The Anathemas of Rome

It's not Self and Self Alone, it's what the Holy Spirit allowed Satan to hide for fifteen hundred years. It's really Scripture Alone as the Self chooses to interpret Scripture with no regard to how it's been understood for two thousand years and Faith Alone as Self chooses to define Faith on any given day. As I said, I'll pray for you.

Nope. It is what the Bible says in context. Context is key in understanding the Bible. You begin to take things out of context and then you're making stuff up...ala the RCC.

none of them were ever in full communion with the Catholic Church.

the moment that they were legitimately baptized, they were Catholic....you cannot be baptized anything else.....after you are baptized you may choose to fall away and practice some other denominational teaching, but you are then just a non practicing Catholic....no other way it is possible....Baptism makes you a Catholic.....

they themselves ever heard of such a thing as the Ascension of Mary

Mary did not ascend into Heaven....she was assumed into Heaven (Taken)

Yes, I did use the wrong word.

Ascension was never in a formal sense used or contemplated, in regards to Mary.

Other than that, I am more right about all the rest of that which I wrote, generally speaking, than wrong, though that was a significant slip-up. Too tired? is that my excuse?

I had been thinking on how the various "stories" do much parallel the Ascension of Christ, but of course in most all (but not all versions specifically) there is usually some consideration the spirit drew her upward, or that Jesus himself came for her, as in one, He came to escort her spirit and soul to heaven after she died, and then later the body disappeared.

In other alleged accounts, like the one where she throws off her girdle or belt --- how did that one go again (like ---before somebody got a-hold of that story and cleaned it up to make it less like Mary flying away on the power of her own holiness)?

But I do think there were "dormition" stories of some form, limited to the simple "falling asleep" and nothing more specific beyond that, though possibly having expression of hope for her soul to be taken unto God. If memory serves...

Just a short while back I was reading some research (excerpts from some book online -- I do not at the moment recall the exact title or authors) which focus was tracing the development of the doctrines of Dormition and Assumption -- and I do recall them making the case using very earliest sources known to be available (obviously -- one of the writers had extensive knowledge of Greek & Syrian texts? something like that) that there was *some* form of "Dormition" narrative which had some wide acceptance, but did not include any form of Assumption considerations. Then later came the other which would include the varying ways which she made her "great escape" if you don't mind the attempt at humor for expressing it that way.

Later that was supplanted by those stories or narratives which did. There are (or were) a wide assortment and variety of tales which carried within their details as much significant divergence as they did overlap, with the overlap seen to have likely come from needing to take into account what can be seen in Gospel narratives, and other mentions of Mary.

What was also noted, is that several significantly differing narratives seemed to have sprung up all at once, with a few of them thought to not be related as to having come from another previous tale and then modified, but having separate genesis which then branched and were somewhat modified. and in possibly instances eventually combined.

There is a decided lack of early patristic support for anything much beyond "falling asleep" with even refutation found among those writers of there having been from earliest times more developed detail, which does indicate there was not common belief for concepts such as Assumption, or else there would likely to have been mention, particularly of the one 5th or 6th century account which had Mary witnessed to have been walking around -- three days after she had died. So toss that particular story, eh?

Being that going to heaven is a really big deal theologically speaking, this lack of patristic support does become telling by the lack. How could this have happened -- but not until hundreds of years later began to be much talked about?

Lack of support for many aspects, including the simple (alleged) disappearance of Mary's body from her own grave or place of "repose" (one of the earliest legends utilizes that word "repose'), three days after she died, or in another account a less than well known number also(?) show the writers must have never heard of it -- or again, why did they not make a mention of the event? It sure seems important NOW.

The very body of the mother of Christ...

Something ---anything, whatever it is, known to have occurred to her of all people -- but! no one writes about it for HUNDREDS OF YEARS?

Then when they do, the story is all over the map, ranging from plain and simple, some short time after her death, a quiet disappearance, only noticed when someone looks to see if she is still entombed and --- "she's gone!" -- So where is the early patristic evidence?

Or one of the other extremes of "story" with "magic details", like all the Apostles having been summoned on clouds, but Thomas was late, and a few others themselves needed to be resurrected to attend(!). WOW!

I mean, c'mon. THat story didn't much make the cut? But wait, it did. The "relic" that was the belt that she was said to have tossed to him as she was "Assumed" though in that story she seems to rather "ascend"?.

I can't track of it all...

Show me something solid ---- earlier than around 300 AD concerning Assumption of Mary -- either bodily or no, but more particularly the bodily sort.

Or --stop using the word "Apostolic" in conjunction of all this Assumption + Immaculate Conception hoo-haa.

Looking at what you termed "Orthodox liturgies" is no real help (nor is proof whatsoever) for those liturgies you mentioned -- unless they be dated to before the 4th or 5th centuries -- do not indicate anything other than they grew to incorporate beliefs concerning her, the same as elsewhere, as those began to take hold centuries after Apostolic age, which still leaves usage of the word Apostolic to be misleading at best, in regards to many or most all Marion concerns ---- other than the virgin birth itself.

You do know the Orthodox canNOT trace the liturgies used directly in conjunction with Marion observances to further back than the 9th century or so?

Turning to regard for Marion doctrines more generally, the RCC (among it's more learned theologians) is aware there is lack of patristic support for even the Assumption, not to mention such ideas as Immaculate Conception, which is one reason why there is confession on highest levels in official documents; that when it comes to most of that which could be termed Marionism, the "wider sense of the church" is at some point eventually invoked (like when turning to explain the lack of clear lineage) -- which if that same sense could not be seen in Apostolic times (other than but perhaps by those marginal, and not at all 'Apostolic" themselves, but more like people with active imaginations?) then Apostolic goes right out the window.

That bird has flown, whether you know it or not.

I seriously doubt that it could be coaxed back to the shelf underlying the window it flew out from.

Which is why I objected to the use of the word "Apostolic" in this regard. That word is repeated on various web pages, and though this Mariology stuff does find some source quite far back, but not far enough, missing that by hundreds of years.

I was already politely corrected for using the wrong term.

But thanks anyway.

Do you have anything else to say?

terycarl:

They are baptized yes, so they are related to the Church via Baptism. They have never been received the sacrament of Confirmation or First Communion, so no they have never been in full communion with the Catholic Church. They are in partial communion via baptism yes, full communion, no.

BlueDragon:

I used the term “Apostolic Tradition” which means something passed down. I agree there is nothing that we have written that deals with the issue of Mary’s Assumption in the Church Fathers prior to 300AD. So if you break down the Patristic Period to Apostolic Fathers, pre-Nicene Fathers, and then Post-Nicene, you find the earliest writings around the time of Nicea or just before it [325AD] and most after it.

It is a common historical understanding, at least among Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Scholars and theologians that the last Church Father of the West was Saint Isidore of Seville [died in 636AD] and in the East the last Father was Saint John Damascene in 749AD [who probably wrote the most extensively on the Dormition of Mary].

So I do recognize the most of the theological writing on Mary’s assumption took place in the later period of the Church Fathers [300AD to 749AD], but it still would be part of Apostolic Tradition as it does flow from early theological work regarding Mary in the Church Fathers prior to 300AD where Mary is referred to as the New Eve, Holy Virgin, Blessed Virgin, etc, etc. The only writer in the pre-Nicene period that denied Mary’s perpetual virginity was Tertullian and this was done when he split from Rome and joined the Montanist.

As for why nobody wrote about it, it probably was one of those things that was ultimately a “Mystery”. In this sense, perhaps this was part of God’s providential plan that no early Church could claim the spot where Mary was assumed for theological advantage to use it justify a form of primacy that was not rooted with the Apostles. Mary in sense transcends the Apostles in that she is the model of Christian Hope, Charity and Faith for “all Christians” [this is a Catholic position I am stating here] and in fact, the Cathechism of the Catholic Church does say that the Marian Dimension of the Church in terms of being a model for the 3 theological virtues [Faith, Hope and Love, per Saint Paul] is higher than even the Petrine Dimension, which of course is from the Catholic Position, connected to the Primacy of the Bishop and Church of Rome.

For the record, your post was well written and not polemical and I took it as such. Well done. I am actually a fair guy and like “discussing theology”. I get “ticked off at times” when “some” FR prots, not all, here start the Chick polemics.

"Nope. It is what the Bible says in context."

LOL, riiiiight.

Context minus the portions Luther threw out because he accepted the authority of self-appointed, anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisees rather than the authority of Christ, the Apostles, and fifteen hundred years of accepted Christian teaching as well as other limitations chosen for convience sake.

Sure, context as Self defines context for the convienence of Self at any given moment.

Exactly the sort of "context" that twists the simple, direct, statement of "not by faith alone" into "that's a different kind of faith because otherwise I'd have to be inconvienenced".

Protestantism is and always has been the same lie Eve swallowed. The lie that the individual can rely on their Self and Self Alone rather than submitting to and obeying God.

I'll pray for you

"Nope. It is what the Bible says in context." LOL, riiiiight. Context minus the portions Luther threw out because he accepted the authority of self-appointed, anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisees rather than the authority of Christ, the Apostles, and fifteen hundred years of accepted Christian teaching as well as other limitations chosen for convience sake. Sure, context as Self defines context for the convienence of Self at any given moment. Exactly the sort of "context" that twists the simple, direct, statement of "not by faith alone" into "that's a different kind of faith because otherwise I'd have to be inconvienenced". Protestantism is and always has been the same lie Eve swallowed. The lie that the individual can rely on their Self and Self Alone rather than submitting to and obeying God. I'll pray for you.

And what parts did Luther "throw out"?

Or are you going to claim that he added the words faith alone to the Bible??

What part of Romans did he toss, or of the Gospels, etc.

You made the claim, you gotta back it up.

Not sure what part of John 3:16 you disagree with.

Maybe you don't like this one either:

Romans 10:9 "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved."

Romans 10:13 "for whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved."

or this one

Eph 2:8-9 "for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, that no one should boast."

You will never hear me say one doesn't have to submit to God. Part of that submission is the faith part.

No one needs a priest to explain this. The Bible is clear on these issues; if one just reads it in its proper context.

And what parts did Luther "throw out"?

He threw these parts out of his life.

He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Could you please use normal book, chapter, verse when quoting?

I assumed Luke 10 and Matthew 25 would be very familiar to you. It must be another who wrote the way to avoid the error that Peter wrote of in 2 Peter 3:15 was 2 Tim 2:15. I don’t normally think it necessary to show the book and chapter divisions to the teachers who are supposed to do Deut 11:18 after some fashion but I suppose quoting the human author is good.