Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Think of what was happening at the time, FK. The Assumption was defined in 1950 - right after World War 2 and during the time frame of the beginning of the Cold War. The philosophies in opposition to the Church at the time was totalitarianism, communism, and facsisism. Each of these taught that man was of little consequence. The Church's teachings from day one taught something else - they taught that man was a dignified creation (unlike what some "reformers" taught). The Church has taught that man is created in the image of God and has a particular destiny in store. Mary is the pioneer of this destiny. Being fully and entirely human and human alone, we can look to her and hold out the hope and belief that we, too, will share in the glory that she shares in today.
This is the reasoning and the timing of the Doctrine of the Assumption. It is the alternate message to what we hear today from our society - even now, where man is merely a cog in the big wheel of society - and if he becomes incapacitated or can no longer produce widgets, he becomes worthless as a cog. He becomes disposable. The Church continues to refute that idea and philosophy with the Doctrine of the Assumption. We believe that the Spirit inspired the Church to define this doctrine at that specific time - to express her beliefs and to refute those of the world.
Regards
Oh, please. I don't think so. One would wonder why the Orthodox hasn't adopted it, if that were the case; or why it took 1500 years to finally agree to it. It's invented. In fact, what you are suggesting is that either the Orthodox or Rome have not been able to correctly decipher doctrine. Considering the fact that the Roman Catholic Church consider things of this nature, coming from the chair of Peter, to be infalible, one would have to conclude the Orthodox is in error.
One of my non-Christian heroes is Socrates and I work really hard at not saying "know" unless I know.
As far as Socrates goes, personally I think he makes a pretty poor role model and anyone who claims to hear "inner voices" I tend to avoid. While you may not "know" what is the status of the "co-redeptix" of Mary, it is apparent it doesn't trouble you whatever the Church decides.
And Joseph??? Didn't he do anything???
It was through Joseph God instructed him to go to Egypt and to tell him when he should return to Israel-not Mary. One would think that if "rearing of Christ" was Mary's responsibility, then God would have communicated it to her. Had Mary been a bit more proactive, she would have had our Lord change the water to wine prior to the wedding, not after running out of wine. Sure she followed Christ around but our Lord equated her to the same level as everyone else and while she was at the cruxifition so were others. Christ didn't give us to her as children; rather He gave her to John to physically look after her.
I doubt if Paul was telling women to shut up in church. Lydia, a very active support of Paul's ministry, was instrumental of forming a church. I think you're reading too much into that.
Paul says Abraham was saved by faith when he believed God. James says Abraham was saved by works 17 years later when he offered up Isaac. When was Abraham actually saved?
Oh, please. I don't think so
What are you suggesting? Can we be clear here?
One would wonder why the Orthodox hasn't adopted it, if that were the case; or why it took 1500 years to finally agree to it.
There are a number of Russian Orthodox Churches dedicated to the Assumption. Check it out. And the Dormition of the Theotokos is a major aspect of Orthodox Spirituality. Celebrations have been occurring since the 6th century, about 1,500 years ago, as I said. So as to the matters of fact in my post, my opinion might be wrong, but it certainly is widely held, whether or not you think so.
In fact, what you are suggesting is that either the Orthodox or Rome have not been able to correctly decipher doctrine.
What you are indicating is that you do not understand how doctrinal statements arise. Mostly they arise in response to questions or controversy, not as an attempt to write a complete compendium of "God, the Universe, and Everything". Evidently there was no outcry for a definitive declaration, so none was made one way or the other.
. Considering the fact that the Roman Catholic Church consider things of this nature, coming from the chair of Peter, to be infalible, one would have to conclude the Orthodox is in error.
Clearly there are differences between us, but the Orthodox, as has been shown by the names they give their churches generally s eem to support the idea that our Lady currently enjoys what all the blessed will enjoy someday. The only disgreement is about whether or not that needs to be declared de fide.
Socrates certainly admitted to a daemon, but he made every effort to avoid claiming to know what he did not know. I think he did pretty well for someone outside the Covenants.
While you may not "know" what is the status of the "co-redeptix" of Mary,
Neither of us knows. The difference is that you claimed to know what you did not know.
it is apparent it doesn't trouble you whatever the Church decides.
I trust the promise of God to guide my Church into Truth. My personal preference is that it not be made de fide. As I have said, I do not think it is radical theology at all, but the term evidently seems to upset those who prefer hyperventilation to thought, and we have an obligation to be concerned for them even though they suggest we are liars and fools.
Harley, I get that you think we're just awful, okay?
the orthodox understanding of the dormition is slightly different if i recall correctly...
Yeah, So I would imagine. It is in a way sad and in a way wonderful that we can agree so deeply right up until we start talking! Since it looks like we're going to get some artillery headed our way on the question, maybe I'll get a chance to hear some Orthodox discourse on it.
St Paul was full of stale, foul, evil air mangling purported Scripture
when he offers something supposedly useful with which to beat Protesty's about the head and shoulders.
But of course, his more substantive challenges to hideous RC and Orthy !!!!TRADITIONS!!!! of men are to be ignored and trashed outright without a 2nd's thought.
Righhhhhht.
Colore me far less than impressed.
project all the exceptions you like onto scripture but don't try to dance around the fact that they contradict with what is plainly written.
i don't think the difference is very major... i beleive we beleive Mary died before the 'assumption'... i'm not clear on the Catholic thoughts on it...
Orthodox thoughts:
Dormition
The Dormition of the Theotokos
The Dormition (Falling Asleep) of the Theotokos is one of the Great Feasts of the Orthodox Church, celebrated on August 15.
The Orthodox feast of the Dormition is very similar to what Roman Catholicism calls the Assumption of Mary. According to Orthodox Tradition, Mary died like all humanity, "falling asleep," so to speak, as the name of the feast indicates. (Roman Catholic theologians are divided on the issue of whether Mary died. Today most would favor an actual death before the Assumption.) The feast is preceded by 14 days of fasting; on these days, either the Great Paraklesis (service of supplication) or the Small Paraklesis is celebrated.
The Apostles were miraculously summoned to this event, and all were present except Thomas when Mary passed from this life. She was then buried.
Thomas arrived a few days later, and desiring to see her one more time, convinced the others to open her tomb. Upon doing so, the Apostles discovered that her body was no longer present. This event is seen as a firstfruits of the resurrection of the faithful that will occur at the Second Coming of Christ. The event is normally called the Dormition, though there are many Orthodox parishes in English-speaking countries with the name Assumption. In Greek, Dormition is Koimisis—falling asleep in death—from which the word cemetery derives.
The dormition of the mother of the Theotokos, the Righteous Anna, is celebrated on July 25.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Dormition
My untutored opinion is that we're agnostics on whether Mary died. To ME the big deal is participation in eschatological fulfillment.
Oh, do you mean . . .
Clearly some BRAZEN RATIOINALIZATIONS are more equal than others.
LOL
ROTFLOL
GTTM
Sigh
"One would wonder why the Orthodox hasn't adopted it, if that were the case; or why it took 1500 years to finally agree to it. It's invented."
Harley, personally I don't know a single Orthodox person or hierarch who does not believe in the bodily Assumption of the Theotokos into heaven after her death. We simply haven't made it a dogma while Rome has. Rome dogmatizes things more than we do, far more actually but that may say more about the Western mindset or the challenges faced by the Western Church than anything else. We have believed in the Assumption for at least 1500 years.
+Paul leaves no room for reading "too much into it." I think kawaii's examples are rather clear. Thanks kawaii for your list (post #11,567).
I will add a few more (I borrowed a random verse generator, he, he):
1 Corinthians 11:5 "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved."
1 Corinthians 11:6 "If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head."
1 Cor 11:8-9 "For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."
1 Cor 11:10 "For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."
1 Corinthians 11:13 "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?"
1 Timothy 2:11 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission."
1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
1 Timothy 2:14 "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."
1 Corinthians 14:34 "women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."
1 Timothy 2:9 "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes."
Titus 2:3-4 "Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children."
Just make sure we don't "read too much into it." Yeah, right!
Maybe one day the Protestants will stop denying what +Paul, or [supposedly] Christ speaking through him, as I am often reminded, is saying about women in Church and women in general. Maybe all the "ministresses" and "pastoresses" will be a thing of the past, and maybe, just maybe, all Christian women will "learn in silence and submission" by asking their husbands at home, and enter God's church covered. That's what the Epistles are saying without "reading too much into it."
And maybe the churches will include these verse in our Sunday readings (as these are never read) to remind women who they are and where they belong and how they should act and dress, according to the Apostle, or rather allegedly Christ, speaking through him.
Let's be brutally honest: these verse are a serious problem (if not embarrassment) for Christianity, especially western Christianity. They are approached and handled about the same way as we approach anthropological evidence of man's development, dinosaur bones, etc. with respect to the story of Genesis: denial.
Just as Galileo was accused of "vehement heresy" by the Catholic Church for his physical proof of the heliocentric system that is contrary to the physics claimed in the Bible (see Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 104:5, and Ecclesiastes 1:5).
When he discovered with his 30X telescipe that the moon had craters, the Church denied it claiming that celestial spheres are perfect because all things in the heavens [sic] are perfect, and that the lunar craters are somehow "superimposed" in his telescope by the devil to make us believe otherwise!
Why not look to Enoch, or Elijah. They are actually written about in Scripture being taken home to the LORD without suffering death? Why the creation of these doctrines that are not found in Scripture?
It's an interesting time line. You began believing in the assumption AFTER the empire had made Roman Catholicism the state religion and After the followers of the cults of Cybelle and Isis had become parts of your church. Isn't it about this time that the celibacy of priests started to become a big issue?
Depends on what you mean by saved...
And by the way, Paul (if you think he wrote Hebrews) also comments on Abraham being saved - at a DIFFERENT point that you list above...
Regards
Because Mary is a type of the Church. The Scriptures, such as Rev 12, make the connection between her and Israel - the Church. Thus, when we see the pioneer go forth, representative of the entire Body, that has more meaning than a prophet or holy man who does not have this connection that Mary has.
Regards
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.