Reading I Responsorial Psalm Reading II GospelPosted on 08/15/2002 11:18:49 AM PDT by Salvation
Reading I Responsorial Psalm Reading II GospelReading I
Rv 11:19a; 12:1-6a, 10ab
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun,
with the moon beneath her feet,
and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.
Then another sign appeared in the sky;
it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns,
and on its heads were seven diadems.
Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky
and hurled them down to the earth.
Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth,
to devour her child when she gave birth.
She gave birth to a son, a male child,
destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.
Her child was caught up to God and his throne.
The woman herself fled into the desert
where she had a place prepared by God.
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
"Now have salvation and power come,
and the kingdom of our God
and the authority of his Anointed One."
Responsorial Psalm
Ps 45:10, 11, 12, 16
R. (10bc) The queen stands at your right hand, arrayed in gold.
The queen takes her place at your right hand in gold of Ophir.
R. The queen stands at your right hand, arrayed in gold.
Hear, O daughter, and see; turn your ear,
forget your people and your father's house.
R. The queen stands at your right hand, arrayed in gold.
So shall the king desire your beauty;
for he is your lord.
R. The queen stands at your right hand, arrayed in gold.
They are borne in with gladness and joy;
they enter the palace of the king.
R. The queen stands at your right hand, arrayed in gold.
Reading II
1 Cor 15:20-27
Brothers and sisters:
Christ has been raised from the dead,
the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
For since death came through man,
the resurrection of the dead came also through man.
For just as in Adam all die,
so too in Christ shall all be brought to life,
but each one in proper order:
Christ the firstfruits;
then, at his coming, those who belong to Christ;
then comes the end,
when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father,
when he has destroyed every sovereignty
and every authority and power.
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
The last enemy to be destroyed is death,
for "he subjected everything under his feet."
Gospel
Lk 1:39-56
Mary set out
and traveled to the hill country in haste
to a town of Judah,
where she entered the house of Zechariah
and greeted Elizabeth.
When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting,
the infant leaped in her womb,
and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit,
cried out in a loud voice and said,
"Blessed are you among women,
and blessed is the fruit of your womb.
And how does this happen to me,
that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears,
the infant in my womb leaped for joy.
Blessed are you who believed
that what was spoken to you by the Lord
would be fulfilled."
And Mary said:
"My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;
my spirit rejoices in God my Savior
for he has looked upon his lowly servant.
From this day all generations will call me blessed:
the Almighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his Name.
He has mercy on those who fear him
in every generation.
He has shown the strength of his arm,
and has scattered the proud in their conceit.
He has cast down the mighty from their thrones,
and has lifted up the lowly.
He has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
He has come to the help of his servant Israel
for he has remembered his promise of mercy,
the promise he made to our fathers,
to Abraham and his children for ever."
Mary remained with her about three months
and then returned to her home.
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary Ping!
Please notify me via Freepmail if you would like to be added to or removed from the Alleluia Ping list.
2 -- And how does this happen to me,
that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears,
the infant in my womb leaped for joy.
Blessed are you who believed
that what was spoken to you by the Lord
would be fulfilled."
Two times the Virgin Mary is called Blessed by Elizabeth. I really cannot understand why the Protest-ant churches do not hold Mary, the Mother of our Lord, Jesus Christ, in similar high regard as the Catholics do.
Any insights?
Comments?
| Thursday, August 15, 2002 Meditation Luke 1:39-56 Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord. (Luke 1:45)
Several years ago I went on a Marian pilgrimage to Ireland. During the ten days of visiting shrines, daily Masses in majestic cathedrals and deep green fields, bus rides to breathtaking scenic spots, and beautiful times of prayer camaraderie with fellow pilgrims, “normal” began to be redefined by a deeper experience of God’s presence.
When I arrived home, I returned to the pace of my everyday life. However, the memory of God’s presence never left me. In fact, it became a reminder that just as Mary believed she would experience the fulfillment of God’s promises, so too will we share in those very same promises. We are all pilgrims on the way to the glory that Mary is now experiencing in heaven.
Mary’s words of praise to God in the Magnificat reflect a rhythm of trust and obedience that resulted in a deeper life with the Lord. Pondering these words can help us join that rhythm. Reread verses 51 to 55 and remember the times when God has kept these promises to you. Recall those occasions when you put yourself on a throne of some sort, and God’s goodness in gently “dethroning” you. What about the times he “exalted” you through a sincere compliment from a friend or through an opportunity to serve his people more fully? Just think: In both situations, God was being just as faithful to you as he was to Mary.
Through her unwavering trust in God, Mary shows us the way to heaven. The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that “when the course of her earthly life was completed, [Mary] was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she already shares in the glory of her Son’s Resurrection, anticipating the resurrection of all members of his Body” (CCC, 974). Her life is a constant reminder that we can trust in the Lord’s promise that we too will reign, body and soul, in heaven as beloved children of God.
“All glory and praise to you, loving Father. I know that your promises will be fulfilled in my life and for eternity! I rejoice that you call me to be your own.” |
 |
[19] Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.
The Woman Fleeing from the Dragon
[1] And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; [2] she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery [3] And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. [4] His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; [5] she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, [6] and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days. [10] And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.
Some different words from a different translation (Navarre Bible)
If I'm not mistaken,this is the last of the Marian doctrine to date.Why was it not proclaimed until the 50's?
Commentary:
19. The seer introduces the heavenly temple (the location par excellence of God's presence), paralleling the earlier mention of the temple of Jerusalem (cf. 11:1-2). The opening of the temple and the sight of the Ark of the Covenant show that the messianic era has come to an end and God's work of salvation has been completed. The ark was the symbol of Israel's election and salvation and of God's presence in the midst of his people. According to a Jewish tradition, reported in 2 Maccabees 2:4-8, Jeremiah placed the ark in a secret hiding place prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, and it would be seen again when the Messiah carne. The author of the Apocalypse uses this to assure us that God has not forgotten his covenant: he has sealed it definitively in heaven, where the ark is located.
Many early commentators interpreted the ark as a reference to Christ's sacred humanity, and St Bede explains that just as the manna was kept in the original ark, so Christ's divinity lies hidden in his sacred body (cf. "Explanatio Apocalypsis", 11, 19).
The heavenly covenant is the new and eternal one made by Jesus Christ (cf. Mt 26:26-29 and par.) which will be revealed to all at his second coming when the Church will triumph, as the Apocalypse goes on to describe. The presence of the ark in the heavenly temple symbolizes the sublimity of the messianic kingdom, which exceeds anything man could create. "The vigilant and active expectation of the coming of the Kingdom is also the expectation of a finally perfect justice for the living and the dead, for people of all times and places, a justice which Jesus Christ, installed as supreme Judge, will establish (cf. Mt 24:29-44, 46; Acts 10:42; 2 Cor 5: 10). This promise, which surpasses all human possibilities, directly concerns our life in this world. For true justice must include everyone; it must explain the immense load of suffering borne by all generations. In fact, without the resurrection of the dead and the Lord's judgment, there is no justice in the full sense of the term. The promise of the resurrection is freely made to meet the desire for true justice dwelling in the human heart" (SCDF, "Libertatis Conscientia", 60).
The thunder and lightning which accompany the appearance of the ark are reminiscent of the way God made his presence felt on Sinai; they reveal God's mighty intervention (cf. Rev 4:5; 8:5) which is now accompanied by the chastisement of the wicked, symbolized by the earthquake and hailstones (cf. Ex 9: 13-35).
1-17. We are now introduced to the contenders in the eschatological battles which mark the final confrontation between God and his adversary, the devil. The author uses three portents to describe the leading figures involved, and the war itself. The first is the woman and her offspring, including the Messiah (12:1-2); the second is the dragon, who will later transfer his power to the beasts (12:3); the third, the seven angels with the seven bowls (15:1).
Three successive confrontations with the dragon are described--1) that of the Messiah to whom the woman gives birth (12:1-6); 2) that of St Michael and his angels (12:7-12); and 3) that of the woman and the rest of her offspring (12:13-17) These confrontations should not be seen as being in chronological order. They are more like three distinct pictures placed side by side because they are closely connected: in each the same enemy, the devil, does battle with God's plans and with those whom God uses to carry them out.
1-2. The mysterious figure of the woman has been interpreted ever since the time of the Fathers of the Church as referring to the ancient people of Israel, or the Church of Jesus Christ, or the Blessed Virgin. The text supports all of these interpretations but in none do all the details fit. The woman can stand for the people of Israel, for it is from that people that the Messiah comes, and Isaiah compares Israel to "a woman with child, who writhes and cries out in her pangs when she is near her time" (Is 26:17).
She can also stand for the Church, whose children strive to overcome evil and to bear witness to Jesus Christ (cf. v. 17). Following this interpretation St Gregory wrote: "The sun stands for the light of truth, and the moon for the transitoriness of temporal things; the holy Church is clothed like the sun because she is protected by the splendor of supernatural truth, and she has the moon under her feet because she is above all earthly things" ("Moralia", 34, 12).
The passage can also refer to the Virgin Mary because it was she who truly and historically gave birth to the Messiah, Jesus Christ our Lord (cf. v. 5). St Bernard comments: "The sun contains permanent color and splendor; whereas the moon's brightness is unpredictable and changeable, for it never stays the same. It is quite right, then, for Mary to be depicted as clothed with the sun, for she entered the profundity of divine wisdom much further than one can possibly conceive" ("De B. Virgine", 2).
In his account of the Annunciation, St Luke sees Mary as representing the faithful remnant of Israel; the angel greets her with the greeting given in Zephaniah 3:15 to the daughter of Zion (cf. notes on Lk 1:26- 31). St Paul in Galatians 4:4 sees a woman as the symbol of the Church, our mother; and non-canonical Jewish literature contemporary with the Book of Revelation quite often personifies the community as a woman. So, the inspired text of the Apocalypse is open to interpreting this woman as a direct reference to the Blessed Virgin who, as mother, shares in the pain of Calvary (cf. Lk 2:35) and who was earlier prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 as a "sign" (cf. Mt 1:22-23). At the same time the woman can be interpreted as standing for the people of God, the Church, whom the figure of Mary represents.
The Second Vatican Council has solemnly taught that Mary is a "type" or symbol of the Church, for "in the mystery of the Church, which is itself rightly called mother and virgin, the Blessed Virgin stands out in eminent and singular fashion as exemplar both of virgin and mother. Through her faith and obedience she gave birth on earth to the very Son of the Father, not through the knowledge of man but by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, in the manner of a new Eve who placed her faith, not in the serpent of old but in God's messenger, without wavering in doubt. The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren (cf. Rom 8:29), that is, the faithful, in whose generation and formation she cooperates with a mother's love" (Vatican II, "Lumen Gentium", 63).
The description of the woman indicates her heavenly glory, and the twelve stars of her victorious crown symbolize the people of God--the twelve patriarchs (cf. Gen 37:9) and the twelve apostles. And so, independently of the chronological aspects of the text, the Church sees in this heavenly woman the Blessed Virgin, "taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords (cf. Rev 19:16) and conqueror of sin and death" ("Lumen Gentium", 59). The Blessed Virgin is indeed the great sign, for, as St Bonaventure says, "God could have made none greater. He could have made a greater world and a greater heaven; but not a woman greater than his own mother" ("Speculum", 8).
3-4. In his description of the devil (cf. v. 9), St John uses symbols taken from the Old Testament. The dragon or serpent comes from Genesis 3:1-24, a passage which underlies all the latter half of this book. Its red color and seven heads with seven diadems show that it is bringing its full force to bear to wage this war. The ten horns in Daniel 7:7 stand for the kings who are Israel's enemies; in Daniel a horn is also mentioned to refer to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, of whom Daniel also says (to emphasize the greatness of Antiochus' victories) that it cast stars down from heaven onto the earth (cf. Dan 8:10). Satan drags other angels along with him, as the text later recounts (Rev 12:9). All these symbols, then, are designed to convey the enormous power of Satan. "The devil is described as a serpent", St Cyprian writes, "because he moves silently and seems peaceable and comes by easy ways and is so astute and so deceptive [...] that he tries to have night taken for day, poison taken for medicine. So, by deceptions of this kind, he tries to destroy truth by cunning. That is why he passes himself off as an angel of light" ("De Unitate Ecclesiae", I-III).
After the fall of our first parents war broke out between the serpent and his seed and the woman and hers: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" (Gen 3:15). Jesus Christ is the woman's descendant who will obtain victory over the devil (cf. Mk 1:23-26; Lk 4:31-37; etc.). That is why the power of evil concentrates all his energy on destroying Christ (cf. Mt 2:13-18) or to deflecting him from his mission (cf. Mt 4:1-11 and par.). By relating this enmity to the beginnings of the human race St. John paints a very vivid picture.
5. The birth of Jesus Christ brings into operation the divine plan announced by the prophets (cf. Is 66:7) and by the Psalms (cf. Ps 2:9), and marks the first step in ultimate victory over the devil. Jesus' life on earth, culminating in his passion, resurrection and ascension into heaven, was the key factor in achieving this victory. St John emphasizes the triumph of Christ as victor, who, as the Church confesses, "sits at the right hand of the Father" ("Nicene- Constantinopolitan Creed").
6. The figure of the woman reminds us of the Church, the people of God. Israel took refuge in the wilderness to escape from Pharaoh, and the Church does the same after the victory of Christ. The wilderness stands for solitude and intimate union with God. In the wilderness God took personal care of his people, setting them free from their enemies (cf. Ex 17:8-16) and nourishing them with quail and manna (cf. Ex 16:1-36). The Church is given similar protection against the powers of hell (cf. Mt 16:18) and Christ nourishes it with his body and his word all the while it makes its pilgrimage through the ages; it has a hard time (like Israel in the wilderness) but there will be an end to it: it will take one thousand two hundred and sixty days (cf. notes on 11:3).
Although the woman, in this verse, seems to refer directly to the Church, she also in some way stands for the particular woman who gave birth to the Messiah, the Blessed Virgin. As no other creature has done, Mary has enjoyed a very unique type of union with God and very special protection from the powers of evil, death included. Thus, as the Second Vatican Council teaches, "in the meantime [while the Church makes its pilgrim way on earth], the Mother of Jesus in the glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. Likewise she shines forth on earth, until the day of the Lord shall come (cf. 2 Pet 3:10), a sign of certain hope and comfort to the pilgrim people of God" ("Lumen Gentium", 68).
10-12. With the ascension of Christ into heaven the Kingdom of God is established and so all those who dwell in heaven break out into a song of joy. The devil has been deprived of his power over man in the sense that the redemptive action of Christ and man's faith enable man to escape from the world of sin. The text expresses this joyful truth by saying that there is now no place for the accuser, Satan whose name means and whom the Old Testament teaches to be the accuser of men before God: cf. Job 1:6-12; 2:1-10). Given what God meant creation to be, Satan could claim as his victory anyone who, through sinning, disfigured the image and likeness of God that was in him. However, once the Redemption has taken place, Satan no longer has power to do this, for, as St John writes, "if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (Jn 2:1-2). Also, on ascending into heaven, Christ sent us the Holy Spirit as "Intercessor and Advocate, especially when man, that is, mankind, find themselves before the judgment of condemnation by that 'accuser' about whom the Book of Revelation says that 'he accuses them day and night before our God"' (John Paul II, "Dominum Et Vivificantem", 67).
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.
The author of the Book of Revelation uses this celestial chant to warn the Church of the onset of danger as the End approaches.
***********************************************************************
Source: "The Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries". Biblical text taken from the Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate. Commentaries made by members of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre, Spain. Published by Four Courts Press, Kill Lane, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, Ireland.
Please understand that I, while not Catholic, do hold Mary in high regard. She is an wonderful example of faith and trust in the Lord. I simply do not accept her as the Catholic Church does in a mediatory role. There are many Catholic doctrines I do not agree with, but few more so than this one.
Unfortunately, many Protestants are so concerned with standing against the Catholic Church that they would completely ignore Mary. Likewise, many Catholics would wrongly characterize all Protestants as having a disdain or hatred for Mary when that is not the case.
I admire your devotion, but I cannot in good conscience share it. That being said, I would never be one to make statements to the effect of your salvation or lack thereof based on your belief in Marian doctrine.
In Christ, Fru
No,not that I'm aware of.It was just something that I was alway curious about.
Perhaps the following, written by a protestant convert who has researched the topic extensively, will address your question. It is too long to post, so I have posted a portion, along with a link to the remainder.
As a side note, anyone doing a really serious study of Catholicism should be aware of the possible definition of the Virgin Mary being declared as CoRedemptrix.
Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix are largely (but not totally) synonymous descriptions. I usually refrain from the former term (as have recent popes), in order to avoid the common and unfortunate misunderstandings (according to ecumenical directives of Vatican II and Pope Paul VI). The analogy I use to explain it, however, is the following:
When you have a "co-pay" on your health insurance policy, does that mean that you pay an amount identical to the insurer? "Co" simply means "alongside." It does not necessarily mean "equal," and certainly not "equal in essence," as anti-Catholics would have it. So in a nutshell, the Catholic doctrine (which is already well-established in Tradition and is nothing new) is that God chose to involve Mary in a very profound way in the redemption, especially in terms of intercession and as the Theotokos ("Mother of God"). This does not in any way, shape, or form, make her equal to God, or the author and source of either grace or redemption. All grace, all salvation comes from God. The same holds true for the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, or any other Marian doctrine. Mary is nothing that God did not ultimately make her - just as with all of us.
Fr. Louis Bouyer (a convert from Lutheranism) made the clever comment that the Immaculate Conception was as "Calvinist" as the most stringent Reformed notion of predestined election: Mary was chosen by God and given "immunity" from original sin at the very moment of her conception, before she could possibly have had any choice in the matter - pure grace and only grace. She did cooperate with this grace and exalted "call" when she was able to do so, and that is her glory, and why we (very biblically) call her "blessed." But she is a creature like all of us.
God uses the Blessed Virgin Mary as a vessel of His grace - albeit extraordinarily, to be sure - just as He might use any one of us for His purposes. After all, He used Balaam's ass (Num 22:22-35), and potentially could have used inanimate rocks (Mt 3:9). God can do whatever He well pleases. Apart from the issues of whether or not the Mediatrix doctrine is explicitly indicated in Scripture (I think it is implicitly suggested), or whether or not one agrees with it, it is certainly conceivable that God could use any of His creatures for any purpose, even up to the point of interceding in every instance of repentance, etc., as we believe Mary is in fact involved. We must put the objection to that hypothetical concept (which I would place in the category of "unproven, hostile, and presumptuous presupposition") to rest.
I personally suspect that a lot of the fear and near-hysteria over the possible new definition (besides sheer misinformation) arises from this prior antipathy to an idea which is assumed to be impossible from the outset - somehow a usurpation of God's sole prerogatives, when in fact it is not at all. So what remains is the task of explaining our beliefs from Scripture, Tradition, and reason. There is much more biblical material about Mary than many Protestants would imagine, and it is all inter-related, like so much of Catholic doctrine.
Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott writes:
Mary freely and deliberately co-operated in giving the Redeemer to the world . . . The Incarnation . . . and the Redemption . . . were dependent on her assent. In this significant moment in the history of Salvation Mary represented humanity . . .
The title Co-redemptrix, which has been current since the 15th century, . . . must not be conceived in the sense of an equation of the efficacy of Mary with the redemptive activity of Christ, the sole Redeemer of humanity (1 Timothy 2:5) . . . Her co-operation in the objective redemption is an indirect, remote co-operation, and derives from this, that she voluntarily devoted her whole life to the service of the Redeemer, and under the Cross, suffered and sacrificed with Him . . .
Christ alone truly offered the sacrifice of atonement on the Cross; Mary merely gave Him moral support in this action . . . Since her assumption into Heaven, Mary co-operates in the application of the grace of Redemption to man. She participates in the distribution of grace by her maternal intercession which is far inferior in efficacy to that of the intercessory prayer of Christ, the High Priest, but surpasses far the intercessory prayer of all the other saints.
According to the view of the older, and of many of the modern theologians Mary's intercessory co-operation extends to all graces, which are conferred on mankind, so that no grace accrues to men, without the intercession of Mary. The implication of this is not that we are obliged to beg for all graces through Mary, nor that Mary's intercession is intrinsically necessary for the application of the grace, but that, according to God's positive ordinance, the redemptive grace of Christ is conferred on nobody without the actual intercessory co-operation of Mary.
Thought you might enjoy this dialog.
Dialogue on Whether the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of Mary are Legitimately Part of Apostolic Tradition
Dave Armstrong vs. Dr. James White (NA27@aomin.org)
The following dialogue took place in June 1996 on Dr. James White's sola Scriptura discussion list. James' words will be in blue.
Dr. James White runs the Alpha and Omega Ministries website, perhaps the most extensive anti-Catholic critique of Catholicism on the Internet, and has written several books against the Church, including The Roman Catholic Controversy (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996). He earned an M.A. in Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary and Th.M. and Th.D. degrees from Columbia Evangelical Seminary.
Contrary to you guys, we hold that all Christian doctrines are important, and to be preserved with the utmost care and reverence.
Again, that cuts both ways.
James, c'mon! You guys obviously don't care about the importance of all doctrines equally, by the very nature of Protestantism and perspicuity, and the compromised necessity which 24,000 sects presses upon you. You have sought to produce a counter-example here, but "all" doctrines? It just ain't so!
It seems that in point of fact, it's a matter of "those doctrines that we have decided, over the process of time, and often times due to mere historical considerations rather than any apostolic mandate, are important and we insist everyone believe in them. But on those issues where we haven't made up our mind, well, those items really aren't that important."
The result of this is that the Roman Catholic believes that the Bodily Assumption of Mary is something that must be accepted; but you can hold all sorts of views on whether God is sovereign in the matter of salvation and what that means, and that's OK.
Mary's Assumption is important because it is intimately related to (and flows from the consequences of) her Immaculate Conception, which has considerable scriptural support (yes, mostly deductive and implicit). The Immaculate Conception, in turn, is necessary by virtue of Mary being the Theotokos; all of Mariology being subsumed under the category of Christology, and Christ-centered always in Catholic theology and dogmatic pronouncements. Christology (particularly the Incarnation and Virgin Birth in this case) is very important, as I think all here would agree. I know you won't buy this reasoning process because it is foreign to you, but please try to understand the Catholic Church's rationale for what it does.
This Christ-centeredness is seen in the history of the Church. First, the Trinity was defined (Nicaea, 325), then the Divinity of the Holy Spirit (Constantinople, 381). At the Council of Ephesus in 431 Theotokos was defined because the fullness of Christ's divinity was questioned by the Nestorians (virtually all reputable Protestant church historians readily agree with this interpretation). Once the Christological definitions were hammered out, Mariology developed much more rapidly, but they were still Christological in the sense of the Theotokos definition of 431. And that's why all Marian doctrines are important, Protestant protestations (which is well-nigh your essence, it often seems) notwithstanding.
Now I think everyone can see that the Bodily Assumption is a non-biblical doctrine, defined on the basis of "tradition," whatever that might be.
It is not explicitly stated, as all agree, but implicitly, in the sense of being, e.g., deduced from the Immaculate Conception, and the notions of resurrection and the consequences of death due to original sin, yes, it is biblical. Thus it is not "non-biblical," as are, e.g., sola Scriptura and the canon of the NT. Nor is it at all intrinsically contrary or "foreign" to the overall teachings of Scripture (it involves no violation of biblical teachings per se, whether one questions its actuality or not).
I hope no one would actually argue that the Apostles taught this doctrine to the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 2:15) and that it was passed down through the ages until defined not so long ago.
It is part of Divine, public Revelation, which ceased with the Apostles, yes. It is the most difficult Catholic doctrine to find in the earliest centuries, I admit (how's that for honesty?), but not an insurmountable obstacle, as are so many of Protestant difficulties.
That kind of argument is too easily refuted.
As are many, many Protestant arguments!
So we have a doctrine that was defined on the basis of ecclesiastical authority, made binding upon all people,
This is precisely the case with the NT canon, yet you guys accept that (from us, by the way) without any qualms or doubts, not even the slightest. Is this not inconsistent?
that is not to be found even "implicitly" in Scripture.
Ah, but it is. All things work together . . .
Yet a Roman Catholic has "certainty" about this doctrine, because his/her ultimate authority says "believe this."
Yeah, when the true Church of Jesus Christ proclaims something as true, I believe it, just as when your master Calvin, or the Westminster Confession, or whatever authority you choose to adhere to, says something, you believe it, or if you dissent on a particular, you place yourself above Calvin or the Confession, and become your own pope, in effect infallible (if not, then your belief is somewhat arbitrary, isn't it?). You act as if all authority is somehow a priori unacceptable, which is an impossible position to maintain without lapsing into skepticism, even perhaps solipsism. And don't neglect the place of faith, either, which obviously cannot be reduced to mere reason or whim.
I have found it most strange that Roman Catholics are continually griping about such dogmas as the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption of Mary, and Papal Infallibility, being used to "beat" them over the head. I've had more than one apologist say, "Hey, I didn't bring up those irrelevant topics, White did!" And I normally just sit there scratching my head. Why? Because I'd think the relevance is too obvious to be questioned.
In passing, as examples for the sake of argument, sure, but not in depth at this point, as the ostensible topic is "Re: the existence of (oral) tradition in the NT." Clearly, the very presence of Anglicans and Orthodox and Lutherans in this group presuppose that there are representatives here who espouse some sort of tradition not identical with Catholic Tradition.
These are [not] the only examples of your "Sacred Tradition" we can come up with. They are doctrines that are manifestly not a part of the biblical record;
"Manifestly"? Speak for yourself. :-) An absolutely indisputable example of that would be, rather, the Canon of the NT, which you accept as a "gift" from the Tradition of your Catholic forefathers.
they are manifestly not a part of the beliefs of the early Church,
As you insist on this digression, I toss out just one example of a Marian doctrine present in "kernel" form (at the very least) in the Fathers (in this case, from the 4th century):
You alone and Your Mother are good in every way; for there is no blemish in Thee, my Lord, and no stain in Thy Mother.
{St. Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8}
O virgin lady, immaculate Mother of God, my lady most glorious, most gracious, higher than heaven, much purer than the sun's splendor, rays or light . . . you bore God and the Word according to the flesh, preserving your virginity before childbirth, a virgin after childbirth.
{St. Ephraem, "Prayer to the Most Holy Mother of God"}
{cited from Hilda Graef, MARY: A HISTORY OF DOCTRINE & DEVOTION (London: Sheed & Ward, 1965) }
At this point of Church history (before 373), you'll recall, neither the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, nor the Two Natures of Christ were fully developed or dogmatically defined in Council. Yet you would deny the legitimacy of Marian dogmatic developments - hardly a coherent position.
and yet they are dogmas that Rome claims to have the authority to define and to make binding upon every Christian! Here is your "Tradition" in full and living color,
Yes, no kidding, but of what direct relevance are they to the topic at hand?
and hence how can we not bring these things up? What other examples would you like us to focus upon?
I thought we were trying to follow a strict topical guideline [sola Scriptura], per your instructions, "The New Order." Are we now going to digress into Marian doctrine, rather than hammer out one proposition at a time? Again, passing references are fine, but they must be limited in scope, or else chaos will reign once again in this group. Both David Palm (I believe) and I (for sure) have stated that we would be happy to take on these objections at an appropriate future time. I even offered to host another discussion group on such things. Yet we hear downright silly statements such as:
Quite simply, David [Palm], if you are tired of being beaten over the head by the bat of these doctrines, try to remember that the bat is imprinted with bold letters, "Vatican Slugger---Made in Rome."
Frankly, with all due respect, "responses" such as these make one wonder whether you have even understood the gist of David Palm's comment on this matter (which drew on an example in my post).
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.