Catholic Caucus: Daily Mass Readings, 8-15-02, Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Catholic-Pages.com/New American Bible ^ | 8-15-02 | New American Bible

[patent]

>>>>Well, that didn't turn out like it did in my preview.

I strongly dislike this preview for that reason. They give you these narrow columns and you can't count on it looking the same when you post.

patent

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

The belief had always existed in the Church since the death of the last Apostle in ~100 AD. Both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are taught implicitly through Old Testament typology and explicitly by the Fathers of the Church. Many confuse defining of a doctrine as inventing of a doctrine and that isn't the case. Just as the Church didn't invent the Trinity when it defined the Trinity in 325 AD and didn't invent the Bible in 405 AD when it closed the canon of the Bible.

Why did it take so long for Munificentissimus Deus to be issued? Hard to say but perhaps one reason is the fact that the exact details of the end of the Blessed Virgin Mary's earthly life are not known. Disputes still exist as to whether or not Mary actually died and then was Assumed or if Mary was Assumed as Elijah and Enoch were, without dying.

[Codie]

Thanks.Did you know that White's sister converted to Catholicism?

[Codie]

i>The belief had always existed in the Church since the death of the last Apostle in ~100 AD. Both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are taught implicitly through Old Testament typology and explicitly by the Fathers of the Church. Many confuse defining of a doctrine as inventing of a doctrine and that isn't the case. Just as the Church didn't invent the Trinity when it defined the Trinity in 325 AD and didn't invent the Bible in 405 AD when it closed the canon of the Bible.

I've read the Church Fathers,and I can only agree with them.

Why did it take so long for Munificentissimus Deus to be issued? Hard to say but perhaps one reason is the fact that the exact details of the end of the Blessed Virgin Mary's earthly life are not known. Disputes still exist as to whether or not Mary actually died and then was Assumed or if Mary was Assumed as Elijah and Enoch were, without dying.

The time gap is not a major stumbling block for me. As I said,it was just a curiosity.Thanks for giving me a historical perspective,and not 8 or 9 Bible verses.

[Salvation]

That's the point that's missed, rather deliberately, too.

I tend to agree with you that many Protest-ants do practice selective reading and listening when discussing the Bible. They are always rapt to quote passages out of contest to support a certain premise, but when it comes to the entire discourse of Mary's story they seem to not read and listen with their hearts. My opinion only.

[Salvation]

Check out the commentary in #10. Here the imagery of that text is focused in three ways:
the image represents Mary, the Virgin
the image represent the Church
the image can represent Israel.

I found this a fascinating commentary, since I has also podered the image of Mary fleeing into the desert.

[Salvation]

OH! Thank you for those beautiful pictures!

[Salvation]

And thank you for clarifying those terms that some lurkers (as well as participants) find disturbing!

[Frumanchu]

I'm not sure I'm up to the task of defending my view here. I say this simply because of the nature of Catholic dogma (you are right, NYer...the bulk of Catholic doctrines are as inter-related as an Appalachian coal town) and it ciruity. If I try to debate against Marian doctrine on the basis of Scripture, I am responded to with Tradition. You do not accept Scripture as the sole authority...and I do not accept Tradition as authoritative above Scripture. I'm told that Marian doctrines are implicit in the Scriptures and only the Church has the authority to properly and correctly interpret them. It all comes back to "it is so because the Catholic Church says it is so." Only the Catholic Church can correctly derive from Scripture that only the Catholic Church can correctly derive from Scripture.

Again, I'm not sure I'm up to the task of defending my position when both sides cannot agree on a single authoritative source from which to settle the matter.

[Sock]

Assumpta est Maria in caelum – die XV Augusti

[Salvation]

I simply do not accept her as the Catholic Church does in a mediatory role.

Why not? Maybe you had better re-read the Wedding at Cana story again! Who mediated with Jesus to do something because the bridegroom had run out of wine?

Who did not wish to perform His first miracle there?
And who further asked (prodded) by saying to the servants, "Do whatever He tells you." (Paraphrasing)

Of course, Mary has a mediatory role as you can plainly see in this account. (Or are you denying the Bible here?)

[Salvation]

# 20 is excellent!

[Domestic Church]

"Although Satan has lost this power to act in the world, he still has time left, between the resurrection of our Lord and the end of history, to put obstacles in man's way and frustrate Christ's action. And so he works ever more frenetically, as he sees time run out, in his effort to distance everyone and society itself from the plans and commandments of God. "

Well, we certainly can see this going on with the ongoing crisis and subcommittee documents surfacing.

[Salvation]

The Truth about Mary

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Scripture explicitly tells us that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be followed: 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 1 Peter 1:25. Scripture also tells us that not everything Jesus said or did is recorded: John 21:25. So does one reject Scripture in order to adhere to a man made doctrine, Sola Scriptura, or does one instead accept Scripture as it is written and behave as instructed by Almighty God?

[Cap'n Crunch]

De Maria Numquam Satis!

What a great feast day!

[Desdemona]

"...both sides cannot agree on a single authoritative source from which to settle the matter."

Why does there need to be a single authoritative source? Usually the best answers come from a study of many sources.

[pseudo-justin]

Why was it not proclaimed until the 50's?"

The Dogma of the assumption was not proclaimed until this century, for several reasons. There were numerous theological points to be discussed, points stemming back from over the whole history of Christian thought, and there were numerous scriptures to be taken into account. With so many factors to consider, and the Church being so extremely careful, and so desirous that all opinions be heard, the ordinary teaching of the Church, already received by so many faithful for many centuries, was not promulgated in an extraordinary way until this century.

Those who talk like this view suddenly appeared out of thin air in the 20th century are evidently ignorant of the doctrine's long and respectable history

[Desdemona]

"Those who talk like this view suddenly appeared out of thin air in the 20th century are evidently ignorant of the doctrine's long and respectable history"

Some of us lament, regularly, the wretched state of education in the faith. At one point all things purgatory and Marian were kind of on the outs. It just so happened, I was a victim.

[Salvation]

Especially when one reads the writings of Calvin, Luther and Zwingli concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary.

This is so true, because they all professed profound belief in the Marian doctrine. I will try to find the references that quote Calvin, Luter and Swingli.