the canticle in the Gospel According to Luke known as the Magnificat, which is one of the three Evangelical Canticles, or songs, contained in the Gospel According to Luke, is a strong basis for accepting the Dormition narrative, since the inspired Gospel text has the Theotokos declaring “All nations shall call me blessed”, and her translation into Heaven when she fell asleep in the Lord makes sense in that context, and also given the literal holiness of her person, which by her own choice was set apart by God for the Incarnation, and she remains the only woman to have given birth while a virgin, without having engaged in human reproduction with a man.

Xeno.of.athens said:

The Assumption of Mary is a significant belief in Christian tradition. Let’s explore its history and origins:

1. Archaeological Evidence:
   • Archaeology has revealed two tombs associated with Mary—one in Jerusalem and another in Ephesus. However, what’s remarkable is that neither tomb contains her body or relics. This absence aligns with the doctrine of the Assumption, which asserts that Mary was taken up bodily into heaven 1.
2. Early Writings:
   • The earliest printed reference to Mary’s Assumption dates back to the fourth century. A document titled “The Falling Asleep of the Holy Mother of God” alludes to this belief.
   • In the East (both Catholic and Orthodox), it’s known as the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos (the falling asleep of the Mother of God) 2.
3. Celebration:
   • The Solemnity of the Assumption has been celebrated since the 5th century, initially on August 15. In the Byzantine tradition, it’s referred to as her “Dormition.”
   • In Rome, it began to be celebrated in the 7th century. Pope Pius XII officially proclaimed the dogma of Mary’s assumption in 1950 3,4.

References:
1catholic.com, 2learnreligions.com, 3vaticannews.va, 4bing.com. 5ewtn.com

Click to expand...

Is there any Biblical or Historical data to confirm such a claim that Mary was "assumed" into Heaven?

No, and even Rome fully admits this, for they base it on mere "tradition" and fallen human "reason".

GentleGospeller said:

Is there any Biblical or Historical data to confirm such a claim that Mary was "assumed" into Heaven?

No, and even Rome fully admits this, for they base it on mere "tradition" and fallen human "reason".

“I answer that, Nothing is handed down in the canonical Scriptures concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb; indeed, they do not even mention her birth. But as Augustine, in his tractate on the Assumption of the Virgin, argues with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven, and yet Scripture does not relate this...” [Thomas Aquinas; Summa Theologica; Third Part; Question 27; Article I; “I answer that...”] [The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas Second and Revised Edition, 1920 Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province Online Edition Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol. Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii. APPROBATIO ORDINIS Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L. Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Angliæ MARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ ] - SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin (Tertia Pars, Q. 27)​

​

“... At the same time, it must be confessed that we do not possess any authentic documents bearing directly on Mary's post-Pentecostal life. ...” [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; “V”; “The Most Blessed Virgin Mary”; subsection “The Post-pentesoctal Life Of Mary”] - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Virgin Mary​

​

“... Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. ...” [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; “A”; “Assumption Of Mary”; subsection “The Fact Of The Assumption”] - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Assumption of Mary​

​

"St. John Damascene St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem: St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven." [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; “A”; “Assumption Of Mary”; subsection “The Fact Of The Assumption”] - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Assumption of Mary​

​

"The feast of the Assumption Regarding the origin of the feast we are also uncertain. It is more probably the anniversary of the dedication of some church than the actual anniversary of Our Lady's death. That it originated at the time of the Council of Ephesus, or that St. Damasus introduced it in Rome is only a hypothesis. ..." [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; “A”; “Assumption Of Mary”; subsection “The Feast Of The Assumption”] - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Assumption of Mary​

Click to expand...

The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia is not an official Roman Catholic source, and is wildly obsolete. It is also extremely anti-Protestant (even anti-Anglo Catholic and anti-Lutheran), anti-Eastern Orthodox and anti-Oriental Orthodox in its writing, so it in no way respects our opinion as to what the Scripture says that is compatible with the doctrine of the Dormition or Assumption.

Of the churches that have a substantial number of members who believe in the Assumption or Dormition, namely, the Anglican Communion, the Ancient Church of the East and the Assyrian Church of the East, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox and the Roman Catholic, the closest thing to an official source you presented there is the Summa Theologicae, which is regarded as authoritative among Scholastic theologians in the Roman Catholic Church, but which is rejected by all the other groups except a subset of the Anglicans who believe in the Dormition, since most Anglo-Catholics do not subscribe to Thomistic theology but rather adhere to a theology which could be called “Anglo-Patristic” or else to one or more forms of postmodern theology in the case of the Liberal Catholic segment.

But the interesting fact is that of all the documents you cited, none is actually an official document that is binding on all Roman Catholics, and also all of them predate the Ex Cathedral definition of the doctrine by Pope Pius XII (prior to which time, only the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox officially believed in the doctrine of the Assumption or Dormition).

But all of this is irrelevant, since there is no reason to suppose that belief in the Dormition is Mariolatry. After all, we all agree that St. Elias (Elijah) was taken into Heaven bodily, and no one has accused anyone of Eliasotry (idolatrous worship of St. Elias the Prophet). The fact is that God periodically takes people up into Heaven directly, if we count Moses and Enoch, three times in the Old Testament era, and at least once in the New Testament era.

Indeed, one aspect to this conversation I find bitterly ironic is that some of those arguing that the Dormition or Assumption is a form of Mariolatry subscribe to the doctrine of the Rapture as described by certain pre-millenial dispensationalists and dramatized in the film Left Behind, which is simply the same thing on a much larger scale.

George95 said:

Just as you ask for Scripture, please show me the proof that she died.

Click to expand...

There is no scriptural proof that Mary died.
There is no scriptural proof that any of Jesus’ brothers nor sisters died.
There is no proof that Joseph died

The only member of the family where there is scriptural proof of their death is our Lord Jesus. Followed by His glorious resurrection and ascension to glory.

George95 said:

So then if that’s the case, then how can you say she didn’t fall asleep?

Click to expand...

As previously stated.

Mary, while blessed among women was human and not Divine. In the totality of Scripture, Mary and her children are mentioned a handful of times. Not once as anything other than human terms.

As previously shown, the early church fathers writings made no mention of Mary.as anything other than human terms and the “sleep” teaching as shown was not accepted for centuries after.

Where there is no scripture, there no substance.

It is the marked difference between a traditional approach and sola Scriptura. I personally cannot place my faith in what is not “God breathed”. IOW found in the canon of scripture.

I am merely expressing my beliefs and the reasons why. I understand there are differences and that is why I am ONLY in the General Theology section. I look forward to robust debate because it causes growth. I don’t take by beliefs being questioned personally. And I hope others do not also. My sincerest apologies if anyone has.

I respect the traditional theology and that is why I don’t post there.

This forum is an open forum. Not restricted to one specific theological stance. Where Iron can sharpen Iron. Unless I am wrong.

George95 said:

Just as you ask for Scripture, please show me the proof that she died.

Click to expand...

The funny thing about this, given our friend's aversion to sources outside of the literal text of the Bible, is that the sources that would point to her dying are just as extra-Biblical as any source that would say she did not die.

Witness, for instance, the famous homily on the Dormition of the Theotokos given by HH Pope Theodosius of Alexandria (d. 567), the last patriarch to be recognized by Egyptian and Greek alike (though only for his first year by the Greeks, after which he was replaced by a Chalcedonian for the Greeks):

Now Mary the holy Virgin was dwelling in a separate place in Jerusalem, having many virgins in subjection to her, teaching them the purity and the fear of the Lord. We also, the apostles Peter and John, were continuing with her, fulfilling her command and her evangelic laws, whilst she was pilot to us all, like a wise captain. And it came to pass on a day, even the twentieth of Tobi, that we went in unto her again according to custom, being blessed by her. We saw her amazed; and we said to her, What aileth thee to-day, O thou mother of Life, seeing that thy face is thus sad? She answered and said to us, It happened tome this night that when I had ceased making my little office, I slumbered for a little while; and I saw a beautiful youth about thirty years of age, ten thousand times brighter than the sun. I saw you also standing at his right hand, with garments in your hands, stretching them out to me. The young man answered and said to me, O thou woman, doest thou know Me who I am? When I perceived that it was my Son, I said to Him, My Lord, art Thou Jesus my Son and the Son of God in truth? He said to me, I am. I answered and said to Him, My Lord, what is the appointment of these garments, which are in the hands of Thy disciples, stretching them out to me? He said to me, This is the appointment of thy shroud, when thou goest from the body. When He had said these things to me, He hid Himself from me.

Therefore I fear, O my sons, because of those paths, for they are very narrow. I heard Him many times teaching the sons of men, telling them to repent, saying, There is a river of fire set in the path, tossing its waves exceedingly, and its waves are higher than any mountain. All flesh must needs cross over it, whether righteous or sinners. Can I, my sons, be delivered from this?

George95 said:

Anyways, as we were discussing, the veneration of the Mother of God was something known to the Early Church, such as Saint Luke painting the first icon of her.

Click to expand...

Like I said Mary-worshipper.

GentleGospeller said:

Like I said Mary-worshipper.

Click to expand...

St. Luke worshipped the Theotokos by making an icon of her? What?