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.
Its not about”individual” Catholic instructors. It’s about a Catholic Catechism, and a Catholic Credo recited every day during every mass in every country, in every in every nation, by every people.
The sale of indulgences was a byproduct of the Crusades in the 12th and 13th centuries. Because they risked dying without the benefit of a priest to perform the appropriate ceremonies, Crusaders were promised immediate salvation if they died while fighting to "liberate" the Christian holy city at Jerusalem. Church leaders justified this by arguing that good works earned salvation, and making Jerusalem accessible to Christians was an example of a good work. Over time, Church leaders decided that paying money to support good works was just as good as performing good works, and it evened things up for people who were physically incapable of fighting a Crusade. Over several centuries, the practice expanded, and Church leaders justified it by arguing that they had inherited an unlimited amount of good works from Jesus, and the credit for these good works could be sold to believers in the form of indulgences. In other words, indulgences functioned like "confession insurance" against eternal damnation because, if you purchased an indulgence, then you wouldn't go to hell if you died suddenly or forgot to confess something. In later years, the sale of indulgences spread to include forgiveness for the sins of people who were already dead. That is evident in this passage from a sermon by John Tetzel, the monk who sold indulgences in Germany and inspired Martin Luther's protest in 1517.
You are in my prayers. My prayer and hope is for your healing by the Mighty Hands of Jesus Christ.
God Bless
Oops meant to. Thanks for the catch and ping.
Thanks Chaplain. 24 hours until I am officially retired. 25 years!
Plan a trip to a Catholic university near you. Other than the stone buildings you will be challenged to find much of anything Christian or Catholic.
Liberation Theology is the credo there.
Some appear to deem putting that helmet on as some sort of sin and will go to any lengths to nay-say those who would wield that sword (the only offensive weapon listed in Ephesians 6)
Surely any who claim Christ would be compelled to wonder just what spirit would not want believer's minds protected and would not want believers wielding the ONLY offensive weapon God has given them?
God help us all
Isn't it interesting that non-Catholics are accused of being lazy and having no intellectual gravitas, while those who are thought to epitomize intellectualism are only recognized as possessing that quality IF they have "Poped"? It's snobbishly asserting, "All the really smart people are Roman Catholics.", and, by deduction, nobody smart stays a non-Catholic Christian. Fake challenges are thrown down to identify the "smart" non-Catholics and list their credentials, yet, we already know ahead of time that no matter who we name - and there ARE many such persons - the very fact that they haven't gone Roman Catholic is sufficient proof that they don't qualify! What a scam.
I know the Apostle Paul faced the same prejudice when he contended for the gospel of Jesus Christ. The snooty Jewish religious leaders mocked him even after he listed his pedigree and education. I can only imagine how frustrated he got. After years of dealing with this kind of air of superiority, he finally realized that he needed to know nothing but Jesus and Him crucified. He told the church at Corinth:
All the degrees and accolades of men will not matter one whit if we are not following the truth. Man looks on the outward, God looks on the heart. It is the GOSPEL which is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes. That is what we need to know above everything else. What good is it to possess all knowledge but not have love?
Honestly, "itinerant preacher" brings up wonderful images in my mind. Could you possibly be projecting a bit? You understand that itinerant just mean they had an itinerary, a list of places to go. And they did preach. So there's no factual flaw to the designation.
The “Second Great Awakening” was an American version of this. We have a disparate assortment of individuals with no common credo at the forefront of a movement that mixed a Protestant reformation ideal with political issues like seeking temperance reforms and abolitionists who strived for the downfall of slavery.
Wheats and tares, to be sure. But God knows His own, and many were gathered into the family of Jesus Christ in those days. Only God can give a proper accounting.
As for the so-called political issues, when men and women repent of sin in large numbers, God can heal their land of great evils. Is that a bad thing? It was good to abolish slavery. Just as now we seek to extend those victories into the saving of unborn children. The principle is the same. We valued the slave then and value the unborn child now because they and we are all made in the image of God, and have an intrinsic right to live and be free and to be valued by each other as God values each of us. Would you distain the aid of Baptists in the fight to stop abortion, simply because we do not agree with you on every point? If not, then why complain of the good that was done by repentant men and women of that long past generation?
As for Petrine authority, there is no Scriptural case for it surviving into the Roman See, or even being defined as Rome now defines it. Indeed, there is no credible record of any chain of monarchical control for the first 160 or so years of the Christian church. What was distinctively Catholic didn't manifest itself until many years after the beginning of the Christian era, and when it did, it was schismatic, and is to this day, as this forum demonstrates day in and day out.
Peace,
SR
Interesting that Petrine authority has been discussed, debated, researched, taught and to say nothing of the libraries of books on the subject over a 1000 years, accepted by a constellation of some of the most brilliant thinkers of theology both Catholic, and from Protestant converts, to say nothing of the stellar group of scientists, astronomers, even chief rabbis, who after years of study converted to Catholicism. This does not include the long list of atheists, saints, and martyrs. Yet you flippantly conclude “there is no Scriptural case for it surviving into the Roman See...: So it once existed and suddenly evaporated!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Catholicism
Good thing you don't get to dictate what phrases are used. Calling Jesus or John the Baptist, or Paul, Peter, etc. an "itinerant preacher" is merely speaking accurately. That IS what they were regardless of the negative definition you imagine.
”Protestantism “spawned a cluster of heresies.”
If Protestantism spawned heresy, then you will have to admit that Roman Catholicism spawned a cluster of heresies long before there WAS a Protestantism. Mr. Belloc, I'm sure mentioned that, right? Even the Apostles, in the first century had to contend with them. And how did they do that? By appealing to the Scriptures. It's no different today and even having a magesterium in Rome handing down decrees and dogmas is no guarantee heresy won't continue to pop up. Your church's record on always keeping the orthodox faith is somewhat lacking, not to mention, it readily admits that many doctrines HAVE no ancient witness or Scriptural backing. The battle against heresy IS, after all, a spiritual war and the weapons we use are not carnal.
Our spiritual OFFENSIVE weapon is the Sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (Eph. 6:17). Since the devil is always going to attack the truth, it's no wonder that his emissaries will continue to invent new heresies and try to draw away people from Christ and the truth of the gospel. That will not cease until Christ returns. I question why you spend so much effort to condemn true servants of Jesus Christ by lumping depraved cult leaders together with them. Do you seriously think there is no difference between Billy Graham and Jim Jones or Joseph Smith? I hope you know NOBODY thinks that.
“Posts such as this one of yours, filled with false information and claims, can cause flame wars.”
Filled with false information and claims? Really?
It seems that I was wrong when I claimed that someone hit the abuse button. That’s one. If my post is “filled with false information and claims,” where are the others? That is an extremely hostile and demeaning remark.
The silver lining on that cloud is that now I know.
“He was a fool and a liar!”
James Michener, historian and historical novelist, was a fool and a liar.
I call that pretty bold talk.
You seem to have made up a “group” here in the RF, called the fang and claw protestants and accuse them of turning you in for what, I dunno. You said it was something you said.
Which they did not do.
But apparently you believed your pronouncement so desperately that you played it forward as if it were true by saying:
“It started with *them* being thin-skinned.”
Not true, so wrong “opinions” twice.
And
“To hide this, they immediately started slinging accusations that *others* are being too sensitive.”
Wrong "opinion" again, third time.
There was nothing to hide as your premise has been shown to be false.
Many *others* were being too ‘sensitive’-—thinskinned as you noted my comments in that area with the quote at the top of your post to me:
*“As has been mentioned many times, if you (or any poster) is too thinskinned for the open threads, they should not be on them.”*
What's wrong with that. It sounds like good advice to me?
Then here is your “final analysis”
“...it was not I who brought the moderator in with false accusations of “mind reading.” [well good for you!] It was the fang and claw protestants [already shown to be not an issue, didn't happen] that wanted to ensure that the strongest arguments against them are stifled
What a concept! The posters arguing against the assumption of Mary don't seem to have a problem debating from a very strong scriptural basis. (or lack of scripture as the case may be.) Plus the Protestants and other born again Christians love to hear strong Catholic arguments for their positions. They are few and far between, and always countered quite well...imo.
I haven't seen any strong arguments FOR accepting Mary being assumed except those from non scriptural writings.
Non Catholic Christians don't give those writings the weight of wisdom from God, they (we) use the Bible
The last half of it;
which still stands even in light of the possibility that the other document, the Decretum itself (where the Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus is condemned with hosts of other written works many of them condemned elsewhere) is itself false -- merely a fabrication of sometime in the 6th century, it being seen then as attempt to write post-el facto "decree".
For possible sense of what I mean by the Decretum possibly being itself false, see http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm.
It's just an isolated link on the web, but does have information which could bear upon discussion here, although being that it seems no one else hardly applies this aspect of possibility in this particular area of apologetic -- to whichever extent part V (5) of the Decretum could possibly stand -- then what you said is quite correct.
If the Decretum entirely false --- then no one corrected it even though the Decretum did circulate unchallenged among the Western or Roman Church -- for centuries was it?
Then you need a new seeing eye dog!!!
I've seen no catholic deny this is not true.
How this IS Mary; you've failed to prove.
You said 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.
It is not the "use of" Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis ALONE that "shows" Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito to be false --- for that piece of Pseudo-Melito could be shown to not have come from Melito (thus false) on it's own could it not, but INSTEAD the Decretum [as above] indicates that the Church -- including a Roman Church pope or two(? hehheh, more on that later) -- knew well enough THEN that it was false.
What's that you say? Your point 4) indicates that high probability that Webster's saying "Dogma Originating with Heretics and Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries" isn't accurate for reason that the Decretum itself is a fraud -- in that two popes just maybe didn't sign off on this? That would work towards greatly undermining your points 1) thru 3) and leave the rest of your point 4) just as useful for those who reject the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary for reason it is not Apostolic, or of the early patristic Fathers, for the doctrine is neither of those, as is universally admitted.
Also --regardless of early recognition that this particular Pseudo-Melito be a fake (not honestly sourced from Melito, at all) and there listing of that as among rejected writings -- rejected not as for their "canonical" status, but rejected entirely to be read at all, the inclusion of a list of allegedly canonical works in the same Decretum introduces no problem at all for Protestants as to canonical issues in regards to what came to be known as the deuterocanonicals. That is yet another subject, in a sense, a different "part" (different than part V, which part is that which concerns us here) in the Decretum whether that be a true or false Decretum.
On that score --- it is Catholics whom have the REAL problems, for Melito (the real one, as found through Origen) indicates that the Jews did not accept what Jerome referred to as OT 'Apocrypha' (which works in the era of Council of Trent became known as "deuterocanonicals").
Jerome too of course did not regard the books in question as fully equal-fully canonical to the rest of Jewish religious works which otherwise were accepted by the Jews as being their own 'canon'.
This is important -- for it drives towards just precisely what it was that Christ came to fulfill, both as written as Law, and that testified to by prophets of Israel.
So in other words..don't look now, but Melito just [figuratively] shot your overall general contentions (in points 1) & 2)) in one foot, with Jerome in echo blasting the other foot (so to speak) leaving nothing but stumpy legs for those two points to stand on. I suggest don't move any further, lest further argument along these lines lead to face-plant time when once one again bumps into the 1st century (Jewish historian/explainer to the Greco-Roman world) Flavius Josephus.
As to the contents of points 4) which you raise, it does hinge upon what was "believed at the time" -- or at least what someone wanted others to believe.
If there is clear evidence that the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito itself was not part of an original listing of writings to be avoided, signed off on by Gelasius -- then where oh where is that evidence, other than perhaps lack of evidence for it?
Is there any later correction coming from the Latin Church concerning that part 5 to indicate it was not grouped with other spurious writings? There is not. AND it has been well enough established the Transitus Beatae Mariae itself comes from the 6th century.
fwiw -- Vindiciae epistolarum Sancti Ignatii, Volume 1 By John Pearson if anyone desires to wrestle with the issue further in Latin (as according to John Pearson --somebody anybody please feel free to tell me what Pearson has to say)
Which would also mean that once the Decretum began to circulate around in any of it's forms -- the mistake of the Decretum itself being something of a forgery (even as it contained rejection of yet OTHER forgeries!) was not recognized for a long, long time, and those Decretum documents themselves if fraudulent even if in part -- but taken as truth -- being for a time included within 'teaching magesterium' even if but 'ordinary' magesterium --- leaves a significantly gaping hole in the 'ol "the church has never taught error" theory.
It's not the only 'hole', either, but never mind some others which can pointed to but are usually explained away thru application of canon law type of special pleadings while being shielded from view as much as possible by diversions which end up being as smokescreen.
And through all this "smoke" (where errors can be explained away -- as in claimed to not have been signed off "ex cathedra" etc., even though not everything need be directly subjected to that qualification to be included in "teaching magesterium" when one gets right down to it and the rubber meets the old cobblestone of the roads...) comes doctrines and dogmas concerning "Mary" smuggled in a side door, surely enough signed off on/ratified by later popes and said MUST BE believed --with it altogether based upon the quite shaky footings of FOLK BELIEF.
It does not help to ignore Epiphanius in this either, for in that man's late 4th century efforts against heresy, he did go strongly against the Collyndrians, rebuking them for their titling Mary "Queen of Heaven" and setting out little cakes for her. If he was not rejecting the Queen of Heaven content along with all the rest, then in his own extensive writings of "pious" effusive praise for her -- would not have he included mention that calling her "Queen of Heaven" was a good idea (instead of a bad one)? See also Mary, Mother of God, p.112 & 114
The first mentions of Mary having been taken up into the heavenlies (bodily) comes from yet other early-on Gnostics I believe, though since a great deal of the Gnostic writings were eventually BURNED by those of the generally more 'orthodox' church, leaving the remaining evidences slim -- unfortunately I do not recall at the moment precisely where that sort of talk can be found in reliable enough source, reliable enough to show there were Gnostics who had claimed "bodily" Assumption, rather than discussion of her spirit having been taken up "gone to heaven".
Yet...in the shift from 3rd century era Dormition type of thinking (falling asleep as euphemism for dying) and observation of varying dates for that, there came to be two differing ways Assumption was first spoken of -- one being of spirit, the other bodily, with this shift from Dormition which did not much include a going to heaven seeming to have occurred nearly simultaneously (late 4th into 5th century) in geographical areas far distant from one another.
It is like someone turned on a faucet, and out flowed all this speculative imagining regarding "Mary". From Heaven did this all flow...or was it from somewhere else? Like -- whatever 'spirits' were once Inanna, Isis, and all the rest of those varied iterations of the same Mesopotamian in-origin goddess figure? Looking into what can be known of that, one can find the "tree of life" and much else which is strikingly similar to Adam & Eve, leaving me to wonder if the Inanna type of religious thought but a corruption of the true creation story (as God would have that as framework within eventually would come Son of Promise) re-found by Moses through direct interaction with God the Father on Mt. Sinai. Abram did come from Ur of the Chaldees -- do not forget. God called Abram out of that land of polytheistic legend. Somewhow -- when God spoke to Abram, Abram (who later had his name changed to Abraham) heard and knew that voice to be the One True God. I can relate. It is God Himself who makes the indelible impression which cannot be mistaken for simply one's own thoughts (even though many do make that mistake -- Abram was NOT mistaken, nor was Peter).
Otherwise -- there is at least one proverb (in the book of Proverbs) which is plain enough to see was once in the Mesopotamian religious milieu, along with accounts of the deluge which bear quite strong resemblance to that of Noah.
If there was indeed a bodily Assumption of Mary -- WOW -- why didn't anyone other than Gnostics and heretics talk about it until CENTURIES after is presumed to have occurred? Stop right there and consider that question...
Was God holding out on us, much like Maria de Jesus of Agreda (if I am spelling the right) made claims for in her -- Mystical City of God --. Criminy -- what a torturous read that is. The last time I attempted it, I got about as far as her quoting from yet another pseudo, fraudulent work -- but one which fraudulent nature was not discovered until a decade or so before her joining a convent. The hits just keep coming, people!
Nowhere else in the patristic record prior to and contemporary of Epiphanius is there talk of Assumption for Mary. An "Assumption" like occurrence for Jesus -- YES but in His instance termed Ascension, as is written. For Mary herself? No. No early Church Fathers speak of such a thing.
Speaking of spurious and pseudo, there was yet another late 5th-early 6th century work which included talk of bodily Assumption for Mary, which itself too was FRAUD from it's opening claim that it be of St.John the Theologian reminding me there of the Proto-Evangelium of James, in the hijack of otherwise good names to make spurious claims, telling "stories".
Like I made some mention towards earlier...at each and every point where there is contention among Protestants for aspects of Roman Catholic doctrine and dogma --- once one investigates beyond the usual RC apologetic, there does seem always-always-always fraudulent works involved somewhere which did indeed influence religious thought, and quite often there also exists previous direct refutations of the later developing (and still contentious) doctrines --- and if there not be that but silence instead --- there remains then a decided lack of mention of crucial considerations of things of such theological import and significance --- it is again and again impossible to believe the early Church would have not spoken of them had it known of them and believed in them. The oral tradition argumentative flung out to explain absences of evidence only flies so far...
They sure turned everything else this way and that in discussions. But Mary being Assumed bodily -- and nobody says a word for about as long a time since the first English settlers arrived at what they would call Jamestown? That's a long time for nothing but a wee bit of scattered conjecture, and most of that very late --- until in the 5th century talk of it seems to be everywhere, suddenly all at once. Hmm...what happened in the 4th century which opened the door -- could it be -- insisting upon calling "Mary" "Mother of God" perhaps?
Correlation is not causation, of course. Let us not assume that it be so just when it is convenient paddle of sorts to row against the tide of earliest long centuries of silence as to precise and theologically significant claims --such as bodily Assumption, and here more recently "Immaculate Conception".
If Mary had been taken up into bodily into heaven -- and the Church actually believe it even as a possibility (that did not introduce theological problems they would otherwise prefer to avoid -- like opening the door back open to form of polytheism) then why would Cyril of Alexandria not have included that in argument for calling Mary "Mother of God"? Why would Anthanasius have not included mention? Oh, woops! That could have complicated his own efforts in establishing concepts towards the Trinity -- three Persons -- one "substance", one "essence".
And along comes Mary dop-du-wah???
Say hello to the now ultra-chaste reincarnation of Inanna, Astarte, Ishtar, Isis, all the same goddess, all also Queen of Heaven. All of these sort of considerations, in the end resulting in your claim that the OP be refuted,
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.
possibly refuted only in the very last portion of the last sentence as to two popes having actually either signed or again later directly upheld the decree.
And if proving Webster wrong in that particular sense, IF that -- then only by the most obscure link which I myself brought to this thread BEFORE you did.
Ha. You got nothin'. Or if anything much, not nearly enough for the rest of the major problems still remain, regardless, and the rest of the apologetics world that discusses the Decretum (from BOTH sides of the debate) do not include contemplation the decree itself was itself but a forgery.
Hoo-boy -- but what a can of worms that opens.
They are crawling all over the place, onto somebody who-knows-who having elevated the bishop of Rome over the two other Apostolic Sees (which can be seen as fraudulent in and of itself -- in the claim having originated from "Rome" as it were, and the condition not recognizable in evidence in documents which Rome did not singularly possess --meaning they couldn't jimy around and forge them or change wording without risking getting caught because there were copies of proceedings from previous Councils extant in other bishoprics) to the contents of the forgery itself having been accepted by Rome as 'kosher' for how long? affecting there, how much theological development which can now be seen to have included frauds as part of basis for the "papacy" of Rome, the one bishop over all others idea being a mistake all along, but one which was leveraged and manufactured over centuries time...
The next comment which you made on this thread was just so much more smoke to bookend things...making this complex issue of just Marionism alone even more difficult to focus upon.
First -- in the comment to which to I give reply here, had you not pointed towards two previous comments (#2 and #52, the first a mess, the second not much of anything) as if those needing rebuttal?
Then -- in comment following this to which I reply you trot in Scott Hahn to engage in a bit of assigning of motivations as to why Protestants are gun-shy about Marionism in general, with every Roman Catholic that does indulge themselves in that sort of thing on these pages needing to fully ignore the more pointed criticisms and reasons actually supplied in the first person by "Protestants" as to their motivations.
Smokescreen CITY. I'm here to make sure that sort of thing does not go unchallenged.
I *think* I just blew some of that smoke away, although I fully expect denials, along with complaints I pinged certain persons -- even though those persons were pinged to the same reply to which I am giving reply.
Easy!
Astrology has NOTHING to do with Stars!
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.