I added St. Francis de Sales to the "Pen Is Mightier Than the Sword" section (towards the bottom of my sidebar). He was one of the greatest Catholic apologists of the late 16th and early 17th century, so the presence of his works on my blog was a glaring omission. 
I don't think you can find two more disparate figures! I bring them together because I found two websites today that are pretty cool, one bears the name of the saint, the other of the sinner.
I found the second website, John Foxe's Book of Martyrs: Critical Apparatus and Additional Material, in my research on the book and any Catholic responses/refutations of it. In case you're wondering, this book, written around the time of the Reformation, details the suffering and execution of various Protestant ministers and laymen at the hands of the Church and the State. It's a favorite of generally anyone intent on discrediting the Church and the papacy, or proving the corruption of these at that time.
When I was testing the look of a large first character in my earlier post, I was just joking around when I said that I was keeping the directions a secret. Honestly, I felt like I was the only one who didn't know how to do something like that, and I figured that if anyone really wanted to know all they had to do was look at my source code [to view the source code of a webpage w/ IE 6.0, click on "View" at the top of your browser, and then "Source"]. That's how I figure out a lot of things myself.
After my last post, "The Expositor" responded with some interesting questions. I'm wondering if they might be traps, since they sound a lot like the common arguments that people make against Peter, but dressed up to look like a question. Perhaps he's hoping that I'll answer something incorrectly so that he can drop a verse on me. Who knows. Stay tuned to see how this develops....Did Peter take on the trait of infallibility one this "true and proper" jurisdiction was conferred upon him?I don't think there's a teaching on this, so I don't really know for sure, but I'd imagine that Peter was given the charism of infallibility either:
It's my understanding that the pope's words are deemed infallible.Well, yes and no. The pope's words are deemed infallible, but only when, as the successor of St. Peter given the task of feeding and tending the sheep, he articulates some point regarding faith or morals meant to be held by all the faithful.
Therefore . . . we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.I hope that answers your question.
Another question: Could an apostle who's been given apostolic primacy be rebuked by a lesser apostle?Yes, and I know what you're referring to: Paul's letter to the Galatians where he talks about rebuking Peter to his face. What you have to keep in mind is that Peter is being rebuked for misbehaving, not for teaching error on matters of faith or morals. Infallibility does not mean that a pope will always live his life in perfect uniformity to what he believes, or that he will never sin. All of the popes of the Church were sinners and there were a few who actually led quite scandalous lives. I don't deny that in the least. Furthermore, no man is above fraternal correction. Even the pope has a confessor.
Would the apostle with primacy be the one to make final declarations, or could that authority be given to another?I have a feeling you're referring to the Council of Jersualem in Acts 15, but I'll wait until you specifically say something about that before I give you my take on it.
Since I haven't heard from "The Expositor" yet regarding my defense of Peter and the papacy from Mt 16 and Isa 22, I thought I would go ahead and bring in a few other passages commonly used in this debate.Lk 22:31-32 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."
Notice that the "you" in vs. 31 is plural but the "you" in vs. 32 is singular. So, while satan wishes to deceive the entire group of 12, Jesus responds to this by praying specifically for one of them: Peter. Why would Jesus do this, unless He intends for Peter to be the one from among them who will govern them and keep them from error? As you can see, Peter's unique authority is closely tied to his primacy among them.
Besides the examples I have already provided, in which Peter alone is called the Rock (Mt 16:18), given the keys (Mt 16:19), instructed to feed and tend the rest (Jn 21:15-19) and specifically prayed for by Jesus (Lk 22:31-32), we have many other examples that, when taken as a whole, portray Peter as holding a position of primacy among the apostles. There are many examples in fact (you can read them all here and here), but I would like to mention only the ones that stand out the most in my mind.
For one, Peter's name appears more often than the names of all the other apostles combined (195 to 130). In the lists of the apostles, Peter is always named first (Mk 3:14-19; Mt 10:2-4; Lk 6:13-16; Acts 1:13). Often times his is the only name given (Mk 1:36; 16:7; Lk 9:32). What is particularly interesting is this verse from Matthew's gospel:
Mt 10:2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb'edee, and John his brother
There is more to this word "first" than meets the eye. Charles F. B. Allnat has this to say:
"Wherever the Apostles are enumerated in the Gospels, St. Peter is invariably named first. St. Matthew expressly calls him 'the first' (10:2), the same Greek word (protos) being rendered 'chief' in 20:27 and other passages. Mr. Allies remarks: 'Now, that second and third do not follow, shows that "first" is not a numeral here, but designates rank and pre-eminence. Thus in heathen authors this word "first" by itself indicates the mor excellent in its kind: thus in the Septuagint occur, "first friend of the king," "first of the singers," "the first priest," i.e., the chief priest (Nehem 12:46; 2 Chron 26:20). So our Lord: "Whichever among you will be first" (Mat 20:27); "Bring forth the first robe" (Luke 15:22); and St. Paul: "Sinners, of whom I am the first," i.e., chief (1 Tim 1:15). Thus "the first of the island" (Acts 28:7) means the chief magistrate; and "first" generally, in Latin phraseology, the superior or prince.' "Also, Peter often acts as a representative for the 12, or speaks on behalf of them (cf. Mt 17:24; Mk 10:27-28; Lk 8:45; Jn 6:67-69; Acts 2:14). Peter initiated the succession of Judas (Acts 1:15-26), enacted eternal judgment upon Anani'as and Sapphi'ra (Acts 5:1-11), and made the decision to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10), a decision the apostles and the "circumcision party" later defer to (Acts 11:1-18). Peter also either led or held a prominent role in the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), and it was Peter with whom Paul consulted after his conversion (Gal 1:18). All things considered, Peter definitely held a position of primacy among the apostles.
I've been very busy today, and now I'm about to pass out b/c I'm so tired. But, I wanted to at least post something for today, the feast of St. Augustine. So, here's a link to an entry on St. Augustine that I made for the Catholic Defense Directory. It's a pretty good collection of articles on his life and thought. I hope you find it beneficial.
Pax Christi,
phatcatholic
Check it out! Now my blog looks like a magazine, with the large first letter thingy and justified text. I'm thinking about making each post look like this from now on. It's pretty cool. Definitely something you don't see on a lot of other blogs. I might mess with the color and the size. Anyway, leave a comment and let me know what you think. If you want to do this on your blog, just go..........nah, I think I'll make this my little secret :D
UPDATE: For the secret revealed, go here.
Pax Christi,
phatcatholic
The primary passage in support of the authority of Peter (and of subsequent popes) is Mat 16:18-19. Here is the passage, in context:
While I was away on vacation, "The Expositor" created a thread in the HCR forum seeking a defense of the authority of Peter. Of course, I am happy to oblige. What follows is my response to a few comments made by him and "RJ" in that thread. Other people chimed in as well, but these two more directly address the topic at hand. "The Expositor" will be in gray/silver. "RJ" will be in blue.phatcatholic,Well, first of all, the Church never damns people to hell. That's not what anathemas are. An anathema means that a person has separated himself from the Church on a particular point of dogma. The result is excommunication. However, note that only formal heresy is anathematized, and only formal heretics are excommunicated.
Do you believe that if a person denies that Peter was the first pope, they are accursed?
What about all succeeding Popes? If we deny the primacy of the Pope and deny that he has full jurisdiction over the whole church, are we accursed?
Pope is a weird term. First used to mean "a supreme bishop," it grew quickly into more.Not exactly. The word "pope" comes from the Greek word papas, which originally meant "father." For proof, see pope in the Online Etymology Dictionary.
Peter was not a pope, nor was he the first bishop of the church. Historically, that would have been James the Just (Righteous) -- assumed to be the brother of Jesus. Peter was however a chief elder, and along with James and John basically set the stage for the church's growth and doctrine.No one ever said that Peter was the first bishop. All the apostles are bishops. However, Peter was the first "pope," not in the developed sense in which we understand the word today (the Church was, after all, in its infancy stages), but in the sense that:
Peter may have been a chief elder and apostle, but when it came to matters of the church (ecclesiology), Paul seemed to have that covered, as he wrote epistles to the churches, dealing with both doctrine and Christian conduct. If Peter was bishop and chief over all the apostles, then why didn't he handle the ecclesiastical duties?Paul wrote to the churches he established, or to the churches upon whom he was a great influence. That all seems very logical and practical to me. Surely you don't expect Peter to be handling every single affair of the Church. He can't do it all and Jesus never expected him to, or there'd just be one apostle instead of 12 (or 13 counting Paul). Each had a role in building up the Church. But, that doesn't mean that Peter wasn't the primary apostle, or that Paul was just b/c he wrote more.
Catholic members should be pulling from whatever council, creeds, traditions, etc, that are endorsed by the RCC. If they are consistent Catholics, they will agree with whatever the councils, creeds, edicts, etc., say.I appreciate you allowing me to use my own sources of belief in addressing this issue.
Actually, according to Vatican I, when they say he was the first pope, they mean that he had apostolic primacy and "true and proper" jurisdiction over the whole church. He was head over all matters. It wasn't just a matter of honor, but of true and proper jurisdiction. They claim this is evidenced in Matthew 16:13. Not true, however.Well, actually, it's farther down in Mt 16:18-19, but I know what you mean. As for the truth of this claim, I'd like to post something that I wrote a while back on this. See my next post.
Well, I'm back from vacation now (*sob*). The 11-hr drive back to Steubenville was pretty tough, but we made the most of it. We even stopped at this fireworks place that just so happened to also sell knives, swords, nunchucks, and blow guns! And to top it all off, it was connected to a Jelly Belly. It was pretty much the craziest thing I've ever seen, but wicked freakin cool.
If chillin in the cabin weren't enough, we'll also be going to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY. I've been wanting to see that place since I first started collecting baseball cards in the late 80's. I can't believe that I'm finally going to go there. Priority #1 is to find "The Wizard" Ozzie Smith as soon as possible. My whole family --and my dad especially-- worshipped him growing up. Is there a greater shortstop who ever lived? I doubt it.
I'm pretty much psyched about the whole thing. This is going to be an awesome vacation, and I'm very thankful for the opportunity to spend some time with Amy's family. Since they live in Maine, I don't get to see them very often. For the next week you won't see me very often either. In fact, you won't see me at all. I'll be back on the 26th. Please pray for me that my trip to and from New York will be a safe one and that I will be able to relax (which is difficult for me) and enjoy this awesome opportunity.
This drawing was a happy find among things that my wife and I were unpacking as we moved. I drew it probably about two to three years ago. I had seen a mother holding her child at Mass, smiling at him and holding him close, and immediately thought of Mary and Jesus. I thought that it would be beautiful to portray their joy in each other.
"Most High, glorious God,enlighten the darkness of my heart,and give me right faith,certain hope,and perfect charity,wisdom and understanding,Lord, that I may carry out your holy and true command.Amen."
I hope that you will enjoy this new portrait of St. "Padre" Pio, the "Miracle Worker" I have just completed. For those who do not know a lot about St. Pio, please visit this link -
This is a drawing I am immensely proud of. It is a tribute to "the Divine Michelangelo," the great genius of the Italian Renaissance. Here he is depicted carving the 17 foot tall statue of David, his greatest (with the possible exception of the Pieta) achievement in sculpture. I hope that this will be the first of many such tributes to the great masters, whose works do not cease to inspire, but rather grow in their power to awe with the passing of each generation. Many sculptors and carvers may cringe at my depiction (the marble rock was done completely from imagination, and Michelangelo would certainly have used a scaffold rather than a ladder to move around his gigantic subject), but the desired effect here is dramatic rather than precise. May God give us a new renaissance(rebirth) in art, especially art in the Church.
A very dear friend of mine was ordained to the Priesthood two Saturdays ago, and this image is for his thank you cards. The drawing of St. Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch was commissioned for his holy cards, and I think that he was pleased with them. I was glad that I was able to find an image of him actually receiving the impostion of hands by our bishop, but, as the photo I had was very fuzzy, a good likeness of the bishop was impossible. Anyone who knows my friend, now a priest, will probably recognize him here however.
Today's Catholic quotation is ingenious: "If you find a place where God is not, go there and sin with impunity." —-St. AnselmDoes anyone know the source for this quote? I love it. It's such a creative way of making the point that God sees all, and even the sin you commit in your closet is known by Him. I imagine Anselm saying this in response to someone bragging about having gotten away with murder, or stealing, or adultery, or some scandalous sin. A wise man can put a person in his place with one sentence, and I have no doubt that Anselm had that ability. I also have no doubt that the person to whom he said this walked away with his tail between his legs. That's what you get for assuming that you can ever break God's laws and get away with it.
Here is the final installment of my debate with Little Les, where I provide the evidence for the Assumption from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Also see Part 1 and Part 2. I had hoped to provide some more commentary on this evidence from Tradition, but since I have already exceeded my word limit, this must suffice. However, I anticipate being able to elaborate further on this in response to your analysis of it."If therefore it might come to pass before the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death does reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your mother and take her with you, rejoicing into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: 'Be it done according to your will" [Pseudo-Melito, The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17; (300 AD)].
"If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: 'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world" [Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377), in PG 42:737].
"Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption" [Timothy of Jerusalem, Homily on Simeon and Anna; (400 AD)].
"And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise" [John the Theologian, The Falling Asleep of Mary; (400 AD)].
"The Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoinedd to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones..." [Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4; (575-593 A.D.) ].
"As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him." [Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (before A.D. 634), in PG 86-II,3306].
"It was fitting...that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinized, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory...should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God." [Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption; (before 650 A.D.)].
You'll notice at the end of Part 1 that I had intended to post next about the evidence for the Assumption from Scripture and Tradition. But, instead of waiting patiently, he went ahead and responded to what I had said up to that point. Here is how I engaged that response. In Part 3, which will come next, I will post the evidence from Scripture and Tradition that I was eventually able to provide for him. He was banned from Phatmass before he could respond to this evidence, so Part 3 concludes the debate. I have. It doesn't. Evidence please or withdraw your assertion.Munificentissimus Deus doesn't have testimony from the ECF's of the Assumption? Note the following paragraphs, which are numbered:
17. "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."[11]How could you say "It doesn't" in light of the above?
18. the Gallican sacramentary designates this privilege of Mary's as "an ineffable mystery all the more worthy of praise as the Virgin's Assumption is something unique among men." .... "God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb."[12]
21. "It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in the act of giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father. It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God."[17]
22. "You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life."[18] And another very ancient writer asserts: "As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him."[19]
Footnotes:
[11.] Sacramentarium Gregorianum.
[12.] Menaei Totius Anni.
[17.] St. John Damascene, Encomium in Dormitionem Dei Genetricis Semperque
Virginis Mariae, Hom. II, n. 14; cf. also ibid, n. 3.
[18.] St. Germanus of Constantinople, In Sanctae Dei Genetricis Dormitionem,Sermo I.
[19.] The Encomium in Dormitionem Sanctissimae Dominae Nostrate Deiparae Semperque Virginis Mariae, attributed to St. Modestus of Jerusalem, n. 14.
The evidence presented shows that the myth of the assumption was first recorded in the fourth of fifth century spurious writings,and not before that time. This fact is admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia.Catholic "tradition' was subsequently developed. If you have any evidence of a "bountiful" earlier tradition, please present it.I believe I have. Also note that in this article, under the section "The Transitus Mariæ or Evangelium Joannis", we read: "However, there is warrant for saying that while the tradition existed substantially in portions of the Church at an early period, and thus prepared the way for the acceptance of mythical amplifications, still its later form and details were considerably influenced by the Transitus and kindred writings." I have found this to be the consensus drawn by scholars on the subject.
Again, as stated at the onset, facts must be proven to exist, not presumed to exist.Please provide evidence of your putative " sources of belief " by anyone prior to the 5th century claiming the assumption of Mary. And please include the date of the writing.I have. And by the way, I must again remind you that the task, as far as Christian testimony is concerned, is to prove that belief in the Assumption is a part of Sacred Tradition. You stated this yourself early in our debate. I have shown you that it is very much a part of the Tradition of the Church. The timeframe for the Tradition is irrelevant.
It is necessary that a fact be established, not that, using a little creative imagination, it can be "pointed to."One must alyays distinguish between facts and fables.Again, please site your scriptural evidence for the assumption of Mary. Thus far, you have not. Nor have you cited any evidence from a source prior to the fifth century.Why are you imposing this requirement? There is simply no merit in it. The doctrine is not concerned with the historical facts about her assumption. Pope Pius XII did not set out to affirm or deny these details when he articulated our belief. The doctrine is this: that she was assumed into heaven at the end of her earthly life. The task is this: to prove whether or not this belief is contrary to Scripture or Tradition. Period. That's what you and I are working with. It seems that the only way you can refute what I have presented is by going beyond the parameters of our debate.
Thank you for stipulating to that fact. The historical evidence of the legend of the Assumption, begins with spurious writings of the fifth century. I think you'll find that all Chruch writings date from after that time.I think you'll find that more recent scholarship is proving otherwise.
No. Apostolic Traditions cannot realistically be said to have begun six or seven hundred years after the fact.In the case of the Assumption, no tradition at all can be evidenced before the early 5th century.Well, for one, we find evidence of a belief in the Assumption before the fourth century. Secondly, if in fact we were to find no writings from before this time, that would not mean that no one believed it. It would just mean that we have no written evidence of it (either because they didn't write about it or because their writings on the subject no longer exist). Do you realize how hard it is to find writings about anything from the time period you stipulate? It is no small task. Futhermore, Christians during the first four centuries were primarily concerned (maybe even obsessed) with properly formulating Christian belief regarding the Incarnation and the Natures of Christ, and in battling the Christological heresies of the day. It only makes sense that there would be very little written about other Christian figures.
I don't know how to state this any more plainly: the exact details of the assumption (when it happened, where it happened, who was there) are simply not at issue here. So, this quote of yours does little to advance your claim. Also, note that when Usuard says the phrase "frivolous or apocryphal doctrine" he is referring to beliefs about where her body was burried. This has nothing to do with the doctrine of the Assumption, which states only that she was assumed into heaven at the end of her earthly life.And while doing so, you might want to consider this:"A popular martyrology, that was used from the ninth century to the reform of the Roman Martyrology by Baronius in 1548, was composed by Usuard, a monk of St. Germain des Pres in Paris. It stated its opinion quite bluntly in its announcement of the feast: "The Falling Asleep of Mary, the Holy Mother of God. Though her most sacred body is not to be found on earth, still Holy Mother Church celebrates her venerable memory with no doubt that she had left this life. But as to where the venerable temple of the Holy Ghost has been hidden by divine Providence, the sobriety of the Church prefers pious ignorance to any frivolous or apocryphal doctrine."11
11 The Roman Martyrology, quoted by Paul E. Duggan, The Assumption Dogma: Some Reactions and Ecumenical Implications in the Thought of English-Speaking Theologians (Cleveland: Merson Press, 1989), 18.
This is quoted from:The Marian Library/International Marian Research Institute, Dayton, Ohio 45469-1390, I think thy have a website.
Of course, this was written before the Pius XII's infallible pronouncement, that is, before "frivolous or apoccryphal doctrine" becamse official teachings.
The origin of Church "Tradtion" is very much bound to a time frame.You're right, the origin of Tradition is bound to a timeframe. That's because the origin is the Sacred Deposit given to the Apostles by Christ himself. However, Sacred Tradition is always with us, in the Testimony of the ECF's, in her customs and disciplines, and in her liturgies and forms of worship throughout the history of the Church. You betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what Tradition actually is. Hopefully we can remedy this. (*wink*)
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways: - orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit"- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".
The volumnous writings of the Early Church Fathers omit any mention of the Assumption. And one of them, St. Epiphanius admits that he knows nothing about it. (Panarion, Haer, 78.10-11) See also CE, Feast of the Assumption).
The legend of the Assumption is first found in De Obitu S. Dominae, an apocryphal treatise, which belongs to the 4th or 5th century. (See CE op cit).
The first Church author to write of it is St. Gregory of Tours (6th century) according to Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp 209-210, Tan Books, 1974.
In short, apostolic tradition, is not verified by the facts.
Thank you for stipulating to the fact that none of the scriptures you presented support the Assumption.I didn't say that. Look at my words again. I said that the literal intention was not to address the Assumption. I went on to explain that, in the tradition of the NT writers, the Church finds implicit evidence for the Assumption in these verses. Maybe you missed that part? Les, please read my posts in their entirety before you respond, instead of responding to each paragraph as you read it. I think that by employing this latter approach you are not grasping the full meaning I am trying to articulate to you.
As promised, here is my 3-part debate from Sept. 11, '06 on the Assumption of Mary. What this debate reveals is how important it is to stick to exactly what the dogma declares and nothing else. People will try to discredit the Assumption based on the various legends that surround it. But, where she died, or how many apostles were there, or what they saw when Mary was assumed is not essential to the dogma. We are called to believe only that Mary, at the end of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heaven. Period.In history, law, medicine, science, etc., it is necessary to establish facts. They cannot be presumed to exist.However, observing Aquinas's advice which may be generally applied, "Seek such certitude as the nature of the thing allows."Dealing with a claim of the infallibility of the fact of the Assumption, the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven, we must note that Vatican I observes:"For, as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith."The Deposit of Faith may be defined as: "The heritage of faith contained in Sacred Scripture and tradition, handed on in the Church from the time of the Apostles, from which the Magisterium draws all that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed.So we will use "scripture" and "tradition from the time of the Apostles" to see if evidence for the Assumption can be established.Obviously, my position is that it can't.I ask in the future that you provide the sources for your quotations. This will make our dialogue more efficient and our scholarship honest.
You have provided only an assertion that Pope Pius XII claimed that there is scriptural evidence and evidence in the writings of the early Church Fathers as to the fact of the Assumption. But you have provided no such evidence yourself. Nor does it exist.Nor does it exist? Have you read Munificentissimus Deus? It is filled with testimony from the ECF's that affirms the doctrine. Do I need to reproduce paragraphs 17-38? I suggest that you read them again.
From the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia, "The Feast of the Assumption" as to the writing of the Fathers, there is this:"Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae."I anticipated a response like this, which is why I made sure to point out at the onset what the infallible statement actually says. I provide it again, from Munificentissimus Deus, para. 44:
[T]the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.This, and this alone is the doctrine of the Assumption. This is all that we must find in Sacred Scripture and Tradition. So, the day she died is irrelevant. How she died is irrelevant. If she died is irrelevant. Who was there to see it is irrelevant. The fact that we find little record of these details is of little consequence to the belief itself. We are only expected to believe that it happened, that when she completed the cource of her earthly life she was assumed body and soul into heaven. Period. The presence of this belief in the Tradition of the Church is bountiful.
And the nature and date of this earliest know reference, thus:"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."
What's your point? These are not the only sources of belief in the Assumption. All the author is setting out to do here is to begin listing the Fathers who testify to the deposit of faith on this matter. Maybe you missed the previous paragraph from the article in question, where he writes [emphasis mine]: "The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition."
From St. Epiphanus, the bishop of Salamis, in his Panarion (chap 78-79) (c 374 - 376) we find this admission:
"But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried. More than that: John journeyed to Asia, yet nowhere do we read that he took the Holy Virgin with him. Rather, Scripture is absolutely silent..."
As I said before, it is not necessary that Divine Revelation speak of these specific details. It is only necessary that it point to her assumption into heaven.
And a bit more current from Fr. Saunders , dean of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College in Alexandria and pastor of Our Lady of Hope Parish in Potomac Falls. "The Dormition of Mary": This admission."Granted, the event of the Assumption is not recorded in Sacred Scripture."
Well, for one, no one has claimed that an explicit reference exists. This is actually quite understandable. Why? Well, for one, Mary was probably still alive when most of the NT was written! Also, the writers of the NT were concerned primarily with faith in Jesus Christ and in recording the events of his life. Actually, the deaths of many holy NT men and women are not recorded. For example, it is only from tradition that we know that Peter was crucified upside down. The nature of the deaths of the majority of the apostles is not recorded in Scripture. We cannot expect Scripture to record explicit statements beyond its breadth and intended purpose. It is simply not meant to be a catechism, which is why we also draw from the Sacred Tradition of the Church.
Please list the alleged scriptural references to the cerain existence of the Assumption and any writing of a Father of the Church specifically mentioning the Assumption prior to the fourth or fifth century.Of course the 4th or 5th century is far removed from the time of the Apostles and hardly part of "the Deposit of Faith."
Why must we restrict ourselves to the 4th or 5th century? The task is to find evidence of this belief in the Tradition of the Church. Tradition is not bound to this time frame. Furthermore, the ECF's, whose reflection of the "deposit of faith" comprises so much of our Tradition, reach well into the 8th century. Scholars usually mark the end of the patristic age with St. John Damascene (d AD 749) in the East and with St. Gregory the Great (d AD 604) or St. Isidore of Seville (d AD 636) in the West. I simply find no warrant for restricting our evidence to that which comes from before the fourth century.
In my next post I will provide the evidence from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Pax Christi,
phatcatholic
There's currently a debate going on over at HCR that is tackling two topics at the same time (which is not exactly ideal). The topics are whether or not the calling of God can be refused or rejected and whether or not there is such thing as "actual grace," which Catholics would see as the type of grace that God sends us when he makes that call upon us.Prov 1:24 Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,My eyes bugged out when I read it. I haven't done any extensive research on this passage yet, but it appears to explicitly reject the idea that when God calls you, you can't help but respond to it. I'm still waiting to see what the response will be.
