Assumption of Mary/Dormition of the Mother of God

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Seems to me that Bob has shot down your argument my friend!

Don't know that until he answers my question. I don't belive the church has equal authority as scripture. The best the church can do is interpret scripture. But the Catholic Church does not limit itself in this regard and is fine about creating entirely new doctrines (without the presence of new revelation).

 

[Lost4words]

Don't know that until he answers my question. I don't belive the church has equal authority as scripture. The best the church can do is interpret scripture. But the Catholic Church does not limit itself in this regard and is fine about creating entirely new doctrines (without the presence of new revelation).

Thats your own personal view my friend. You only see what 'you' want to see. That is plainly obvious from your posts.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Thats your own personal view my friend. You only see what 'you' want to see. That is plainly obvious from your posts.

What I said is true.

 

[Lost4words]

What I said is true.

I guess it is, in your eyes my friend.

God bless you.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

I remember once hearing or reading something that went along the lines of "Jesus was given to the world and Mary was given to the church." The notion was that the early Christians was stories about Mary weren't shared among those outside of the ekklesia.

Just remember Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox all share a history of Mary holding a special place within our collective doctrine.

 

[RileyG]

According to ancient tradition, after the Virgin Mary died and was buried, St. Thomas went to her tomb to put flowers on it. He noticed the tomb was empty. Her body and soul was taken up to heaven. The womb that bore God could not undergo corruption.

 

[The Liturgist]

After the crucifixion Mary was handed over to the Apostle John to care for her. John eventually ended up at Ephesus. Mary likely ended up there as well, and that is the place she likely died.

I think also vice verse, at least to some extent. Given his longevity I suspect that St. John the Beloved Disciple was not only the youngest of the Apostles, but younger than most of us think when he first became a disciple, perhaps a young teenager, my guess being he may have been as young as 15 or 16 at the Crucifixion. This young age might also explain why our Lord saw fit to ensure he of all the Twelve was the one who was not martyred, because of the young age at which he got into it and the multiple bereavements he experienced as a result, including that of his brother St. James the Great, who was the first to be martyred. Now martyrdom is a crown of glory, but it is one obtained with extreme suffering, and in many respects St. John I think can be regarded as a proto-monastic, especially given the work he engaged in when exiled to Patmos, which is now the Orthodox monastery of St. John, of which Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, was a member.

 

[The Liturgist]

I remember once hearing or reading something that went along the lines of "Jesus was given to the world and Mary was given to the church." The notion was that the early Christians was stories about Mary weren't shared among those outside of the ekklesia.

Just remember Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox all share a history of Mary holding a special place within our collective doctrine.

And Anglicans of the High Church tradition have also sought to join with us in the veneration of the Theotokos, in which I welcome them enthusiastically. Also even the Assyrians despite Nestorius venerate St. Mary extensively. Antidicomarianism was a heresy to them as well as to the Orthodox.

 

[The Liturgist]

I really appreciate the honesty. Thank you.

In addition to the historical references which @FenderTL5 did supply, which @prodromos could not recall, there is also the interesting fact that of the major historical saints of the New Testament the only one who we lack any physical relics of, in the form of anatomical relics, is the Theotokos, which given her importance is extraordinary, and to me indicates she was obviously taken up into Heaven at the occasion of her death, as the early church taught.

I do appreciate however that even if you are incredulous on this, you do correctly reject Nestorianism and venerate St. Mary as the Mother of God, which shows a dedication on your part to theological veracity, so you have my respect for that.

As I see it, St. Mary points us to Christ, and the Assumption / Dormition helps point us towards Christ as well, at least for those of Orthodox faith.

God bless you.

 

[BBAS 64]

No one knows anything about this.

When did she die (if she did)? Where did this take place (if it did)?

That's all. Discuss.

Good day, Jesse

Noted RC Scholar on these types of issues notes:

Raymond E. Brown: Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.

The Roman Catholic denomination claims to have insights on this question, seems a bit Gnostic to me.

The name it claim it fallacies of this denomination are not very convening as they lack any objective evidence.

Because a member of that Church has decided ( in error) that the denomination has the Authority it claims for it's self, they must accept what they say. Seeing by your own admission you are not a member then the point is moot.



In Him,

Bill

 

[RileyG]

Don't know that until he answers my question. I don't belive the church has equal authority as scripture. The best the church can do is interpret scripture. But the Catholic Church does not limit itself in this regard and is fine about creating entirely new doctrines (without the presence of new revelation).

Where did Scripture come from? Who canonized it?

 

[RileyG]

Good day, Jesse

Noted RC Scholar on these types of issues notes:

Raymond E. Brown: Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.

The Roman Catholic denomination claims to have insights on this question, seems a bit Gnostic to me.

The name it claim it fallacies of this denomination are not very convening as they lack any objective evidence.

Because a member of that Church has decided ( in error) that the denomination has the Authority it claims for it's self, they must accept what they say. Seeing by your own admission you are not a member then the point is moot.



In Him,

Bill

What did the early Church believe about scripture? What did the early Church teach about the Assumption of the Mother of God? Many early traditions were later written down outside of scripture by the early Church Fathers.

There's nothing "Gnostic" about it, which the RCC vehemently condemns.

Yours in Christ,

Riley

 

[Valletta]

Good day, Jesse

Noted RC Scholar on these types of issues notes:

Raymond E. Brown: Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.

The Roman Catholic denomination claims to have insights on this question, seems a bit Gnostic to me.

The name it claim it fallacies of this denomination are not very convening as they lack any objective evidence.

Because a member of that Church has decided ( in error) that the denomination has the Authority it claims for it's self, they must accept what they say. Seeing by your own admission you are not a member then the point is moot.



In Him,

Bill

Raymond Brown drew severe criticism from many knowledgeable Catholics, particularly for his new theology which cast doubt upon many of the articles of Catholic faith. The pope stated the doctrine of the Assumption came from the faith that existed in the early Church. It is reflected in the liturgy (which dates back to the early Church) and in early homilies. For example, those of Theotekonos and Modestus of Jerusalem.

 

[BBAS 64]

Raymond Brown drew severe criticism from many knowledgeable Catholics, particularly for his new theology which cast doubt upon many of the articles of Catholic faith. The pope stated the doctrine of the Assumption came from the faith that existed in the early Church. It is reflected in the liturgy (which dates back to the early Church) and in early homilies. For example, those of Theotekonos and Modestus of Jerusalem.

Good day, Valletta

I will stick with Raymond Brown here when it comes to knowledge of his denomination given His position., I am sure many members of his denomination were unhappy with him not sure that changes anything.

"Raymond E. Brown, S.S., born in 1928 and ordained in 1953, has been recognized by universities in the U.S.A. and Europe by some twenty honorary doctoral degrees. He was appointed by Pope Paul VI to the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, and with church approval he has served for many years on the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Time magazine once described him as 'probably the premier Catholic scripture scholar in the U.S.,' and he is the only person to have served as president of all three of these distinguished societies: the Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Society of New Testament Studies."

Further:

The book from which the above citation is taken bears the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church, meaning that it's supposed to be free of moral and doctrinal error. The RCC never removed him from his office. Instead, he was continually approved by Popes and given high positions within the denomination.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Valletta]

Good day, Valletta

I will stick with Raymond Brown here when it comes to knowledge of his denomination given His position., I am sure many members of his denomination were unhappy with him not sure that changes anything.

"Raymond E. Brown, S.S., born in 1928 and ordained in 1953, has been recognized by universities in the U.S.A. and Europe by some twenty honorary doctoral degrees. He was appointed by Pope Paul VI to the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, and with church approval he has served for many years on the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Time magazine once described him as 'probably the premier Catholic scripture scholar in the U.S.,' and he is the only person to have served as president of all three of these distinguished societies: the Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Society of New Testament Studies."

Further:

The book from which the above citation is taken bears the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church, meaning that it's supposed to be free of moral and doctrinal error. The RCC never removed him from his office. Instead, he was continually approved by Popes and given high positions within the denomination.

In Him,

Bill

'Father' Raymond Brown (1928-1998) was a Roman Catholic "Bible scholar" who spent many years undermining the New Testament, something most Catholics have never forgiven him for.

Father Raymond E. Brown; The Modern Catholic Heretic - Christian Teaching

The Catholic Scholar Who Rejected Much of the New TestamentWho Was This Man Father Raymond Edward Brown (1928 - 1998), was an American Roman Catholic priest

www.wilmingtonfavs.com

To my knowledge Brown was never a member of any denomination. I am not a follower of Brown, I am sticking with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Luther is quoted as having once said, "Mary is in heaven, this we know; how she got there, we do not know."

That's, more-or-less, the position I take.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Valletta]

It's interesting, the pope polled the bishops of the Church and there was an overwhelming majority of bishops who believed Mary was assumed into Heaven. So it is said that the pope simply declared the belief of the Catholic Church.

 

[BBAS 64]

It's interesting, the pope polled the bishops of the Church and there was an overwhelming majority of bishops who believed Mary was assumed into Heaven. So it is said that the pope simply declared the belief of the Catholic Church.

Good day, Valleta

So....

Now I get it the name it claim it fallacy of the pope is the result of his use of the appeal to the majority fallacy... still not very convincing.

IN Him,

Bill