Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
THANKS.
Maybe I'll try and order it. As though my to read shelf didn't have a long list already! lOL.
Ahhhh, so your flawed history is true history
and Protesty's is silly rumors.
I get it.
/sar
I should check and see what Will and Ariel Durant had to say on the topic.
"Maybe those hwo are more convinced then I could produce some patristic comments on the assumption, if there are any."
The only Fathers to directly address the Assumption were +John of Damascus and +Andrew of Crete, othet than of course, chanting the Apolytikia, Troparia and Kontakia of the Feast of the Dormition.
Really, does it show any of the first hand accounts of the First Eccumenical Council?
I mean thousands of folks attended from England to Modern Day Iran, and you can bet they had a lot to say about it.
None of them suggest Constantine presided over the council nor that he was a professed Christian.
Further Roman records indicate when the pagan alter was removed from the Senate and by whom. Does you book mention that?
How about who the chief proponents of arianism were militarily?
"From the definition of doctrine and dogma, and confirmed by the above posts, I believe what I stated is correct; the Orthodox have not yet made the Assumption doctrine (e.g. dogma) while Rome has."
Generally, Orthodoxy does make a distinction between "dogma" and "doctrine". Dogmas are always officially defined by a council and are the sort of thing that is binding on the whole Church and the failure to ascribe to such a dogma places one outside The Church. Doctrine may well be a sine qua non of membership in The Church but has not been defined as dogma by a council, a belief held "quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus". In Orthodoxy, Eucharistic theology is an example. The Assumption is technically theologoumennon, a pious belif which may be held, but if one doesn't hold it, one isn't "out" of The Church. The truth is that among the Orthodox it is pretty much a universal belief.
It can be confusing applying the usual Western definitions of dogma and doctrine to Eastern theology. Bottom line, the Latin dogma of the Assumption is a dogmatic expression of an Eastern theologoumennon. I suppose that had the East ever had to confront any doubt about the Assumption on any scale, given its near universal acceptance, it might well have dogmatized it at a council. We just never had that problem, unlike what Rome faced with Protestantism. We generally don't dogmatize things unless there is a widespread heresy to deal with.
Κακομοιρος Ο Αγιος Ιωσεφ! .
The Roman Catholic Church didn't exist then. The Church of Rome did, as did various other dioceses and Patriarchates. The fullness of The Church was found in each of those dioceses. The concept of a "state church" didn't exist then either, as Kawaii pointed out. Your Western Protestant skirts are showing, WF! :)
"Clearly, millions of people have been exceedingly misled on that score."
More likely billions; in fact, virtually every Christian until some time after the Reformation and the overwhelming number of them to this day. Quix, do you believe that Christ was lying to the Apostles when he said that he would send the HS to guide The Church, or is it that the HS took 1600 years to finally get around to convincing a relative few Christian of the error of the previous centuries on the subject of the Theotokos?
A pitiful task, to convert Calvinists.
Εχεις δικαιον!
No, the independent mind will see that our works are not sufficient to earn our salvation. They will see that it was Christ's love for us that saves. I don't think there's any way they would come up with the several categories of works, each useful to interpret its own passages, that your hierarchy has devised. Sola Fide and POTS are both scriptural and work together. I don't think the independent reader arrives at the quid pro quo mentality.
The very fact that the Protestants need to "painstakingly detail" their invention points to it not naturally arising from the scripture.
We only need to "detail" the explanation to those who have already opted against the obvious. The independent reader would not be in that group.
Christ left no scripture of His own, his instruction to the Apostles was to teach and baptize, as if they were Him.
This statement speaks for itself and highlights a great difference in mindset.
The Christian scripture lacks for most part the prophetic tone; much of it is written for private consumption.
I would agree that would be the only way to arrive at many Catholic conclusions. However, such a view also sets up a class system among believers and guarantees that the "workers are few". I believe the scriptures are meant to be inclusionary instead of exclusionary.
There is no scipture that would say that the scripture alone is sufficient for the discovery of all the truth necessary for salvation.
What truth(s) are lacking in scripture for salvation? This would make scripture a mere accessory to the uninspired words of men.
There is no scripture that would support the perspicuity of the scripture, but there are passages warning against just such assumption.
There is plenty of scripture, but perhaps none that you would accept. :
Deut 30:11-14 : 11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
From this are we to conclude that "some" of God's commandments are perspicuous, yet others are completely indecipherable, except to the men who claim they are the only ones who know the "real" truth?
2 Cor 1:13-14 : 13 For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, 14 as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Your view also contradicts 2 Tim. 3, since it would not be the scripture which was profitable, but only the on-high interpretation of it by the hierarchy. The scripture by itself would be virtually useless.
The verses I posted are unambiguous. Their message towards women is clear: ask your husband if you don't understand, learn in silence and submission, man is your head, come to church covered and keep quiet.
These are words you and all "Bible-believing Christians" consider the word of God. Yet no one really treats them as such, churches avoid reading them, and church-going women ignore them.
Yes and amen!
Thx.
I'm just tired out.
My point is that why would you not declare it a doctrine if everyone believes it to be so?Why bother to declare it a doctrine if everybody believes it? I'm serious. If I got a telegram from God saying t hat every time I said,"I declare and define," people were going to have to work around it for a long, long time, I'd avoid saying it as much as possible. I just got home from a class about the last things. It's amazing how little doctrine we have on all the apocalyptic stuff: Jesus will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and we don't know when, and it's not good to try to figure it out. That's our end times doctrine.
Why would the eastern church not declare it while the Roman Church does?
Ask them. Kolo is saying they just don't do that stuff that much. My unresearched understanding is that We did it because there was a popular movement requestin a declaration.
I bet if a bunch of orthodox people started saying it wasn't true, then you'd see some declarin' goin' on 'roun' here.
Entre nous what troubles me is these visionaires saying that Mary says if we don't declare this or that by tea time next Saturday, Muslims will take over Yankee Stadium. Fortunately I don't think that's going to cut a lot of ice with Benedict XVI
I'm too zonked to check it out, but what I recall you're saying was that somebody "knew" that the curch was close to the declaration about co-redemptrix. I know there's agitation, I just don't know how we know it's close to happening.
Wow, do I disagree with you about Ginger Rogers! But I like Gene Keely better theneither of them.I'm simply saying that the co-redeptix is similar to the Assumption in that it was never viewed as a doctrine. I guess where the real disconnect is is that I just odn'[t get what you mean by "viewed as a doctrine".
I know my church has a rep for, as someone said, "nano-managing", but I just don't see it.
I see this vast chaotic body and a lot of unwaverng firmness on some points and wide open' "whatever's" on other points. And as far as the laity are concerned there's a lot of (too much?) patience with heterodox views. So my imagination is that evenif there were any Popes who did not believe in the assumption, they wouldn't feel a need to "correct it", they just let it be. And those who did believe would be happy that a lot of Catholics in all orders agreed with them.
I know J2P2 takes Fatima very seriously, and I'm inclined to so so only because of my deep respect, even love, for that man. But I don't think there's any official sho' 'nuff, "you have to believe Fatima was real or you're toast," declaration ever. This is what happens when codeine hits fatigue. I regret any bad temper I showed earlier if any. Okay. Now:My point (not worry) is that if this was consistently viewed in the Church as a fundamental principle of faith, should both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church accept it as doctrine (dogma)?
"this" is Co redemptrix, or any similar thing or what?
Okay, here's the problem. When you talk of the RCC or the EO "accepting x as doctrine" I get all confused. There's almost a different doctrinal epistemology for the two bodies, so that we're much more prepared to "declare and define" (and we seem to face much more need or receive many more requests to do so) that the EO's do.;
But again, even the great Trinitarian and Christological issues were only "defined" because there was serious controversy. I suspect that only if there is serious controversy about the redemptrix business will there be a definition.
Is any contact happening here?
There were always small groups here and there within and outside the Roman umbrella who had not bowed their knees to baal, so to speak. God has always had His own ways of protecting and preserving and nurturing a remnant.
AMEN BRO.
THX.
The verses I posted are unambiguous. Their message towards women is clear: ask your husband if you don't understand, learn in silence and submission, man is your head, come to church covered and keep quiet.
Oh, do you mean . . .
Such as:
Clearly some BRAZEN RATIOINALIZATIONS are more equal than others.
CLEARLY unambiguous is in the eye of the Rubber Bible; Rubber dictionary; Rubber history holder.
LOL
ROTFLOL
GTTM
Perseverating hogwash is probably worse than perseverating a lot of other things.
Point of fact: actually, quite a number of Protty denominations are amazingly strict and strident on the most strict and absurd interpretations of that "unambiguous" sternness toward women in the church.
But, given the brazen declarations of "unfactual" 'hysterical' events . . . I'm not surprised that current facts about Protties are wholesale mangled to utter falsehood, too.
Sigh
For me to agree or disagree with you, I must know YOUR definition of "being saved", since it is within that context that Paul and James speak. I never said the two writers meant something different.
Hebrews only talks about Abraham's faith and it was at the time when Paul mentions it in Romans.
Perhaps you need a refresher...
By faith he that is called Abraham, obeyed to go out into a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he abode in the land, dwelling in cottages, with Isaac and Jacob, the co-heirs of the same promise. Heb 11:8-9
Looks like Abraham was doing something to me - it is not just about his faith but about his faith in action. Sounds amazingly similar to what James wrote in James 2... Also, I would like to point out that this is a different point in Abraham's life then Romans!
Regards
As I have probably told you before, the Bible is not an all-inclusive history book. A lot happened in the world that is not recorded in the Sacred Scripture and a lot was recorded in a spiritual sense. Those Jews reading the Old Testament in Paul's day said the same thing you do today... "It isn't in Scriptures". "Where does it say that the Messiah is God"? "Where does it say the Messiah will die on a cross"? "Where does it say that circumcision will be done away with"? (see Acts 15).
Guess what the Church's argument was?
Using your argument destroys a lot of what you happen to believe in, but may not even be aware of the implications. Do you believe in Trinity? Can you prove it from Scriptures alone? Don't bother - it is a rhetorical question that will be answered in the "no".
Enoch and Elijah are OT charecters that have little relation to the Church of the New Covenant. I see Mary in heaven in Chapter 12 of Revelation. I see this same "woman" as the figure of the Church AND of Mary.
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.