Posted on 09/27/2014 11:05:41 AM PDT by Gamecock
Full Title: THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A Roman Catholic Dogma Originating with Heretics and Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries
The Roman Catholic doctrine of the assumption of Mary teaches that she was assumed body and soul into heaven either without dying or shortly after death. This extraordinary claim was only officially declared to be a dogma of Roman Catholic faith in 1950, though it had been believed by many for hundreds of years. To dispute this doctrine, according to Rome’s teaching, would result in the loss of salvation. The official teaching of the Assumption comes from the decree Munificentissimus Deus by pope Pius XII:
All these proofs and considerations of the holy Fathers and the theologians are based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation. These set the loving Mother of God as it were before our very eyes as most intimately joined to her divine Son and as always sharing His lot. Consequently it seems impossible to think of her, the one who conceived Christ, brought Him forth, nursed Him with her milk, held Him in her arms, and clasped Him to her breast, as being apart from Him in body, even though not in soul, after this earthly life. Since our Redeemer is the Son of Mary, He could not do otherwise, as the perfect observer of God’s law, than to honour, not only His eternal Father, but also His most beloved Mother. And, since it was within His power to grant her this great honour, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that He really acted in this way.
Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.
For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God Who has lavished His special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honour of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare wilfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith...It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul (Munificentissimus Deus, Selected Documenst of Pope Pius XII (Washington: National Catholic Welfare Conference), 38, 40, 44-45, 47).
This is truly an amazing dogma, yet there is no Scriptural proof for it, and even the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).
In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject. Even Roman Catholic historians readily admit this fact:
In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts...Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).
How then did this teaching come to have such prominence in the Church that eventually led it to be declared an issue of dogma in 1950? The first Church father to affirm explicitly the assumption of Mary in the West was Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D. But the basis for his teaching was not the tradition of the Church but his acceptance of an apocryphal Gospel known as the Transitus Beatae Mariae which we first hear of at the end of the fifth century and which was spuriously attributed to Melito of Sardis. There were many versions of this literature which developed over time and which were found throughout the East and West but they all originated from one source. Mariologist, Juniper Carol, gives the following historical summary of the Transitus literature:
An intriguing corpus of literature on the final lot of Mary is formed by the apocryphal Transitus Mariae. The genesis of these accounts is shrouded in history’s mist. They apparently originated before the close of the fifth century, perhaps in Egypt, perhaps in Syria, in consequence of the stimulus given Marian devotion by the definition of the divine Maternity at Ephesus. The period of proliferation is the sixth century. At least a score of Transitus accounts are extant, in Coptic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. Not all are prototypes, for many are simply variations on more ancient models (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 144).
Thus, the Transitus literature is the real source of the teaching of the assumption of Mary and Roman Catholic authorities admit this fact. Juniper Carol, for example, writes: ‘The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’ (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149). Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, likewise affirms these facts when he says:
The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).
Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian:
The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150).
It was partially through these writings that teachers in the East and West began to embrace and promote the teaching. But it still took several centuries for it to become generally accepted. The earliest extant discourse on the feast of the Dormition affirms that the assumption of Mary comes from the East at the end of the seventh and beginning of the eighth century. The Transitus literature is highly significant as the origin of the assumption teaching and it is important that we understand the nature of these writings. The Roman Catholic Church would have us believe that this apocryphal work expressed an existing, common belief among the faithful with respect to Mary and that the Holy Spirit used it to bring more generally to the Church’s awareness the truth of Mary’s assumption. The historical evidence would suggest otherwise. The truth is that, as with the teaching of the immaculate conception, the Roman Church has embraced and is responsible for promoting teachings which originated, not with the faithful, but with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church. History proves that when the Transitus teaching originated the Church regarded it as heresy. In 494 to 496 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree entitled Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis. This decree officially set forth the writings which were considered to be canonical and those which were apocryphal and were to be rejected. He gives a list of apocryphal writings and makes the following statement regarding them:
The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below some which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics (New Testament Apocrypha, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed. (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1991), p. 38).
In the list of apocryphal writings which are to be rejected Gelasius signifies the following work: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus (Pope Gelasius 1, Epistle 42, Migne Series, M.P.L. vol. 59, Col. 162). This specifically means the Transitus writing of the assumption of Mary. At the end of the decree he states that this and all the other listed literature is heretical and that their authors and teachings and all who adhere to them are condemned and placed under eternal anathema which is indissoluble. And he places the Transitus literature in the same category as the heretics and writings of Arius, Simon Magus, Marcion, Apollinaris, Valentinus and Pelagius. These are his comments. I have provided two translations from authoritative sources:
These and the like, what Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Ebion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Bonosus, who suffered from similar error, also Montanus with his detestable followers, Apollinaris, Valentinus the Manichaean, Faustus the African, Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatus, Sabbatius, Calistus, Donatus, Eustasius, Iovianus, Pelagius, Iulianus of ERclanum, Caelestius, Maximian, Priscillian from Spain, Nestorius of Constantinople, Maximus the Cynic, Lampetius,Dioscorus, Eutyches, Peter and the other Peter, of whom one besmirched Alexandria and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his associates, and what also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics and schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but excluded from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with its authors and the adherents of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever (New Testament Apocrypha, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Ed., (Cambridge: James Clark, 1991).
These and [writings] similar to these, which ... all the heresiarchs and their disciples, or the schismatics have taught or written ... we confess have not only been rejected but also banished from the whole Roman and Apostolic Church and with their authors and followers of their authors have been condemned forever under the indissoluble bond of anathema (Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma (London: Herder, 1954), pp. 69-70).
Pope Gelasius explicitly condemns the authors as well as their writings and the teachings which they promote and all who follow them. And significantly, this entire decree and its condemnation was reaffirmed by Pope Hormisdas in the sixth century around A.D. 520. (Migne Vol. 62. Col. 537-542). These facts prove that the early Church viewed the assumption teaching, not as a legitimate expression of the pious belief of the faithful but as a heresy worthy of condemnation. There are those who question the authority of the so-called Gelasian decree on historical grounds saying that it is spuriously attributed to Gelasius. However, the Roman Catholic authorities Denzinger, Charles Joseph Hefele, W. A. Jurgens and the New Catholic Encyclopedia all affirm that the decree derives from Pope Gelasius, and Pope Nicholas I in a letter to the bishops of Gaul (c. 865 A.D.) officially quotes from this decree and attributes its authorship to Gelasius. (See Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma (London: Herder,1954), pp. 66-69; W. A.Jurgens, TheFaith of theEarlyFathers, vol. I (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1970), p. 404; New CatholicEncyclopedia, vol. VII (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 434; Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), vol. IV, pp. 43-44). While the Gelasian decree may be questioned by some, the decree of Pope Hormisdas reaffirming the Gelasian decree in the early sixth century has not been questioned.
Prior to the seventh and eighth centuries there is complete patristic silence on the doctrine of the Assumption. But gradually, through the influence of numerous forgeries which were believed to be genuine, coupled with the misguided enthusiasm of popular devotion, the doctrine gained a foothold in the Church. The Dictionary of Christian Antiquities gives the following history of the doctrine:
In the 3rd of 4th century there was composed a book, embodying the Gnostic and Collyridian traditions as to the death of Mary, called De Transitu Virginis Mariae Liber. This book exists still and may be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima (tom. ii. pt. ii. p. 212)....The Liber Transitu Mariae contains already the whole of the story of the Assumption. But down to the end of the 5th century this story was regarded by the Church as a Gnostic or Collyridian fable, and the Liber de Transitu was condemned as heretical by the Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticus et Apocryphis, attributed to pope Gelasius, A.D. 494. How then did it pass across the borders and establish itself within the church, so as to have a festival appointed to commemorate it? In the following manner:
In the sixth century a great change passed over the sentiments and the theology of the church in reference to the Theotokos—an unintended but very noticeable result of the Nestorian controversies, which in maintaining the true doctrine of the Incarnation incidentally gave strong impulse to what became the worship of Mary. In consequence of this change of sentiment, during the 6th and 7th centuries (or later):1)The Liber de Transitu, though classed by Gelasius with the known productions of heretics came to be attributed by one...to Melito, an orthodox bishop of Sardis, in the 2nd century, and by another to St. John the Apostle.
2) A letter suggesting the possibility of the Assumption was written and attributed to St. Jerome (ad Paulam et Eustochium de Assumptione B. Virginis, Op. tom. v. p. 82, Paris, 1706).
3) A treatise to prove it not impossible was composed and attributed to St. Augustine (Op. tom. vi. p. 1142, ed. Migne).
4) Two sermons supporting the belief were written and attributed to St. Athanasius (Op. tom. ii. pp. 393, 416, ed., Ben. Paris, 1698).
5) An insertion was made in Eusebius’s Chronicle that ‘in the year 48 Mary the Virgin was taken up into heaven, as some wrote that they had had it revealed to them.’Thus the authority of the names of St. John, of Melito, of Athanasius, of Eusebius, of Augustine, of Jerome was obtained for the belief by a series of forgeries readily accepted because in accordance with the sentiment of the day, and the Gnostic legend was attributed to orthodox writers who did not entertain it. But this was not all, for there is the clearest evidence (1) that no one within the church taught it for six centuries, and (2) that those who did first teach it within the church borrowed it directly from the book condemned by pope Gelasius as heretical. For the first person within the church who held and taught it was Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem (if a homily attributed to John Damascene containing a quotation from from ‘the Eutymiac history’...be for the moment considered genuine), who (according to this statement) on Marcian and Pulcheria’s sending to him for information as to St. Mary’s sepulchre, replied to them by narrating a shortened version of the de Transitu legend as ‘a most ancient and true tradition.’ The second person within the church who taught it (or the first, if the homily attributed to John Damascene relating the above tale of Juvenal be spurious, as it almost certainly is) was Gregory of Tours, A.D. 590.
The Abbe Migne points out in a note that ‘what Gregory here relates of the death of the Blessed Virgin and its attendant circumstances he undoubtedly drew...from Pseudo-Melito’s Liber de Transitu B. Mariae, which is classed among apocryphal books by pope Gelasius.’ He adds that this account, with the circumstances related by Gregory, were soon afterwards introduced into the Gallican Liturgy...It is demonstrable that the Gnostic legend passed into the church through Gregory or Juvenal, and so became an accepted tradition within it...Pope Benedict XIV says naively that ‘the most ancient Fathers of the Primitive CHurch are silent as to the bodily assumption of the Blesseed Virgin, but the fathers of the middle and latest ages, both Greeks and Latins, relate it in the distinctest terms’ (De Fest. Assumpt. apud. Migne, Theol. Curs. Compl. tom. xxvi. p. 144, Paris, 1842). It was under the shadow of the names of Gregory of Tours and of these ‘fathers of the middle and latest ages, Greek and Latin,’ that the De Transitu legend became accepted as catholic tradition.
The history, therefore, of the belief which this festival was instituted to commemorate is as follows: It was first taught in the 3rd or 4th century as part of the Gnostic legend of St. Mary’s death, and it was regarded by the church as a Gnostic and Collyridian fable down to the end of the 5th century. It was brought into the church in the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries, partly by a series of successful forgeries, partly by the adoption of the Gnostic legend on part of the accredited teachers, writers, and liturgists. And a festival in commemoration of the event, thus came to be believed, was instituted in the East at the beginning of the 7th, in the West at the beginning of the 9th century (A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, William Smith and Samuel Cheetham, Ed., (Hartford: J.B. Burr, 1880), pp. 1142-1143).
R.P.C. Hanson gives the following summation of the teaching of the Assumption, emphasizing the lack of patristic and Scriptural support for it and affirming that it originated not with the Church but with Gnosticism:
This dogma has no serious connection with the Bible at all, and its defenders scarcely pretend that it has. It cannot honestly be said to have any solid ground in patristic theology either, because it is frist known among Catholic Christians in even its crudest form only at the beginning of the fifth century, and then among Copts in Egypt whose associations with Gnostic heresy are suspiciously strong; indeed it can be shown to be a doctrine which manifestly had its origin among Gnostic heretics. The only argument by which it is defended is that if the Church has at any time believed it and does now believe it, then it must be orthodox, whatever its origins, because the final standard of orthodoxy is what the Church believes. The fact that this belief is presumably supposed to have some basis on historical fact analogous to the belief of all Christians in the resurrection of our Lord makes its registration as a dogma de fide more bewilderingly incomprehensible, for it is wholly devoid of any historical evidence to support it. In short, the latest example of the Roman Catholic theory of doctrinal development appears to be a reductio ad absurdum expressly designed to discredit the whole structure (R.P.C. Hanson, The Bible as a Norm of Faith (University of Durham, 1963), Inaugral Lecture of the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity delivered in the Appleby Lecture Theatre on 12 March, 1963, p. 14).
Pius XII, in his decree in 1950, declared the Assumption teaching to be a dogma revealed by God. But the basis upon which he justifies this assertion is not that of Scripture or patristic testimony but of speculative theology. He concludes that because it seems reasonable and just that God should follow a certain course of action with respect to the person of Mary, and because he has the power, that he has in fact done so. And, therefore, we must believe that he really acted in this way. Tertullian dealt with similar reasoning from certain men in his own day who sought to bolster heretical teachings with the logic that nothing was impossible with God. His words stand as a much needed rebuke to the Roman Church of our day in its misguided teachings about Mary:
But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things, suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it ... It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do...(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Vol. III, Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch. X and XI, p. 605).
Tertullian says that we can know if God has done something by validating it from Scripture. Not to be able to do so invalidates any claim that a teaching has been revealed by God. This comes back again to the patristic principle of sola scriptura, a principle universally adhered to in the eaerly Church. But one which has been repudiated by the Roman Church and which has resulted in its embracing and promoting teachings, such as the assumption of Mary, which were never taught in the early Church and which have no Scriptural backing.
The only grounds the Roman Catholic faithful have for believing in the teaching of the assumption is that a supposedly ‘infallible’ Church declares it. But given the above facts the claim of infallibility is shown to be completely groundless. How can a Church which is supposedly infallible promote teachings which the early Church condemned as heretical? Whereas an early papal decree anathematized those who believed the teaching of an apocryphal Gospel, now papal decrees condemn those who disbelieve it. The conclusion has to be that teachings such as Mary’s assumption are the teachings and traditions of men, not the revelation of God.
It's not up to others to disprove an assertion someone makes. It's up to the person who is making the assertion to back it up with credible enough evidence to prove that it happened.
Otherwise we can get people making all kinds of statements, demanding they be taken at face value with no basis, and they demanding others accept it as truth unless they can prove it never happened.
Wait a minute.........
Obviously you have bought the MSM nonsense about David Koresh.
Do you believe that the women and children that Wesley Clark murdered in the school basement were shooting at the Army?
.
Yeah, and Joseph Smith's gold plates are burried somewhere in upper New York and will be found. Produce them or give up the deceit.
Yeah, and Joseph Smith's gold plates are burried somewhere in upper New York and will be found. Produce them or give up the deceit.
If the work is denounced as heretical, then why is the Catholic church using it to support its doctrine of the assumption of Mary?
Oh, we do. Believe me.
The deceit is in your heart.
How can you say that? What other transcendent Infallible Authority do see in Scripture? Do you see the words of ex cathedra statements as wholly inspired of God and the transcendent Infallible Authority thru the Bible since the giving of the Law? No you cannot.
I only see one question in post 825
It is basically one, but each presupposition can be dealt with as a question.
A better description is that they are stubborn children in need of compassion rather in rebellion against God.
They need compassion because they are wrong, as the preceding statements of the RC argument are correct?
Can you prove it is a tradition of men?
Indeed, since it is not a promise or a testimony of Mary found in Scripture, and Rome teaches it as a tradition, and its absence is contrary to the practice of the Holy Spirit who is care-full to provide such notable events, or promises. And her crowning is contrary to Scripture as no one will be crowned in Heaven till the Lord returns. (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4)
2Th_2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Looks like we're right on schedule then...
But it's not as though people are turning away from Jesus...It's attrition...Generations coming up are turned away from the truth by adherents of Mary worship, Izlamism, higher education which tries to prove that the word of God is old fashioned...
The key is to pick up a bible and see which religions or denominations stick the closest to the words of God...There are getting to be less and less by the day...
Mat_7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Jesus, an itinerant street preacher.
So...to be taken seriously by Catholics he would likely need gaudy robes, a big tall hat, a gilded and gem encrusted staff, a palacial mansion with golden bathroom fixtures and a huge archive of art treasures.
I’ll pass all of that up and accept His mercy and salvation, thank you!
I have pinged some of the Catholics on this thread so they may know there indeed is a refutation to the OP, and indeed if I may say so now however briefly, it is for reasons as this (that again, it's demonstrated a Protestant objection to Catholic dogma is at least not as airtight as it seems) that there are some Catholics (myself chief among them) who express disdain, and outright frustration at such tiresome displays as this. So while those among you are technically correct when you say "if all you have are silly pictures or tantrums in retort, you have nothing", the same goes both ways, and also, from my perspective as a Catholic also, it's entirely understandable. For indeed, how many times do we Catholics need to demonstrate that these "new" objections of Protestants are at the very least, debatable themselves, if not an outright foolish waste of time?
Now, to answer you metmom, the posts I was referring to were #2 by Steelfish and #52 by ronnietherocket. The latter to which still no one has offered a reply. But I will say this, with all due respect to those two gentlemen (or ladies? sorry I don't know) their posts don't address all the points in the OP, so it can be reasonably said I "misspoke" when I said "The OP is false, as has already been demonstrated in the first 200 posts".
To be clear, Steelfish and ronnietherocket raise some good points in their posts, and I think they should be taken in consideration. But I'm not going to argue their posts "demonstrate" the "OP is false".
For that, I will offer this. Briefly, that work addresses virtually all the points raised by Webster specifically in the section titled "Objections to the Assumption" there. I will attempt to summarize further:
Point 1. If Protestants use the " Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis" to show the " Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito" as false, they have a problem. This is because the same Decretal contains a list of Canonical Books, some of which Protestants reject, namely the book of Tobit and the two books of Maccabees. So if Protestants here (or anywhere) accept the Decretal of Pope Gelasius as a true document of history, then they are forced to admit that as early as the 5th century the Church (Christian) accepted those books as Canonical, and therefore the Protestants of the "Reformation" erred when they removed them from the Bible.
Point 2. The same Decretal is not as accepted as Webster implies at least not in totality. See here. The main point of that brief commentary is that the first and second sections of the Decretal (which contain the list of canonical books) are most likely truly promulgated by Pope Gelasius, but the remaining sections are spurious. I am confident the sources Webster then goes on to claim support the entire Decretal, most likely agree with this (that the list of canonical books are genuine, but the remainder of the Decretal is spurious).
Point 3. Even if the entirety of the Papal Decretal is genuine, it does not do what Webster claims, or "Condemn the teaching of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary". All it does is outlaw the reading/propigation of a particular apocryphal work that also describes (admittedly in great detail) the Assumption of Mary. But this does not mean that the belief itself was condemned! It only means that particular work that mentions it was condemned (again, if that list isn't spurious which is debatable). See the link I posted earlier for more on this
Point 4. Earlier, Webster quotes from "Mariology" (volume 2) "An intriguing corpus of literature on the final lot of Mary is formed by the apocryphal Transitus Mariae. The genesis of these accounts is shrouded in history’s mist. They apparently originated before the close of the fifth century, perhaps in Egypt, perhaps in Syria, in consequence of the stimulus given Marian devotion by the definition of the divine Maternity at Ephesus. The period of proliferation is the sixth century. At least a score of Transitus accounts are extant, in Coptic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. Not all are prototypes, for many are simply variations on more ancient models (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 144)." and "The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150)."
This is quote mining, to be blunt (I can't think of a better term right now). For as it's pointed out, "Juniper Carol does not state that. Fr. Burghardt, who wrote the articles on the western and eastern Fathers, does not use (sic) the words "complete fabrication" or even "fabrication." What he says is although they are "valueless" as strict history, they are nonetheless "significant," and "priceless" both historically and theologically. These Transitus accounts reveal a genuine Christian insight that it was not fitting that the body of Mary should see corruption. This argument is the same made on theological lines by the Fathers, Catholic theologians, and Pius XII in his definition of the Assumption.
That is, Fr. Burghardt is not saying the texts are completely valueless, rather as a source of strict history (such as whether or not she was assumed before death or after), they are not to be relied. But as a source of an indication of the Tradition extant at the time, they are "priceless". Indeed, they show, even if "apocryphal" that Christians at that time period had a problem to face, which was: "We know Mary isn't with us bodily anymore, but we also know her grave was empty, and that no relics exist of her. So what happened to her body?" Thus they, like Pius the XIIth, concluded (reasonably) that she must have been Assumed into Heaven.
That's what Burghhardt is saying. Not that the text is valueless as a source of any knowledge, but that it can't be determined from that text (or any early text) how precisely the Assumption took place. To claim otherwise, as Webster does, is again, selectively quote mining/taking the words of Carol/Burghhardt out of context. Indeed, if anyone even just "googles" "Mariology - Juniper Carol" one can see he himself has no problem (and indeed vigorously supports the dogma of the Assumption, IN that very work! So it's absolutely preposterous to claim that somehow Fr. Carol somehow doubts the dogma. See here: Mary's Death and Bodily Assumption, from the exact same work ("Mariology") edited by Juniper Carol.
Now I'm sure some in the list I have pinged will find some error on my part to harp on (instead of reading the sources I've provided with an objective desire for truth) OR, will find some other "reason" to disagree with what was quoted, to "prove" the original post by William Webster posted by Gamecock. If that's the case, fine. I don't see how that's possible given what I've posted now, but I don't have time to go 9 rounds if indeed someone does wish to take things that far. Perhaps another Catholic will take the mantle from here, or really, I would encourage this thread to die the death its predestined to take, which is (as I said before) yet another anti-Catholic bash fest, signifying nothing.
You can't refute nonsense with undocumented nonsense. You have no more documentation then they do. You ought to know by now that undocumented speculation isn't the domain of followers of the Messiah of God' word. He said "it is written". Produce " it is written or be considered just another apostate.
I’d humbly ask that you all pray that my tinnitus be taken away by our Lord and God Jesus Christ.
You got it. Prayers up for a swift and full recovery through Jesus Christ!
Dude, there's a guy who moved from Australia to join Koresh and escaped and survived who now goes around speaking. He's now 70 some years old and says he is waiting for the ressurection of Koresh. The guys name is Clive Doyle. That's not the MSM.
Amen and Amen!!
The same way they respond to modern day street preachers...Interesting that most street preachers are Baptist, just like their namesake...
You have all heard this phrase before that “there are as many Baptists as there are flavors of Baskin-Robbins ice cream. “
Jesus was no “itinerant preacher.” That’s a pedantic phrase reserved for Al Sharptons, David Goreshs; and Jeremiah Wrights and the likes of Billy Graham, Rev. Schuller, Joel Osteens, TD Jakes.
Jesus preached in the Temple with Divine authority. Hence the passage from Scripture:
“And when he was come into the temple, there came to him, as he was teaching, the chief priests and ancients of the people, saying: By what authority dost thou these things? and who hath given thee this authority? “ Douay-Rheims Bible
Fundamentalists are basically anti-intellectual because they are unable to defend the whole of Scriptural text and interpretation by the very sources the early Church Fathers used to select what books constituted the Bible. That is, the received oral tradition, ritual, practice, and Divine infallibility that empowered Peter and his successors to preach THE Word of God. Not different flavors. This power was absolute: “Whatsoever thou shall bind on earth…” as it was enduring until the end of time “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against thee.”
This is why Fundamentalists cannot explain how great theological minds have through studied debate and inquiry, assiduous research, and analysis conducted through the centuries confirmed the irrevocability of Petrine authority. Fundamentalists in many respects are not unlike Muslims interpreters of the Quran, where faith and reason are incompatible. To Catholics, faith and reason are braided together. Therein lies the difference!
Don’t for example expect any Fundamentalist to take the time to read such brilliant encyclicals like those of Benedict XVI: dubbed by The London Economist as the “theological Einstein of our times” whose works fill up the libraries of theological departments in every major university that has a School of Theology or at Harvard or Yale’s Divinity School. Fundamentalist minds are either incapable of grasping a higher level of thinking or as is usually the case they are, like Muslims, impermeably closed to acute reasoning and analysis: Hence why the crack open the Bible and toss out snippets of scripture.
You have all heard this phrase before that “there are as many Baptists as there are flavors of Baskin-Robbins ice cream. “
Jesus was no “itinerant preacher.” That’s a pedantic phrase reserved for Al Sharptons, David Goreshs; and Jeremiah Wrights and the likes of Billy Graham, Rev. Schuller, Joel Osteens, TD Jakes.
Jesus preached in the Temple with Divine authority. Hence the passage from Scripture:
“And when he was come into the temple, there came to him, as he was teaching, the chief priests and ancients of the people, saying: By what authority dost thou these things? and who hath given thee this authority? “ Douay-Rheims Bible
Fundamentalists are basically anti-intellectual because they are unable to defend the whole of Scriptural text and interpretation by the very sources the early Church Fathers used to select what books constituted the Bible. That is, the received oral tradition, ritual, practice, and Divine infallibility that empowered Peter and his successors to preach THE Word of God. Not different flavors. This power was absolute: “Whatsoever thou shall bind on earth…” as it was enduring until the end of time “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against thee.”
This is why Fundamentalists cannot explain how great theological minds have through studied debate and inquiry, assiduous research, and analysis conducted through the centuries confirmed the irrevocability of Petrine authority. Fundamentalists in many respects are not unlike Muslims interpreters of the Quran, where faith and reason are incompatible. To Catholics, faith and reason are braided together. Therein lies the difference!
Don’t for example expect any Fundamentalist to take the time to read such brilliant encyclicals like those of Benedict XVI: dubbed by The London Economist as the “theological Einstein of our times” whose works fill up the libraries of theological departments in every major university that has a School of Theology or at Harvard or Yale’s Divinity School. Fundamentalist minds are either incapable of grasping a higher level of thinking or as is usually the case they are, like Muslims, impermeably closed to acute reasoning and analysis: Hence why the crack open the Bible and toss out snippets of scripture.
Dude, there’s a guy who moved from Australia to join Koresh and escaped and survived who now goes around speaking. He’s now 70 some years old and says he is waiting for the ressurection of Koresh. The guys name is Clive Doyle. That’s not the MSM.
I saw an interview of a couple from Australia who joined Koresh. Koresh declared a rule that he was the only male allowed to have sex. He had sex with all the females (including preteen girls) including this poor idiot’s wife.
That doesn’t sound like a “Christian” church and it’s certainly not “Protestant” nor “Baptist.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.