Papal Oath Not To Introduce New Ideas To The Rcc

[Bruce S]

I agree.

Now show me ONE contempory SOURCE from BEFORE the year 100 that has Mary being bodily assumed, intact flesh and all..

ONE?

No I will not accept sources that had time for a myth to develop as the Catholic Church encountered the female dieties that they needed something to counter with, I personally think that is behind the elevation of Mary beyond her historical role, if you want to convert the heathens, and the female heathens, and take them away from the female dieties that women WERE attached to, you needed to somehow counter the male bias that Jewish religion is completely saturated with.

So, we elevate Mary, from a humble maiden serving God, to ...

The new Mary, and that Mary is now appearing and giving new instructions to the world...

THAT is the thing that most troubles me, those apparitions...

[Livin_the_MASS]

The Bible tells me to hold fast to the traditons handed down by letter or mouth. I can trace that back to Jesus can you.

Were is your 2000 years of Tradition. The Bible tells us this, you don't even follow it, how can you say you believe in Bible alone yet not even follow it?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Bruce S' date='Apr 8 2004, 10:33 AM']
I *NEVER SAID* nor do I believe that the Bible ALONE is the right way....grrr.

Don't erect a stawman against me, then ask ME to defend, something YOU think I believe.

I believe that scripture is the ultimate TEST for any belief and doctrine. If it is NOT there, such as the bodily assumption "theory" the Catholic Church has "evolved" one SHOULD be able to find it there.

For example, John, who wrote a Gospel, and Revelations, lived till 90-100AD, long past when one would expect Mary to have died. In his Gospel, we find NO mention of Mary being bodily assumed, IF that happened, it would be a MASSIVE miracle, and ALL the Christians would latch onto this and write about it, he did not.

That is pretty amazing, silence on Jesus's mother being bodily assumed into heaven.

So, this to me, indicates it is myth. [/quote]
A doc dump just for you Bruce


The Assumption of Our Lady
by Rev. James M. Keane, O.S.M.

Protestants as well as Catholics believe that the Body of Jesus Christ is now in heaven.

This doctrine is called the Ascension and is explicitly revealed in the Bible. All Christians believe, too, that the bodies of the just will be united to their souls at the end of the world and be glorified in heaven after the manner of the Risen Body of Christ. This is also revealed explicitly in the New Testament. It follows, therefore, that the bodies and souls of the departed saints are now separated, that their souls are in heaven and their bodies in the grave. Christians of every conceivable denomination are agreed on these two dogmas.


After that, however, Protestants and Catholics part company, for Catholics believe that the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary is also in heaven. We call this doctrine the Assumption. By it we hold that the glorification of the flesh, which will take place for us only at the end of time, was granted to Mary at the end of her earthly life. We believe, therefore, that the bodies of both Jesus and Mary are now in heaven. There is, however, this difference: Jesus arose from the tomb and ascended into heaven by his own power, whereas Mary's body was taken up to heaven by the power of her Son. For that reason we use two different words: the Ascension of Christ and the Assumption of Mary.


Historical Data


There is no positive historical data in proof of the historical fact of the Assumption.

"It is impossible to accept the popular and late legend, according to which the Apostles, having been present at the Virgin's death, later found her tomb empty or saw her body wafted away by angels" (Jean Guitton).

There are however, negative historical conditions which are quite impressive. Among others are these:


At no time in history has Christendom venerated a grave or tomb of the Blessed Virgin.

Until the 5th century of Christianity there was not even a legend concerning her place of burial.

There is absolutely no relic of Our Lady's body in existence; nor has any person or city ever claimed possession of such a relic.
"From the earliest ages of the Church the faithful venerated the remains of the Saints, and in instances even strove for the honor of possessing them. Relics of the Apostles and of thousands of martyrs are preserved in richly adorned shrines and caskets. The sacred remains of Mary could not have been lost or neglected; that is a hypothesis which it would be impossible to entertain" (Father Canice, OFM Cap.).


In the first sixteen centuries of Christianity no reputable theologian or school of theology ever questioned the dogma of the Assumption. It is notable how theologians have been more unanimous in accepting the Assumption than the Immaculate Conception.

Implicit in Bible

The Bible nowhere mentions explicitly this glorification of Mary's Immaculate body. That it has been revealed by God is nevertheless certain; otherwise it could not have been defined as a dogma of faith, A public revelation of the Assumption must have been made to the Apostles, or at least to one of them, because public revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle. There are, however, several implicit revelations of the Assumption in the Bible. The most important texts are: Gen. 3:15; Lk. 1:28; Apoc. 12:1-2.


Reasons for the Assumption

Ancient belief in the Assumption was based on the Christian conviction that Christ willed his holy Mother to participate in all his prerogatives. Therefore he associated her in his own glorification by an anticipated resurrection.


The corruption of the grave is a punishment for sin (Gen. 3:19). Our flesh is a "flesh of sin" (Rom. 8:3). Through the desires of this flesh the majority of our sins are committed. In Mary, however, there is not the slightest stain of sin. By her Immaculate Conception and fulness of grace she was entitled to immunity from corruption in her body. The principle of corruption which we bear within us did not exist in her. "Flesh and blood," says the Bible, "cannot possess the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 15:15). Even the bodies of the saints do not deserve to enter the kingdom of God. They must first be renewed by the hand of God. But Mary's body — Immaculate, pure, sinless — is consequently incorruptible.


From the first moment of her conception the state of the Blessed Virgin Mary was analogous, but superior, to the state of Adam and Eve before the Fall. Had they not sinned they would not have heard the divine malediction: "Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return" (Gen. 3,19). Doesn't justice therefore demand that Mary be preserved from a malediction never merited by her?


Mary's Immaculate Body was, in a sense, the origin of sanctification of all mankind. Her flesh was used to form the flesh of her Son; the flesh which he used on the Cross to destroy death and sin, and which he gave to us that we might rise from the dead. Was this flesh, Mary's flesh, Christ's flesh, the instrument of our redemption and resurrection, to be subject to the corruption of the grave?

"The womb that bore Jesus Christ, the hands that caressed him, the arms that embraced him, the breasts that nourished him, the heart that so loved him — it is impossible to think that these crumbled into dust" (Father Canice, OFM Cap.).

Christ's perfect victory over Satan included victory over sin and death. But Mary, the Mother of God, was most intimately associated with Jesus in his victory over Satan. She not only furnished the flesh which Christ sacrificed for our Redemption, but she also had a definite role of cooperation in this Redemption. She was associated with him in the different parts of his triumph. Hence she was associated with him in his victory over death by her anticipated resurrection and Assumption. This argument is used by Pope Pius IX in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus.


In the virginal conception and birth of his Son, God performed an absolutely unique miracle. This miracle was an act of divine respect for the flesh of the Mother of God. Against all the laws of nature he preserved the corporal integrity of his Mother. Would he later allow that Immaculate flesh to suffer the immeasurably greater lesion of the corruption of the grave?


It is a basic principle of Catholic teaching that all the prerogatives and glories of Mary are because of Jesus Christ. His divine dignity presupposes and demands such perfection in his Mother. The flesh of Mary was the Flesh of Christ; and Christ owed it to himself to preserve from dissolution the body that had served to form his own Body. Mary's body, like her soul, had to be sinless and undefiled. The humiliation of the Mother would have been the humiliation of the Son.


Silence of Early Centuries

The first person known to have asked what happened to Mary's body was St. Epiphanius. He was a 4th century Bishop, close to the scene of events, who had devoted himself seriously to the study of Mary's death. On the occasion of the controversy against the Antidico-marianites, opponents of Mary's virginity, he apparently had no knowledge of even the existence of a tradition concerning the end of Mary's life. In fact, he seemed to be of the opinion as are many mariologists today, that Our Lady did not die. Here are his exact words:


"The Sacred Scriptures do not say that Mary remained in the house of St. John, and the probable reason for the silence of Holy Writ concerning Mary's later life may be found in the fact that her life was so completely heavenly and wonderful that mankind could not possibly have borne the spectacle. Perhaps the Apocalypse (12,13) would show by the woman who was snatched from the dragon, that Mary escaped death. If she did die, her death was kept hidden, that people might not think too carnally about Mary."


Origin of Feast

From the middle of the 5th century a feast called "Commemoration of the Mother of God" was celebrated on August 15th in a shrine located near Jerusalem. Near the end of the 6th century this became a feast commemorating the end of Mary's sojourn on earth and was called the "Dormition of Our Lady." In the beginning of the 8th century Pope Sergius introduced the feast into Rome together with three other feasts of the Blessed Virgin. From Rome it spread rapidly throughout western Europe. It was Pope Hadrian who, at the end of the 8th century, gave it the name of the "Assumption of St. Mary." The Greek Church became interested in this question long before the Latin Church did. Both Greek and Latin writers, however, readily acknowledged their ignorance of the way in which the Blessed Virgin Mary had left this world.


Development and Definition

When Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, it drew attention to the possibility of a dogmatic definition of the Assumption. Both are truths not found explicitly in the Bible. Many began to petition the Apostolic See for its immediate definition. Between 1849 and 1940 more than 2,500 such petitions were received from bishops and superiors of religious orders. These represented 73% of the Catholic hierarchy. On May 1st, 1946, Pope Pius XII sent an Encyclical Letter ("Deiparae Virginis") to all the bishops of the world asking them to make known to him the belief and devotion of themselves, their clergy, and their people regarding the Assumption. 1185 bishops answered that the dogma could safely be defined, and only 16 questioned the advisability of the proclamation at that time. It was therefore a quasi-unanimity. On November 1st of the Holy Year, 1950, the day after the closing of the 8th International Marian Congress, held that year in Rome, Pius XII solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven. This great event took place in the Piazza of St. Peter's in the presence of 40 Cardinals, 500 bishops, thousands of priests, and close to one million lay persons. The exact words of the dogma of faith definition, extracted from the Bull "Munificentissimus Deus," were:


"Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

Just as Mary received Christ on earth, so Christ in turn received Mary in heaven. Having deigned to descend to her, it was fitting that he should raise her to himself in his glory. The place of the Mother of God is in the splendors of eternal glory and not in the gloom of the sepulchre.


"The Virgin, who gave history its impetus, was herself soon detached from it, to become instead an emblem of history's goal." — Jean Guitton •

[Bruce S]

[quote]Historical Data -There is no positive historical data in proof of the historical fact of the Assumption.

"It is impossible to accept the [b]popular and late [color=blue]legend[/color][/b], according to which the Apostles, having been present at the Virgin's death, later found her tomb empty or saw her body wafted away by angels" (Jean Guitton). [/quote]

That is the truth, and it then is elaborated upon by supposition, not ANY supportable concurrent writings nor eyewitnesses, NOR writings.

Just a lovely story, that is so elaborately developed that it SHOULD be true, but ...

Is It?

You just have to decide, to go with FACT, or go with TRADITION, and that is where we part company.

[Livin_the_MASS]

Here Bruce,

"Pope John Paul II Encyclical Mother of the Redeemer (Redemptoris Mater) of March 25, 1987
40. After the events of the Resurrection and Ascension Mary entered the Upper Room together with the Apostles to await Pentecost, and was present there as the Mother of the glorified Lord. She was not only the one who "advanced in her pilgrimage of faith" and loyally persevered in her union with her Son "unto the Cross," but she was also the "handmaid of the Lord," left by her Son as Mother in the midst of the infant Church: "Behold your mother." Thus there began to develop a special bond between this Mother and the Church. For the infant Church was the fruit of the Cross and Resurrection of her Son. Mary, who from the beginning had given herself without reserve to the person and work of her Son, could not but pour out upon the Church, from the very beginning, her maternal self-giving. After her Son's departure, her motherhood remains in the Church as maternal mediation: interceding for all her children, the Mother cooperates in the saving work of her Son, the Redeemer of the world. In fact the Council teaches that the "motherhood of Mary in the order of grace . . . will last without interruption until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect." With the redeeming death of her Son, the maternal mediation of the handmaid of the Lord took on a universal dimension, for the work of redemption embraces the whole of humanity. Thus there is manifested in a singular way the efficacy of the one and universal mediation of Christ "between God and men" Mary's cooperation shares, in its subordinate character, in the universality of the mediation of the Redeemer, the one Mediator. This is clearly indicated by the Council in the words quoted above.

"For," the text goes on, "taken up to heaven, she did not lay aside this saving role, but by her manifold acts of intercession continues to win for us gifts of eternal salvation." With this character of "intercession," first manifested at Cana in Galilee, Mary's mediation continues in the history of the Church and the world. We read that Mary "by her maternal charity, cares for the brethren of her Son who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led to their happy homeland." In this way Mary's motherhood continues unceasingly in the Church as the mediation which intercedes, and the Church expresses her faith in this truth by invoking Mary "under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix."

Pope John Paul II Encyclical Mother of the Redeemer (Redemptoris Mater) of March 25, 1987
41. ... By the mystery of the Assumption into heaven there were definitively accomplished in Mary all the effects of the one mediation of Christ the Redeemer of the world and Risen Lord: "In Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ" (1 Cor. 15:22-23). In the mystery of the Assumption is expressed the faith of the Church, according to which Mary is "united by a close and indissoluble bond" to Christ, for, if as Virgin and Mother she was singularly united with him in his first coming, so through her continued collaboration with him she will also be united with him in expectation of the second; "redeemed in an especially sublime manner by reason of the merits of her Son," (109) she also has that specifically maternal role of Mediatrix of mercy at his final coming, when all those who belong to Christ "shall be made alive," when "the last enemy to be destroyed is death" (1 Cor. 15:26)." ...

Pope John Paul II Encyclical Mother of the Redeemer (Redemptoris Mater) of March 25, 1987
21. ... What deep understanding existed between Jesus and his mother? How can we probe the mystery of their intimate spiritual union? But the fact speaks for itself. It is certain that that event already quite clearly outlines the new dimension, the new meaning of Mary's motherhood. Her motherhood has a significance which is not exclusively contained in the words of Jesus and in the various episodes reported by the Synoptics (Lk. 11:27-28 and Lk. 8:19-21; Mt. 12:46-50; Mk. 3:31-35). In these texts Jesus means above all to contrast the motherhood resulting from the fact of birth with what this "motherhood" (and also "brotherhood") is to be in the dimension of the Kingdom of God, in the salvific radius of God's fatherhood. In John's text on the other hand, the description of the Cana event outlines what is actually manifested as a new kind of motherhood according to the spirit and not just according to the flesh, that is to say Mary's solicitude for human beings, her coming to them in the wide variety of their wants and needs. At Cana in Galilee there is shown only one concrete aspect of human need, apparently a small one of little importance ("They have no wine"). But it has a symbolic value: this coming to the aid of human needs means, at the same time, bringing those needs within the radius of Christ's messianic mission and salvific power. Thus there is a mediation: Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself "in the middle," that is to say she acts as a Mediatrix not as an outsider, but in her position as mother. She knows that as such she can point out to her Son the needs of mankind, and in fact, she "has the right" to do so. Her mediation is thus in the nature of intercession: Mary "intercedes" for mankind. And that is not all. As a mother she also wishes the messianic power of her Son to be manifested, that salvific power of his which is meant to help man in his misfortunes, to free him from the evil which in various forms and degrees weighs heavily upon his life. Precisely as the Prophet Isaiah had foretold about the Messiah in the famous passage which Jesus quoted before his fellow townsfolk in Nazareth: "To preach good news to the poor . . . to proclaim release to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind . . . " (cf. Lk. 4:18). "

peace

[MagiDragon]

if i didn't think that bruce would simply ignore the doc dumps i'd say that he's totally outgunned. as it is though, he'll ignore everything that was said that didn't support his position.

i really don't think it's worth wasting time proving him wrong for his sake. it may be worth the time for everyone else who reads this though.

[Pope Saint Pius V]

First of all, I think before we deal with Bruce's question we need to deal with one of Bruce's larger problems, which is not being Catholic. We're putting the cart before the horse by trying to prove the Dogma of the Assumption. First we must prove papal primacy and then we must prove papal infallibility and then we can show Bruce the error of his thought. However, to do otherwise will solve nothing, will prove nothing. Also, Jason, do you read the posts that are written? He didn't want new sources he wanted sources from before the year 1000.

[willguy]

[quote]You just have to decide, to go with FACT, or go with TRADITION, and that is where we part company.[/quote]

You show me one fact that Mary wasn't assumed into heaven.

and a correction to one of the docs:
[quote]At no time in history has Christendom venerated a grave or tomb of the Blessed Virgin. [/quote] That's not quite true. Actually, I think both Jerusalem and Constantinople claim to have the location of Mary's death. However, neither claims to have any relics. There have never been relics of Mary. One would think that if Christians were so intent on saving relics of the apostles and other martyrs, that they most certainly would have saved the relics of Mary if it was possible.

[M.SIGGA]

Bruce, what about all the other ancient Christian Apostolic Churches that have also ALWAYS believed in the Assumption, like the Oriental Orthodox Churches of Ethiopia and Etria and Armenia and Malankara, which never had any ties to the Bishop of Rome or the 5 ancient Patriarchies (Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople) or their Councils and proclaimations. And if Mary did die, you can probably immagine how her relics would have been venerated.

I hate doing the shout-out thing, but that post was great Cmom.

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Jason' date='Apr 8 2004, 08:42 AM'] You don't know your Bible do you. People in the Old Testament were assumed into heaven

Gn 5:24 (Hb11:5)- Enoch taken to heaven without dying

2 Kg 2:11 -Elijah assumend into heaven in fiery chariot

Hmmm....

It happened in the Old Testament? Wow did you know that? So God can do whatever He wants.

Since you looked over the first Scripture I'll give you a little 1 Cor 11:2-"hold fast to traditions I handed on to you."

peace [/quote]
The Greek word translated into 'traditions' is not the same as the way we use it in English. It has to do with doctrinal fact. Not with a certain way of doing things.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='NewReformation' date='Apr 16 2004, 12:44 PM'] The Greek word translated into 'traditions' is not the same as the way we use it in English. It has to do with doctrinal fact. Not with a certain way of doing things. [/quote]
And when the Catholic Church speaks of her Sacred Traditions she is speaking of doctrinal fact.