Posted on 12/30/2011 7:07:29 PM PST by rzman21
You said there was nothing about Juvenal?
LIAR.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
“The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 15 August; also called in old liturgical books Pausatio, Nativitas (for heaven), Mors, Depositio, Dormitio S. Mariae.
This feast has a double object: (1) the happy departure of Mary from this life; (2) the assumption of her body into heaven. It is the principal feast of the Blessed Virgin.”
Preamble, not important to our purposes here.
The fact of the Assumption
“Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known.”
This you cited.
“The earliest known “literary” reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae.”
You left out the word literary. Why? because as this next sentence explains:
“Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition.”
Again, selective citation confirms what I said is that the Church does not base her teachings on this reference.
Let’s continue on.
“Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11).”
Cited.
“The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension.”
Ooh. Somehow this was NOT cited. Why?
“Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus.”
Cited.
“Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus.”
Not cited.
So what we basically see here is CB citing every second sentence and ignoring half the article. This is terrible, terrible citations.
“The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.”
This I find an interesting thing that you did not cite? Is it because evidence of her tomb is contrary to your agenda.
“The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite.”
You managed to cite this.
“If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others.”
But not this. So clearly it was known at this time. Why?
“In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious.”
Again you leave this out.
“St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:
St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.
And there you go.
St. Juvenal, which you flat out lied about it not being in your citation.
*sigh*
The greek does not use the word conception, as I just showed.
Yes, the Church knew - after the fact. But at the time of her pregnancy, no. It would not have been known, nor anything would have been known about her pregnancy or how she got pregnant.
I know this is hard to wrap your head around, but you have to try taking yourself back to then - not now.
::So why are you studiously avoiding any mention of the Bishop Juvenal?::
>>>There was none.>>>
“St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm
Why do you bother lying, CB?
Did you think that you weren’t going to get caught?
Might be worth reading. http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/assumption.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/09/assumption-of-mary-in-later-sources.html
Also, noted RCA Karl Keating stated:
“Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
Which being interpreted means, truth it is not dependent upon the weight of Scripture, but rests upon the self-proclaimed assured infallibly of Rome, by which she proclaims she is infallible. Rome says is it true, and therefore it is, and no weight of evidence can possible impugn that. The original firewall.
The ultimate reason an RC will invoke Scripture or Tradition as authoritative is not because that is how you conclusively ascertain Truth, but it is in order to have you make a fallible decision to implicitly submit to what Rome decrees is Truth, as she has decreed that she possesses assured formulaic infallibility, largely based on her claim of formal decent, and thus only by faith that she is can one really have assurance of doctrine.
Upon this premise of established authority, rather than the church being established by supernatural means, by conflation with Scripture and its means of establishing truth - and being in rebellion against the interpretation of those who sat in the seat of authority - then they would have had to submit to those who sat in Moses seat.
You’re missing my point here. The Church knew-after the fact. But once they knew that fact, then the 40 day cut-off for abortions would have been heineous. They would have KNOWN that life begins at conception, just as the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary ONCE and she was WITH CHILD at that moment. Why the haggling back and forth over the years within the RCC about when life begins, is abortion at any time a sin, and why the going back and forth issuing decrees over a FACT that could have been settled by Luke 1? It SHOULD have been an unchanging, infallible FACT from the beginning of the Church. IF they believed God’s Word says what it means and means what it says. It’s not up for argument, or one pope changing another pope’s decrees or whatever it is they do to each other..
AKA Hearsay. I asked for proof, not hearsay or stories told over hundreds of years. It took less then 250 years for liberals in this country to claim this country was not founded on Judeo Christian principles.
You have the audacity to call me a liar then give me myth and hearsay as evidence? How preposterous.
>> “The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension.”<<
Ooh. Somehow this was NOT cited. Why?
Because the three to fifteen years was based on “Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. If “nothing certain is known” why would anyone be interested or concerned with the speculation of three to fifteen years afterwards supposition? Good Lord we are not all that stupid.
>> But not this. So clearly it was known at this time. Why?<<
Because the people are another 300 years after even the “maybe could be” in 451. Duh. If you make up a story and it spreads for 300 years it would be expected that in another 300 years it’s pretty well established and even embellished but it’s still just a story built on hearsay.
>> St. Juvenal, which you flat out lied about it not being in your citation.<<
Not one source that leads back to scripture. “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” was something Jesus spoke about.
Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
This is a hoot. It takes, what, 5 of you? :)
“The Church knew-after the fact. But once they knew that fact, then the 40 day cut-off for abortions would have been heineous.”
Why? One, Mary wasn’t exactly a normal pregnancy.
Two, all they would have known is that at some point her pregnancy began. They didn’t know when conception occurred during that period. They didn’t know the rudiments of fetal develeopment, that came later. Hence the whole debate on ensoulment.
“They would have KNOWN that life begins at conception”
But how long after sex does conception occur?
“just as the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary ONCE and she was WITH CHILD at that moment.”
They have no ultrasound back then. They would only have known she was pregnant when she began to show.
“Why the haggling back and forth over the years within the RCC about when life begins”
Because it wasn’t known at the time, when precisely life begins. They didn’t know about the whole concept of ‘conception’ as we do now. They knew ‘with child’, but that’s not quite the same thing.
“is abortion at any time a sin”
Again, you are confusing the issue. The Church always taught that abortion was wrong. The question was, when does human life begin. They didn’t know. There were debates, arguments over it.
“and why the going back and forth issuing decrees over a FACT that could have been settled by Luke 1?”
*sigh*. Read the Greek. The word ‘conception’ does not appear. Luke 1 does not say “concieve”, although that is the proper understanding of it. It says that she will become full with child. We know now that this means ‘conceive’.
“It SHOULD have been an unchanging”
Why? They didn’t know when human life began. They didn’t know about sperm and egg. The didn’t know about conception.
It wasn’t until 1677 that Leeuwenhoek discovered Sperm.
It wasn’t until 1823 that Karl von Baer discovered the Ovum.
Not coincidentally, after the Ovum was discovered, the Church finally settled the matter that human life begins at conception.
“infallible FACT from the beginning of the Church”
No, that’s not how the Church works. Even the divinity of Christ wasn’t settled until Nicaea.
“IF they believed God’s Word says what it means and means what it says.”
They did believe God’s word. They knew that abortion was wrong. The only debate here was when did human life arise in the womb? Scripture doesn’t answer that question.
“It’s not up for argument, or one pope changing another pope’s decrees or whatever it is they do to each other.”
The argument that abortion is wrong is not what was changing. The scientific question of “when does human life begin” did.
Until that issue was settled at conception, then the Church understood what was truly going on. You’re arguing over the date and the timing, while missing the big picture.
The Church taught, hundreds of years before they knew about conception, that abortion was wrong for all but 40 days into pregnancy. Presumably because of the understanding of the menstrual cycle.
By the time the woman knew she was pregnant, abortion was out of the question.
Did you think true Christians are going to fall for myth and hearsay as Catholics do? Thinking that something that didn’t show up for over 300 years after the apostles is trustworthy is ludicrous. Citing writings from centuries after Christ then using writings 700 years after Christ to substantiate writings from 400 years after Christ is so lame it doesn’t even deserve comment.
Using expanded myth to prove original myth just don’t cut it dude.
The circular logic of Catholics is absolutely stunning.
“I asked for proof”
And when provided proof, you deliberately lied about it. Is lying ok in your book?
Is it ok to lie to people and mislead them?
“not hearsay or stories told over hundreds of years.”
You consider CHALCEDON to be ‘hearsay’? That’s an ecumenical council.
“It took less then 250 years for liberals in this country to claim this country was not founded on Judeo Christian principles.”
So you reject, Nicaea, Chalcedon, Constantinople, etc? Is that the deal?
“You have the audacity to call me a liar”
You are a liar. You said that the source that you cited never referred to Juvenal. Then, when I quote the full text, it proves that you lied.
The only question here is why. Why lie, CB? Isn’t the truth enough for you?
“then give me myth and hearsay”
You consider Chalcedon to be ‘myth and hearsay’? Really? That’s pretty far out.
“Because the three to fifteen years was based on..”
We don’t know the exact year and day of the Death of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. We don’t. We just don’t.
Are you saying that because we don’t know this that the Gospel accounts are false?
“why would anyone be interested or concerned with the speculation of three to fifteen years afterwards”
It’s very important, because it shows that her assumption occurred very early on in the Church.
“Good Lord we are not all that stupid.”
So tell me then. What is the exact year and day that Christ died.
“Because the people are another 300 years after even the “maybe could be” in 451.”
And, your point being?
“If you make up a story and it spreads for 300 years it would be expected that in another 300 years it’s pretty well established and even embellished”
Which is why, it says what it did, that these are literary accounts.
Something happened with Mary, the stories spread, and as you said, were embelleshed, etc. We can see this.
Then Juvenal comes in at Chalcedon, and when asked to find her body, shows them the evidence from the Apostles (notice he says Thomas), and the account of her Assumption.
Apparently it was well known at the time in the Church of Jerusalem, but was not known to the Church as a whole. This, is actually rather interesting information, because, as one would expect, that this would have been known and circulated much earlier.
So the question then becomes why didn’t the Church know about this? We don’t have any of the records of the Council of Jerusalem either. That’s a problem for early church history. We know one occurred, we aren’t sure what was discussed. Why? well, the Romans kind of destroyed Jerusalem.
“Not one source that leads back to scripture.”
That’s not what you said. You said there was nothing referring to Juvenal. Why lie, CB?
“teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” was something Jesus spoke about.”
Indeed. Are you calling Juvenal a liar?
“Did you think true Christians are going to fall for myth and hearsay as Catholics do?”
True Christians don’t lie.
“Thinking that something that didn’t show up for over 300 years after the apostles is trustworthy is ludicrous.”
So you regard Chalcedon as untrustworthy?
“Citing writings from centuries after Christ”
Juvenal had the accounts from the Apostles, not to mention the cloth she was wearing at the time. So yeah.
“then using writings 700 years after Christ”
What writings from 700 years after Christ? I’m using Juvenal’s testimony which dates to Chalcedon.
“Using expanded myth to prove original myth just don’t cut it dude”
Maybe I should lie like you and convince others that I’m telling the truth.
You asked, why does the Church believe what she does, this is your answer. If that’s not acceptable to you, that’s fine. I don’t have to lie to you. I can tell you the truth, and let you make the decisions that you feel are right.
So go on, ping all your friends. Show them how you were willing to lie to them to further the cause of proving the Catholic church wrong.
When are you going to realize that hearsay and myth is not proof? Everything you sited was based on hearsay. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia called it “probable opinion”.
>>That’s not what you said. You said there was nothing referring to Juvenal.<<
NO, I didn’t. I said there was no proof provided by Juvenal only hearsay and myth.
>>Indeed. Are you calling Juvenal a liar?<<
Purveyor of fables would be more accurate.
Yes.
>>Juvenal had the accounts from the Apostles, not to mention the cloth she was wearing at the time.<<
Let’s see the documents the Apostles wrote to show evidence.
>>I can tell you the truth<<
You tell the truth of what the RCC told you. Time and time again you have been shown how untrustworthy the RCC has been.
Ok.
So you reject the following:
1, that Christ has a human and a divine nature?
2, that Christ was fully God and fully Man?
These are far more important disputes than over Mary.
“Time and time again you have been shown how untrustworthy the RCC has been.”
Why would I trust a liar like you about anything?
“Let’s see the documents the Apostles wrote to show evidence.”
I’ll see what I can find.
1, that Christ has a human and a divine nature?
2, that Christ was fully God and fully Man?<<
Those were settled in scripture long before.
>> I’ll see what I can find.<<
LOL good luck. If they existed you can bet the CC would have had them front and center and not have had to say “probable opinion”.
“Those were settled in scripture long before”
Where?
“LOL good luck. If they existed you can bet the CC would have had them front and center and not have had to say “probable opinion”.”
Which is why the Codex Vaticanus wasn’t found until the 1850s? ;)
Dude, I’m going to quote something from the Sack of Constantinople. They had over 2000 years of stuff preserved.
What do you think they’ve got tucked away in Rome? ;)
You do know there exist Jewish commentaries on Jeremiah, right? ;)
Even more fundamental are the arguments pro/con on Traducianism, from Tertullian and Augustine. Is the soul derived from the material man or from God as the soul? A fundamental Dualism/trichotomous argument.
Words such as "false" "error" "wrong" do not attribute motive.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
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.