Civil discourse - On the Bodily assumption of the Blessed Virgn Mary into heaven.

[MoreCoffee]

To start off I will reproduce a question from atpollard and my short reply from another thread.

Part of that is the fault of the Catholic Church (Roman and Eastern) since the cure for "ignorance" is "information" and those with the truth are hoarding it.

Even if they refuse to listen, you could state the truth (for the silent readers) and refuse to argue about it.

Setting aside the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity, what would lead you to believe that Mary was assumed? Obviously her assumption is not recorded in scripture, so when and where is it first written down?

... Or do Catholics still just pass it on by word of mouth as an ancient Church rumor mill?

[If your rumor mill is anything like our church rumor mill, it can be counted on to be 99% wrong 100% of the time. The last thing that was "brought to my attention" was that one of our Elders had quit to start a Church in Tampa because he wasn't at service the Sunday that the Pastor was away. So I was amused and wanted to know what the real story was to shut down ugly gossip. I told Tyrone the rumors of the week was about him and he laughed when he heard it. He was at a service in Tampa when the Pasor was away, because an old friend of his was visiting from out of state and was the guest speaker at that church on that Sunday. The Pastor knew all about it because they had spoken about it before he agreed to lend moral support to his friend. So I am wary of "oral traditions" ... have you ever played "Telephone"?]​

Until now I've had the good sense not to participate in this thread [I am referring to the other thread] because it is a bit of a mud wrestling pit for people who know little about the dogma of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and care even less so they wrestle with the mud more than the dogma that they perceive to be their opponent. Personally I don't much care what folk who reject the dogma think about it. I guess if they ask questions and state their perceptions without prejudicial commentary I'd be happy do discuss it but that doesn't happen in CH threads with titles like this one so I left it to slurp and heave as the wrestling went on.If you'd like to discuss the matter in a civil atmosphere then a different thread might be a good place to go. ​

I will gladly supply the definition of the dogma and what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about the dogma if that is what my interlocutor wants. I think he does, or at least was polite enough to ask for it. But I don't want to push the matter even in this thread if there is not significant interest.

 

[Josiah]

Some Thoughts.....


1. In MY epistemology, a dogma needs to have good biblical support (be taught) and cannot be directly contradicted. That with solid support may be dogma, that which is actually contradicted is heresy. I realize that's not how the EOC and RCC operate.



2. I see NO biblical confirmation for this (and my Catholic teachers MADE A POINT that that's because there isn't any - sincerely, I give 'em credit for honesty). On the other hand, I see nothing in Scripture that denies this or even makes it problematic.



3. This view - embraced a tad differently in the EOC and RCC, and since 1950 with different levels of affirmation - is certainly ancient. And for centuries had ecumenical support. It has what Protestants call "The Rule of Faith" (what Christians embraced). That does NOT make it true (and certainly doesn't make it DOGMA); consider what people believed about relics and the Earth being flat and the center of the universe, etc.) BUT in my book means we need to at least take it seriously. I believe that the Holy Spirit guides His people (collectively) and so I take Tradition seriously.



4. I have no issues with this as "pious opinion." This is a term Lutherans and Anglicans use for a belief that is NOT clearly affirmed OR denied in Scripture but has wide and historic ecumenical support. As a Lutheran, I would be welcomed to believe this.... but discouraged from presenting it as Dogma OR condemning ti as heresy.



5. As I left the RCC, this was by no means a "deal breaker." I didn't like that it was turned into DOGMA in 1950 (and THAT without a council or even synod) but I could easily "live" with this. I don't hold most of the Marian Dogmas AS DOGMA but I have no "problem" with them as articles of faith.



As a Lutheran, I hold Mary is great esteem. And I HATE the way She is fought over.





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Some Thoughts.....

..

1. In MY epistemology, a dogma needs to have good biblical support (be taught) and cannot be directly contradicted. That with solid support may be dogma, that which is actually contradicted is heresy. I realize that's not how the EOC and RCC operate.

Do you intend epistemology rather than terminology? Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment but it looks like a definition of a term rather than a theory about how people know what they know.

2. I see NO biblical confirmation for this (and my Catholic teachers MADE A POINT that that's because there isn't any - sincerely, I give 'em credit for honesty). On the other hand, I see nothing in Scripture that denies this or even makes it problematic.

..

3. This view - embraced a tad differently in the EOC and RCC, and since 1950 with different levels of affirmation - is certainly ancient. And for centuries had ecumenical support. It has what Protestants call "The Rule of Faith" (what Christians embraced). That does NOT make it true (and certainly doesn't make it DOGMA); consider what people believed about relics and the Earth being flat and the center of the universe, etc.) BUT in my book means we need to at least take it seriously. I believe that the Holy Spirit guides His people (collectively) and so I take Tradition seriously.

..

4. I have no issues with this as "pious opinion." This is a term Lutherans and Anglicans use for a belief that is NOT clearly affirmed OR denied in Scripture but has wide and historic ecumenical support. As a Lutheran, I would be welcomed to believe this.... but discouraged from presenting it as Dogma OR condemning ti as heresy.

..

5. As I left the RCC, this was by no means a "deal breaker." I didn't like that it was turned into DOGMA in 1950 (and THAT without a council or even synod) but I could easily "live" with this. I don't hold most of the Marian Dogmas AS DOGMA but I have no "problem" with them as articles of faith.

..

As a Lutheran, I hold Mary is great esteem. And I HATE the way She is fought over.

Declarations 1 to 5 are what you think so no debate or further discussion seems appropriate.

Your last statement is good. This thread is not for fights. I imagine some will adhere to its intended spirit.

 

[Arsenios]

As a Lutheran, I hold Mary is great esteem.
And I HATE the way She is fought over.
.

I do too...

She is Jesus' Mom, after all...

We should love Her as our own Mother...

As we love Christ as our Father...

And as our own Brother...

She is the Glue of purity...

Heaven and earth in Christ...

From Her Holy womb...


Arsenios

 

[Albion]

I am sure that most people who are opposed to the doctrines of the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, and the numerous semi-divine powers that have been attributed to her (Mediator of all Graces, Co-redeemer of the world, etc.)…

...would agree with the idea/practice of honoring her, Arsenios.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The assumption of anyone is not to be understood as a power in their possession. What assumption means is that one was carried to heaven by others, angels in nearly every case. Ascending to heaven on the other hand can imply a power of one's own thus the Lord Jesus Christ is said to have ascended to heaven in the holy scriptures and in the creeds with the deliberate and fully intended implication - in the creeds - of emphasising his power to ascend.

 

[Albion]

The assumption of anyone is not to be understood as a power in their possession.

Has someone said that it is to be understood that way??

 

[MoreCoffee]

Has someone said that it is to be understood that way??

It is good to forestall misunderstandings - nip them in the bud before they arise and take hold.

 

[Albion]

It is good to forestall misunderstandings - nip them in the bud before they arise and take hold.

Okay.

 

[Arsenios]

It is good to forestall misunderstandings - nip them in the bud before they arise and take hold.

There is ample precedent...

By taking responsibility to be repenting living repentant lives, we are often accused here of saving ourselves!

When nothing could be further from the truth...


Arsenios

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Dogma of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not about human repentance.

 

[atpollard]

If I doubted that the Apostles or ECF ever taught that Jesus was raised from the dead, one could point to the writings of Polycarp and the Gospels and the Letters of Paul and John. If I then questioned what evidence was there that the “Bible” and writings of the ECF existed before the Middle Ages and the Latin copies of copies, there are physical manuscripts and fragments dating back to the 3rd Century that indicate that the Bible that we have today matches the 3rd Century manuscripts.

So my question, one of ignorance rather than challenge, is what are the oldest written records that support either the Perpetual Virginity of Mary or her Assumption? I am aware of the defense by Jerome, but that is fairly late for an oldest source and simply wondered if there might be older writings by the ECF that speak of it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If I doubted that the Apostles or ECF ever taught that Jesus was raised from the dead, one could point to the writings of Polycarp and the Gospels and the Letters of Paul and John. If I then questioned what evidence was there that the “Bible” and writings of the ECF existed before the Middle Ages and the Latin copies of copies, there are physical manuscripts and fragments dating back to the 3rd Century that indicate that the Bible that we have today matches the 3rd Century manuscripts.

So my question, one of ignorance rather than challenge, is what are the oldest written records that support either the Perpetual Virginity of Mary or her Assumption? I am aware of the defense by Jerome, but that is fairly late for an oldest source and simply wondered if there might be older writings by the ECF that speak of it.

Irenaeus (Greek: Εἰρηναῖος; c. 130 – c. 202 AD) of Smyrna may have been the first early Church Father to write of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The Catholic Church itself interprets chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation as referring to the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The earliest known narrative account of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Liber Requiei Mariae (The Book of Mary's Repose), which survives intact only in an Ethiopic translation. Probably composed by the 4th century, this Christian narrative may have been written as early as the 3rd century.

 

[Josiah]

Irenaeus (Greek: Εἰρηναῖος; c. 130 – c. 202 AD) of Smyrna may have been the first early Church Father to write of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The Catholic Church itself interprets chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation as referring to the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The earliest known narrative account of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Liber Requiei Mariae (The Book of Mary's Repose), which survives intact only in an Ethiopic translation. Probably composed by the 4th century, this Christian narrative may have been written as early as the 3rd century.

Some seem unaware that the Assumption of Mary is not the Perpetual Virginity of Mary or Credobaptism.


All 3 of those dogmas are NOT taught in Scripture. And in MY book, that makes none of them dogma.



But some of them have OTHER things going for them.... Of the 3,


The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is the oldest, a couple centuries older than the Assumption and almost 1500 years older than Credobaptism. It is actually mentioned in an Ecumenical Council (unlilke either of the other two) albeit not actually affirmed. It was pretty much universally, ecumenically affirmed until about 200 years ago (STRONG ecumenical and historic embrace; the "Rule of Faith" is very strong here). It is not contradicted by Scripture. I fail to see why it matters (and why it's any of our business, to be frank) BUT other than the Matre Dei/Theotokos, it is the strongest of the Marian views. BTW, both Luther and Calvin embraced it (and it's MENTIONED in the Lutheran Confessions, just not affirmed). Catholics tend to be honest in admitting it's not clearly taught in Scripture (I give 'em points for HONESTY. lol)


The Assumption of Mary is certainly old.... as old as is the Doctrine of the Trinity.... it's Dogma in only one denomination (and that only since 1950) but it does have very wide and broad embrace as a view. Luther, Calvin and the Anglican Church all are okay with it but it's not dogma in any of them. Personally, I don't understand why it matters but it doesn't contradict Scripture and is both old and broad. I'd place it a significant notch below the PVM in validity but permissible. Catholics tend to be up-front in admitting this is not taught in Scripture and I give 'em points for HONESTY (something rare in Christianity, lol).


Credobaptism. Clearly not taught in Scripture and non-existent until the late 16th Century. Entirely lacks "the Rule of Faith." Accepted only by one faith community; it has no ecumenical embrace; worse, the idea was actually universally denied and denounced until an Anabaptist reversed that. Those who teach it CLAIM it is taught in Scripture but universally prove it is not. IMO, I do not specifically regard this a "heresy" but it is to be rejected.




.

 

[Tigger]

Okay now ya'll have done it and made me pull out the BIG GUNS!!!:boxing:

 

[Albion]

Revelation is a vision, though, not to be taken literally. Mary could be associated with all sorts of concepts and figure in any number of analogies without her physical body being literally raised into the heavens.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Irenaeus (Greek: Εἰρηναῖος; c. 130 – c. 202 AD) of Smyrna may have been the first early Church Father to write of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The Catholic Church itself interprets chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation as referring to the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The earliest known narrative account of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Liber Requiei Mariae (The Book of Mary's Repose), which survives intact only in an Ethiopic translation. Probably composed by the 4th century, this Christian narrative may have been written as early as the 3rd century.

Some seem unaware that the Assumption of Mary is not the Perpetual Virginity of Mary or Credobaptism.


All 3 of those dogmas are NOT taught in Scripture. And in MY book, that makes none of them dogma.



But some of them have OTHER things going for them.... Of the 3,


The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is the oldest, a couple centuries older than the Assumption and almost 1500 years older than Credobaptism. It is actually mentioned in an Ecumenical Council (unlilke either of the other two) albeit not actually affirmed. It was pretty much universally, ecumenically affirmed until about 200 years ago (STRONG ecumenical and historic embrace; the "Rule of Faith" is very strong here). It is not contradicted by Scripture. I fail to see why it matters (and why it's any of our business, to be frank) BUT other than the Matre Dei/Theotokos, it is the strongest of the Marian views. BTW, both Luther and Calvin embraced it (and it's MENTIONED in the Lutheran Confessions, just not affirmed). Catholics tend to be honest in admitting it's not clearly taught in Scripture (I give 'em points for HONESTY. lol)


The Assumption of Mary is certainly old.... as old as is the Doctrine of the Trinity.... it's Dogma in only one denomination (and that only since 1950) but it does have very wide and broad embrace as a view. Luther, Calvin and the Anglican Church all are okay with it but it's not dogma in any of them. Personally, I don't understand why it matters but it doesn't contradict Scripture and is both old and broad. I'd place it a significant notch below the PVM in validity but permissible. Catholics tend to be up-front in admitting this is not taught in Scripture and I give 'em points for HONESTY (something rare in Christianity, lol).


Credobaptism. Clearly not taught in Scripture and non-existent until the late 16th Century. Entirely lacks "the Rule of Faith." Accepted only by one faith community; it has no ecumenical embrace; worse, the idea was actually universally denied and denounced until an Anabaptist reversed that. Those who teach it CLAIM it is taught in Scripture but universally prove it is not. IMO, I do not specifically regard this a "heresy" but it is to be rejected.

Is there some reason for quoting my post in yours? They seem completely unrelated. And this thread is not about credobaptism nor is it about the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The answer I gave was to the question that atpollard politely asked. If you want to debate credobaptism there are already threads for that purpose. If you want a civil discourse on the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary then a new thread is the best idea.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Revelation is a vision, though, not to be taken literally. Mary could be associated with all sorts of concepts and figure in any number of analogies without her physical body being literally raised into the heavens.

What you say is true but only from the perspective of a blank slate kind of commentary on the book. The Church does not have a blank slate commentary she has the testimony of the early church which was filled with people who knew and apostles and some who knew Jesus while he was personally present upon the earth. The comments of the early Church Fathers matters to Catholics and so Catholicism regards Revelation 12 as speaking of Blessed Mary and the Virgin birth and the Assumption. What you and others who may be Protestant in their perspectives make of it is, of course, up to you and them.

 

[Albion]

What you say is true but only from the perspective of a blank slate kind of commentary on the book. The Church does not have a blank slate commentary she has the testimony of the early church which was filled with people who knew and apostles and some who knew Jesus while he was personally present upon the earth.

How many of them were present when one of Mary's several graves was opened and found to be empty (assuming that the legend is true to that extent)? That's where the Assumption idea starts.

 

[MoreCoffee]

How many of them were present when one of Mary's several graves was opened and found to be empty (assuming that the legend is true to that extent)? That's where the Assumption idea starts.

That must be a rhetorical question.