Posted on 10/28/2011 6:59:29 AM PDT by markomalley
Is there anything in scripture to the contrary?
You can always proof text without understanding the context or even the original language.
Context. Context. Context. 00ldster
Where does scripture say that it is the only authority? Maybe in John Calvin 12:34
Well, the Jews rejected the Septuagint because it was used by the Christians complete with the canon.
Protestants rejected Maccabees, etc. because they disagreed with their theology. Why not throw out James or Revelation while you are at it?
Luther did in his German bible. All of the early Christians believed in the canonicity of the books of the Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, etc.
Do you think noob is a courteous salutation from anyone with only 15 months on FR?
In any event, whether you post extensively or in bumper sticker format, it will not be read or acknowledged unless it conforms to Protestant orthodoxy, unless to ridicule. I have posted extensively in the last several works what many of the Early Church Father wrote about scripture and, in typical anterograde amnesia manner, it has been ignored.
We must begin with one undeniable fact; the Church Fathers were Catholic. The comprehensive writing by those we consider to be Fathers of the Church closely mirrors the modern Catholic Church on the meaning and role of the Bible, the Church, Tradition, Apostolic Tradition, Salvation, Justification, Penance, the Eucharist, the divinization of man, Purgatory, Prayers for the dead, the Intercession of Saints and the sinlessness of Mary.
Any study of the Fathers reveals that they united three terms that have since been separated and set in opposition by the Reformation, these were Scripture, Tradition, and Church. For the Reformation to destroy the Church it became necessary to destroy Tradition.
To the Early Church Scripture was the rule and norm of faith only when conjoined to the Church and her Tradition. For the Early Church Fathers, like the Church today, it was not an either or proposition, it was an and proposition; Totum in Scriptura, Totum in Traditione: ALL in Sacred Scripture and ALL in Sacred Tradition.
The writings of the Fathers are not some state secret of banned writings. They are available for all to read. Just because a Protestant tells you what they actually meant doesn't make it so and it is so easy to verify I don't know why they bother.
Baloney. What of the Orthodox? All Trent did was reaffirm the list of books that had always been in the Christian Old Testament.
The Orthodox consider these books as inspired and they don’t accept Trent.
Please tell me that’s not your baseline for doctrine. But actually yes there is. For one, if she had died and was taken after death scripture would be incorrect on its account of resurrections. The complete story of Mary after Christ’s death and resurrection is built on myth only.
Rather than trying to prooftext and disprove Catholicism, why don’t you start from scratch and read the fathers for their own merits rather than trying to defend your 16th century novelty.
I did. It was very enlightening. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers
Happy reading.
“But actually yes there is. For one, if she had died and was taken after death scripture would be incorrect on its account of resurrections.”
Does the doctrine or scripture give any account of her death?
“The complete story of Mary after Christ’s death and resurrection is built on myth only.”
I’m not quite sure you understand the doctrine. There is nothing in the doctrine that states that Mary died and was then taken into heaven.
Why do you believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are inspired, or Revelation for that matter?
There isn’t anything intrinsic in them that says they are.
Why not Bartholomew, Thomas, Egyptians, and Mary? If scripture alone is your only authority, what gives you the authority to say that the New Testament canon is correct.
Who decided? Isn’t the canon Tradition?
I Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
Even Paul commended the Bereans for not trusting even what Paul taught but that they checked with the written word to “see if these things were so”.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
If you honestly research the myth surrounding the death of Mary you would indeed find that there were stories of her death and even the burial near Jeruselem, The tomb was then found empty and the assumption was made that she must have been assumed into heaven without corruption. Ironically the length of time between her supposed death and the tomb found empty was three days.
For several centuries in the early Church, there is no mention by the church fathers of the bodily assumption of Mary. Ireneus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose and the others church fathers said nothing about it. Epiphanious in 377 A.D. stated that no one knows Mary’s end.
"But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary's death…for her end no-one knows." (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by Juniper Carol, OFM, Mariology, vol. II, pp. 139-40). The first church author to speak on the assumption, Gregory of Tours, based his teaching on the Transitus.
"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).
But in 459 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree that officially condemned and rejected the Transitus along with several other heretical writings. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this decree in the sixth century. [Webster, W; Marian Dogmas in The Church of Rome at the Bar of History; Banner of Truth Trust, 1995; pp. 81-85.]
So in truth you could say the whole doctrine originated with what the then RC called heresy.
Still, after declaring the writings of anyone prior who proclaimed the assumption of Mary the RCC ultimately accepted the myth and declared it a doctrine but not until the 1950s was it official.
“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” (Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950).
How do you think the Bereans were expected to do this before the Canon of Scripture was completed and even before the Letters of Paul were completely written? Can you think of a single New Testament verse in which a reference to Scripture was something other than a reference to the Old Testament?
“If you honestly research the myth surrounding the death of Mary you would indeed find that there were stories of her death and even the burial near Jeruselem, The tomb was then found empty and the assumption was made that she must have been assumed into heaven without corruption. Ironically the length of time between her supposed death and the tomb found empty was three days.”
And why would this be a myth?
“For several centuries in the early Church, there is no mention by the church fathers of the bodily assumption of Mary. Ireneus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose and the others church fathers said nothing about it. Epiphanious in 377 A.D. stated that no one knows Mary’s end.”
And why would this change?
“But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death…for her end no-one knows.” (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23.
And how is this any different than what we already know, that there is nothing in scripture on her death? This isn’t helping your argument here.
“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).”
Actually, the first to speak of it was the then Bishop of Jerusalem who notes at Chalcedon that her tomb was empty. It’s possible given the history of the church in Jerusalem that when she died that they were no longer sure when or where she was buried. This was uncovered after the Church persecutions and many of the older shrines (including the Nativity), were preserved and set aside.
“Still, after declaring the writings of anyone prior who proclaimed the assumption of Mary the RCC ultimately accepted the myth and declared it a doctrine but not until the 1950s was it official.”
Again, this seems to be a pattern of yours. Pius affirmed in the declaration of her assumption and confirmed to be an official doctrine of the church. As before, it reflected the understanding as it has been for centuries previous.
“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” (Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950).
Again, I asked, where does the doctrine state that she died before being carried up into heaven. Where are these witnesses that you are citing to defend your case?
If you truly want truth you will do the research. If you don’t, nothing I say or show will change your mind.
I have done the research.
That her tomb was empty was reported at the Council of Chalcedon by Juvenal, then bishop of Jerusalem. I am not certain that this fact was known to the church as a whole in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th centuries.
The feast of her assumption has been celebrated even further back than this in Jerusalem, and apparently, what Juvenal reported was well known there.
Any book that you have that says nothing about Juvenal is suspect on this topic, so whatever book you are using isn’t really helpful to this conversation.
That really is laugh out loud funny. Throw out books that the Bereans had as a part of their Scriptures because Luther didn't like those books, ignore the fact that Christ never said a single thing against the existing selection of books that were included in Scriptures at the time, nor did any Apostle, and then laud the Bereans. I don't recall anything about Bereans first selecting what subset they would accept and then searching the Scriptures.
Nevertheless, the earliest evidence of any such belief appears only in the ninth century, in a Syriac manuscript, copied in 874 which reports that Mary accompanied John to Ephesus, where she died and was buried. (Shoemaker S. The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption. Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 75)
There’s evidently a house outside of Ephesus that has a plaque proclaiming it to be the house of Mary.
Pope Pius XII declared it a Holy Place as did Pope John XXIII (it is an important religious site for Muslims too); Wikipedia reports “Pope Paul VI visited the shrine on July 26, 1967, and ‘unofficially’ confirmed its authenticity.”
But irrespective of what location may have been “Mary’s house”, the historical accuracy of the “assumption of Mary”, is at best an assumption that seems to contradict scripture.
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
I can find nothing prior to the 4th century of anything on the Assumption of Mary.
So you refute what Paul said?
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.