08/15/2013 What is the Historical Date for the Assumption of Mary ?
Dec 11, 2018 10:49:20 #
08/15/2013 What is the Historical Date for the Assumption of Mary ?
Dr Taylor Marshall
https://taylormarshall.com/2013/08/what-is-historical-date-for-assumption-of-mary.html
For Catholics, the bodily assumption of Mary is a historical event.
The falling asleep of Blessed Mary and her assumption are just as historical as, say, the fact that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated or the fact that the St. Louis Cardinals won the 2006 World Series.
a. One day Mary’s body lay in a tomb.
b. The next day it did not.
c. When did this happen?
d. Which year?
The Tomb of Mary, assumption of Mary, Jerusalem, historical date, ?
The Tomb of Mary in Jerusalem at Mount Zion ?
In the fifth century, St Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem, told the holy Byzantine Empress Pulcheria:
“Although there is no account of the circumstances of Her death in Holy Scripture, we know about them from the most ancient and credible tradition.”
He sent to the empress the grave wrappings of the Theotokos from her tomb.
St Pulcheria then placed these grave-wrappings within the Blachernae church in Constantinople.
What is the Assumption of Mary?
The “ancient and credible tradition” of St Juvenal regarding the dormition and assumption of Mary recounts that when she came to the end of her life, she was translated body and soul to Heaven.
In this way she received the eschatological promise of the resurrection of the body.
This is fitting because she is an icon of the Church and Christ’s redemption of his mother prefigures the hope of all Christians.
That Mary was honored in this was is proper to love of Christ who fulfilled the commandment “Honor thy father and thy mother.”
The Eastern Orthodox refer to this day as the Dormition or the (“Falling Asleep, first fruits”) of the Blessed Mother.
Some have wrongly concluded that this means that the Orthodox Church does not teach the bodily assumption of Mary.
It is the first fruits of the eschatological fulfillment that will bring all of God’s creative and redeeming work to a close.
She is the vessel in which the Second Person of the Holy Trinity “took flesh” and became (a) man, in order to bestow salvation on the human race.
Her womb, “more spacious than the heavens,” contained the uncontainable One.
He drew his human existence from her, and she accompanied Him with love and prayer throughout the time of His earthly ministry, even to the foot of the Cross.
She shared His suffering to the full, bearing His crucifixion and death in the depths of her soul.
Accordingly, she is the perfect image of the Church, the eternal communion of all those who live and die in Christ.
Traditional Orthodox icons.
Of her “falling asleep,” therefore, focu's especially on her death and entombment.
The disciples, “gathered together from all the ends of the earth,” surround her in an attitude of grief and lament.
Behind the bier on which she is laid there stands her glorified Son, holding in His arms a child clothed in radiant white garments, an image of His Mother’s soul.
This is a theme of reversal.
On every Orthodox iconastasis there is found a sacred image of the Mother of God, holding in her arms her newborn child, the God-Man who “took flesh” in order to save and sanctify a fallen, sinful, broken world.
Here, in the icon of the Dormition ('falling asleep"), the Son embraces and offers to that world His Holy Mother, as she did Him at the time of His birth.
At her falling asleep He receives her soul, her life, in order to exalt it in Himself and with Himself, to the glory, beauty and joy of eternal life.
However, the Kontakion.
The kontakion is a form of hymn performed in the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic liturgical traditions. The kontakion originated in the Byzantine Empire
For the feast of the Blessed Mother’s Dormtition ( "falling asleep ") Prayer reads:
Neither the tomb, nor death could hold the Theotokos,
From antiquity, Mary has been called "Theotokos", or "God-Bearer" (Mother of God)
Who is constant in prayer and our firm hope in her intercessions.
For being the Mother of Life,
She was translated to life by the One who dwelt in her virginal womb.
Note that the Eastern Church confesses that “neither the tomb, nor death” could hold the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ.
If Eastern and Western Church agree on the historical event of the assumption of Mary, has there been an attempt to discover the date at which it happened?
The Date of the Assumption
Let’s look a few clues pertaining to the life and death of Mary.
We know that she was alive at the death of Christ, because she stood at the foot of the cross.
At this point she was placed under the care of St. John, when Christ said, “Behold your mother.”
She was also present at Pentecost.
After that, there is only St. John’s biblical description of the “woman” in Rev 12 – more on this later.
Why is there little mention of Mary in Acts or the Epistles?
I believe that the New Testament speaks of the mysteries of the faith in clouded language on account of the fierce persecution that Christians received from both the Jews and the Romans.
Cases have been made that Galatians and 1 Peter,
Are basically tracts on baptism, despite the fact that baptism is only alluded to in the most minimal way.
The Gospel of John in particular is reluctant to spell out baptismal theology.
(John 3) or Eucharistic theology
(John 6), although it does so in a way that only an insider would “get it”.
Think also of John’s language about the “blood and the water”.
He’s making points for “insiders”.
Mary would have been revered, but to speak of her openly would have placed her danger.
The martyrdom of St. James the Greater is recorded in.
Acts 12:1-2 and the date of this event is safely placed at A.D. 43 or 44.
This was a Jewish persecution of the Christians.
It seems that this martyrdom further widened the growing separation between the incipient Jewish community of Christians within the synagogues of Palestine and the establishment of a separate “Way” that began to gain Gentile adherents.
The unique nature of the Church as distinct from Judaism would finally be ecclesiastically recognized at the Council Jerusalem in.
A.D. 49 or 50 (Acts 15).
Acts 12 shows the Jews in a fierce attempt to destroy those closest to Christ.
They kill James and imprison Peter (apparently with the intent to kill Peter, as well).
Here is where we turn to Church Tradition.
St. John had seen his brother St. James martyred, and St. Peter imprisoned.
Everyone knew that Christ’s inner circle consisted of Peter, James, and John.
They had killed James and captured Peter.
Obviously John was next on the hit list.
Tradition also indicates that the Jews sought to kill or disgrace the Mother of Christ.
So John took Mary and relocated to Ephesus sometime shortly after the martyrdom of his brother James. (A.D. 43 or 44).
Assumption of Mary in the AD 40s?
Thus Mary was still alive in AD 43 and so the falling asleep and assumption of Mary occurred sometime after this date.
The tradition is almost universal that her death and resurrection occurred in Jerusalem.
An alternate version has arisen from the visions of the Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich that Mary’s death, funeral, and assumption occurred in Ephesus.
Interestingly enough, Emmerich places the date of the assumption at A.D. 43 or 44.
One argument against dating the Assumption to the AD 40s is that St Luke interviewed Mary for his Gospel and it does not seem that St Luke was active within the Church in the early 40s.
Assumption of Mary in the AD 50s or 60s?
One tradition places the falling asleep of Mary after the conversion of St. Dionysius the Areopagite (a member of the council of the Areopagus) which occurred in.
Acts 17:34.
This kicks the date back into the 50s.
All the traditions place her Dormition “falling asleep' sometime after the other Apostles have gone out into the world, but before the death of the other Apostles (ca. A.D. 63).
I think Mary fell asleep at this time.
It fits the historical setting of most of the apocryphal legends retelling the Dormition “falling asleep' of Mary with the eleven living Apostles present and Peter celebrating her funeral.
Here is my list of reasons for placing the Dormition “falling asleep' at AD 63:
1. The Apostles (but not James “the Greater” Zebedee) are all still alive.
2. The great miracle of the Dormition and Assumption are not mentioned in Acts, something we might expect if it happened before the composition of Acts (A.D. 63).
3. The Book of Revelation seems to describe some sort of miraculous intervention of God meant to preserve the “the woman”.
4. I believe Revelation explains the seven year Jerusalem-tribulation leading up to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Thus, A.D. 63 fits perfectly.
Her dormition “falling asleep' in AD 63 also allows for St Luke to interview her for his Gospel.
That is, Luke was able to gain the details of the Annunciation, Nativity, and Magnificat, etc. directly from the Blessed Virgin.
So I’m suggesting that Mary was assumed about A.D. 63 when Herod’s temple was finally finished.
This temple did not have the true Ark of the Covenant –
Because Mary was the true Ark of the Covenant enshrined not in the Herodian Temple, but in the Temple of the Catholic Church.
So the Assumption of Mary is a sort of “pre-tribulation” sign occurring before the seven years of (Roman-Jerusalem) gridlock culminating in the end of the Mosaic age –
The destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.
Dr Taylor Marshall
https://taylormarshall.com/2013/08/what-is-historical-date-for-assumption-of-mary.html
For Catholics, the bodily assumption of Mary is a historical event.
The falling asleep of Blessed Mary and her assumption are just as historical as, say, the fact that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated or the fact that the St. Louis Cardinals won the 2006 World Series.
a. One day Mary’s body lay in a tomb.
b. The next day it did not.
c. When did this happen?
d. Which year?
The Tomb of Mary, assumption of Mary, Jerusalem, historical date, ?
The Tomb of Mary in Jerusalem at Mount Zion ?
In the fifth century, St Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem, told the holy Byzantine Empress Pulcheria:
“Although there is no account of the circumstances of Her death in Holy Scripture, we know about them from the most ancient and credible tradition.”
He sent to the empress the grave wrappings of the Theotokos from her tomb.
St Pulcheria then placed these grave-wrappings within the Blachernae church in Constantinople.
What is the Assumption of Mary?
The “ancient and credible tradition” of St Juvenal regarding the dormition and assumption of Mary recounts that when she came to the end of her life, she was translated body and soul to Heaven.
In this way she received the eschatological promise of the resurrection of the body.
This is fitting because she is an icon of the Church and Christ’s redemption of his mother prefigures the hope of all Christians.
That Mary was honored in this was is proper to love of Christ who fulfilled the commandment “Honor thy father and thy mother.”
The Eastern Orthodox refer to this day as the Dormition or the (“Falling Asleep, first fruits”) of the Blessed Mother.
Some have wrongly concluded that this means that the Orthodox Church does not teach the bodily assumption of Mary.
It is the first fruits of the eschatological fulfillment that will bring all of God’s creative and redeeming work to a close.
She is the vessel in which the Second Person of the Holy Trinity “took flesh” and became (a) man, in order to bestow salvation on the human race.
Her womb, “more spacious than the heavens,” contained the uncontainable One.
He drew his human existence from her, and she accompanied Him with love and prayer throughout the time of His earthly ministry, even to the foot of the Cross.
She shared His suffering to the full, bearing His crucifixion and death in the depths of her soul.
Accordingly, she is the perfect image of the Church, the eternal communion of all those who live and die in Christ.
Traditional Orthodox icons.
Of her “falling asleep,” therefore, focu's especially on her death and entombment.
The disciples, “gathered together from all the ends of the earth,” surround her in an attitude of grief and lament.
Behind the bier on which she is laid there stands her glorified Son, holding in His arms a child clothed in radiant white garments, an image of His Mother’s soul.
This is a theme of reversal.
On every Orthodox iconastasis there is found a sacred image of the Mother of God, holding in her arms her newborn child, the God-Man who “took flesh” in order to save and sanctify a fallen, sinful, broken world.
Here, in the icon of the Dormition ('falling asleep"), the Son embraces and offers to that world His Holy Mother, as she did Him at the time of His birth.
At her falling asleep He receives her soul, her life, in order to exalt it in Himself and with Himself, to the glory, beauty and joy of eternal life.
However, the Kontakion.
The kontakion is a form of hymn performed in the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholic liturgical traditions. The kontakion originated in the Byzantine Empire
For the feast of the Blessed Mother’s Dormtition ( "falling asleep ") Prayer reads:
Neither the tomb, nor death could hold the Theotokos,
From antiquity, Mary has been called "Theotokos", or "God-Bearer" (Mother of God)
Who is constant in prayer and our firm hope in her intercessions.
For being the Mother of Life,
She was translated to life by the One who dwelt in her virginal womb.
Note that the Eastern Church confesses that “neither the tomb, nor death” could hold the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ.
If Eastern and Western Church agree on the historical event of the assumption of Mary, has there been an attempt to discover the date at which it happened?
The Date of the Assumption
Let’s look a few clues pertaining to the life and death of Mary.
We know that she was alive at the death of Christ, because she stood at the foot of the cross.
At this point she was placed under the care of St. John, when Christ said, “Behold your mother.”
She was also present at Pentecost.
After that, there is only St. John’s biblical description of the “woman” in Rev 12 – more on this later.
Why is there little mention of Mary in Acts or the Epistles?
I believe that the New Testament speaks of the mysteries of the faith in clouded language on account of the fierce persecution that Christians received from both the Jews and the Romans.
Cases have been made that Galatians and 1 Peter,
Are basically tracts on baptism, despite the fact that baptism is only alluded to in the most minimal way.
The Gospel of John in particular is reluctant to spell out baptismal theology.
(John 3) or Eucharistic theology
(John 6), although it does so in a way that only an insider would “get it”.
Think also of John’s language about the “blood and the water”.
He’s making points for “insiders”.
Mary would have been revered, but to speak of her openly would have placed her danger.
The martyrdom of St. James the Greater is recorded in.
Acts 12:1-2 and the date of this event is safely placed at A.D. 43 or 44.
This was a Jewish persecution of the Christians.
It seems that this martyrdom further widened the growing separation between the incipient Jewish community of Christians within the synagogues of Palestine and the establishment of a separate “Way” that began to gain Gentile adherents.
The unique nature of the Church as distinct from Judaism would finally be ecclesiastically recognized at the Council Jerusalem in.
A.D. 49 or 50 (Acts 15).
Acts 12 shows the Jews in a fierce attempt to destroy those closest to Christ.
They kill James and imprison Peter (apparently with the intent to kill Peter, as well).
Here is where we turn to Church Tradition.
St. John had seen his brother St. James martyred, and St. Peter imprisoned.
Everyone knew that Christ’s inner circle consisted of Peter, James, and John.
They had killed James and captured Peter.
Obviously John was next on the hit list.
Tradition also indicates that the Jews sought to kill or disgrace the Mother of Christ.
So John took Mary and relocated to Ephesus sometime shortly after the martyrdom of his brother James. (A.D. 43 or 44).
Assumption of Mary in the AD 40s?
Thus Mary was still alive in AD 43 and so the falling asleep and assumption of Mary occurred sometime after this date.
The tradition is almost universal that her death and resurrection occurred in Jerusalem.
An alternate version has arisen from the visions of the Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich that Mary’s death, funeral, and assumption occurred in Ephesus.
Interestingly enough, Emmerich places the date of the assumption at A.D. 43 or 44.
One argument against dating the Assumption to the AD 40s is that St Luke interviewed Mary for his Gospel and it does not seem that St Luke was active within the Church in the early 40s.
Assumption of Mary in the AD 50s or 60s?
One tradition places the falling asleep of Mary after the conversion of St. Dionysius the Areopagite (a member of the council of the Areopagus) which occurred in.
Acts 17:34.
This kicks the date back into the 50s.
All the traditions place her Dormition “falling asleep' sometime after the other Apostles have gone out into the world, but before the death of the other Apostles (ca. A.D. 63).
I think Mary fell asleep at this time.
It fits the historical setting of most of the apocryphal legends retelling the Dormition “falling asleep' of Mary with the eleven living Apostles present and Peter celebrating her funeral.
Here is my list of reasons for placing the Dormition “falling asleep' at AD 63:
1. The Apostles (but not James “the Greater” Zebedee) are all still alive.
2. The great miracle of the Dormition and Assumption are not mentioned in Acts, something we might expect if it happened before the composition of Acts (A.D. 63).
3. The Book of Revelation seems to describe some sort of miraculous intervention of God meant to preserve the “the woman”.
4. I believe Revelation explains the seven year Jerusalem-tribulation leading up to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Thus, A.D. 63 fits perfectly.
Her dormition “falling asleep' in AD 63 also allows for St Luke to interview her for his Gospel.
That is, Luke was able to gain the details of the Annunciation, Nativity, and Magnificat, etc. directly from the Blessed Virgin.
So I’m suggesting that Mary was assumed about A.D. 63 when Herod’s temple was finally finished.
This temple did not have the true Ark of the Covenant –
Because Mary was the true Ark of the Covenant enshrined not in the Herodian Temple, but in the Temple of the Catholic Church.
So the Assumption of Mary is a sort of “pre-tribulation” sign occurring before the seven years of (Roman-Jerusalem) gridlock culminating in the end of the Mosaic age –
The destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.
Dec 11, 2018 11:01:28 #
Repeating doctrinal lies will not make them true.
The "assumption" of Mary was made up by Pope Pius XII in 1950.
It simply defies all logic and reason to think a perfect God would leave such an important detail out of His word.
The "assumption" of Mary was made up by Pope Pius XII in 1950.
It simply defies all logic and reason to think a perfect God would leave such an important detail out of His word.
Dec 11, 2018 11:21:54 #
Rose42 wrote:
Repeating doctrinal lies will not make them true.
The "assumption" of Mary was made up by Pope Pius XII in 1950.
It simply defies all logic and reason to think a perfect God would leave such an important detail out of His word.
The "assumption" of Mary was made up by Pope Pius XII in 1950.
It simply defies all logic and reason to think a perfect God would leave such an important detail out of His word.
Amen and Amen I guess Doc110 believes that repeating lies often enough will make them true. Sort of like the democrat party I guess maybe that is the reason do many democrats are Roman Catholic instead of protestants.
Dec 11, 2018 13:50:47 #
balmer,
Read and learn,
You don't know how to study the Bible, some people are just so Protestant ignorant.
When you get a chance balmer, try refuting any biblical text and verse scripturally and or historically.
Yeah that will be the day . . .
The lone sycophant boot-licking simpleton who follow a dead Protestant religion
These articles have been posted for your benefit to understand the Bible better
1. What is Wrong With the Allegorical or Figuratively Interpretation Method ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147671-1.html
2. Does the Bible Contain Allegory ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147669-1.html
3. What is the law of first mention ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147665-1.html
4. What is Good Biblical Exegesis ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147659-1.html
5. What is Biblical Typology ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147655-1.html
6. What is Biblical Textualism?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147654-1.html
7. What is the difference between a Christocentric and a Christotelic hermeneutic ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147653-1.html
8. What does it mean that a biblical passage is descriptive rather than prescriptive ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147651-1.html
9. Why is it important to study the Bible in context ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147650-1.html
10 The Two Conflicting Approaches of Interrupting Hermeneutics; The Bible Exegesis and Eisegesis Viewpoints.
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147604-1.html
St. Vincent de Lerins: How to Distinguish the True Faith from Heresy
https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n026rp_Lerins_PreserveFaith.htm
At the moment when many Catholics are making, or considering making, compromises with Progressivism regarding the New Mass and Vatican II, it seems to us opportune to remember the criteria to maintain the true Catholic Faith given by St. Vincent de Lerins.
Facing these compromises, Catholics are taking sides – “I will take the position of my team, not your team.”
This is a superficial approach.
Each one of us is individually responsible before God for the right or wrong position he takes.
St. Vincent de Lerins
In the 5th century, St. Vincent of Lerins saw that the people were faced with various errors and heresies of Donatus, Arius, Photinus, Pelagius and others, and gave them this good advice on how they could know with security the true Catholic Faith.
Even if it is taught by distinguished men or Prelates, the bad doctrine should not be accepted by Catholics, who should cling to Tradition and what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all [quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est].
“What (is) always, what (is) everywhere, what (is) by everybody (believed).”
Actually, he stated:
"I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine.
How I can secure a type of fixed and, as it were, general, guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy.
"And the answer that I receive is always to this effect:
That if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a robust faith, we ought, with the Lord's help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner.
First, that is, by the authority of God's Law,
Then, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
"Here, it may be, someone will ask:
‘Since the canon of Scripture (The Bible) is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church?’
The answer is that because of the profundity itself of Scripture, all men do not place the same interpretation upon it.
The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men.
Novatian expounds in one way,
Sabellius in another,
Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another.
Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles, in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Catholic Church.
"Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.
That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally.
We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent.
We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses;
Antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed;
Consent, if in antiquity itself, we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, Bishops and Doctors alike.
"What then will the Catholic Christian do ?
If a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith?
The answer is sure.
He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb.
"But what if some novel contagions try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it?
Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty.
"What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error?
Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men.
"But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found?
Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places.
They yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding.
And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent.
Openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation."
(The Vincentian Canon, in Commonitorium, chap IV, 434,
ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts)
Posted July 21, 2007
Related Topics of Interest
The Motu Proprio, after the Emotions
https://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/088bev07-18-2007.htm
Pius IX: Ecumenism Is Synonymous with Religious Indifferentism
https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n005rp_Indifferentism.htm .
Read and learn,
You don't know how to study the Bible, some people are just so Protestant ignorant.
When you get a chance balmer, try refuting any biblical text and verse scripturally and or historically.
Yeah that will be the day . . .
The lone sycophant boot-licking simpleton who follow a dead Protestant religion
These articles have been posted for your benefit to understand the Bible better
1. What is Wrong With the Allegorical or Figuratively Interpretation Method ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147671-1.html
2. Does the Bible Contain Allegory ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147669-1.html
3. What is the law of first mention ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147665-1.html
4. What is Good Biblical Exegesis ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147659-1.html
5. What is Biblical Typology ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147655-1.html
6. What is Biblical Textualism?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147654-1.html
7. What is the difference between a Christocentric and a Christotelic hermeneutic ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147653-1.html
8. What does it mean that a biblical passage is descriptive rather than prescriptive ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147651-1.html
9. Why is it important to study the Bible in context ?
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147650-1.html
10 The Two Conflicting Approaches of Interrupting Hermeneutics; The Bible Exegesis and Eisegesis Viewpoints.
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-147604-1.html
St. Vincent de Lerins: How to Distinguish the True Faith from Heresy
https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n026rp_Lerins_PreserveFaith.htm
At the moment when many Catholics are making, or considering making, compromises with Progressivism regarding the New Mass and Vatican II, it seems to us opportune to remember the criteria to maintain the true Catholic Faith given by St. Vincent de Lerins.
Facing these compromises, Catholics are taking sides – “I will take the position of my team, not your team.”
This is a superficial approach.
Each one of us is individually responsible before God for the right or wrong position he takes.
St. Vincent de Lerins
In the 5th century, St. Vincent of Lerins saw that the people were faced with various errors and heresies of Donatus, Arius, Photinus, Pelagius and others, and gave them this good advice on how they could know with security the true Catholic Faith.
Even if it is taught by distinguished men or Prelates, the bad doctrine should not be accepted by Catholics, who should cling to Tradition and what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all [quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est].
“What (is) always, what (is) everywhere, what (is) by everybody (believed).”
Actually, he stated:
"I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine.
How I can secure a type of fixed and, as it were, general, guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy.
"And the answer that I receive is always to this effect:
That if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a robust faith, we ought, with the Lord's help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner.
First, that is, by the authority of God's Law,
Then, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
"Here, it may be, someone will ask:
‘Since the canon of Scripture (The Bible) is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church?’
The answer is that because of the profundity itself of Scripture, all men do not place the same interpretation upon it.
The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men.
Novatian expounds in one way,
Sabellius in another,
Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another.
Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles, in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Catholic Church.
"Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.
That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally.
We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent.
We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses;
Antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed;
Consent, if in antiquity itself, we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, Bishops and Doctors alike.
"What then will the Catholic Christian do ?
If a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith?
The answer is sure.
He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb.
"But what if some novel contagions try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it?
Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty.
"What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error?
Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men.
"But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found?
Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places.
They yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding.
And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent.
Openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation."
(The Vincentian Canon, in Commonitorium, chap IV, 434,
ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts)
Posted July 21, 2007
Related Topics of Interest
The Motu Proprio, after the Emotions
https://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/088bev07-18-2007.htm
Pius IX: Ecumenism Is Synonymous with Religious Indifferentism
https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n005rp_Indifferentism.htm .
bahmer wrote:
Amen and Amen I guess Doc110 believes that repeating lies often enough will make them true.
Sort of like the democrat party I guess maybe that is the reason do many democrats are Roman Catholic instead of protestants.
Amen and Amen I guess Doc110 believes that repeating lies often enough will make them true.
Sort of like the democrat party I guess maybe that is the reason do many democrats are Roman Catholic instead of protestants.
Dec 11, 2018 14:24:06 #
Doc110 wrote:
balmer, br br Read and learn, br br You don't k... (show quote)
Do you really think that I would listen to let alone read anything from a Roman Catholic Parishioner with whom I disagree as opposed to either reading or studying under a true Christian Protestant such as those that I both admire and respect both here on OPP and other areas. I will go and study to my hearts content and read and listen to the likes of Zemirah, Rose42, TecaCan, Jack Sequin, mwdegenutis and others on here who teach a strong biblical doctrine and follow the Bible. I will not follow the Pagan believing ones on here such as you and Radiance3 and padremike.
Dec 11, 2018 15:01:42 #
bahmer wrote:
Do you really think that I would listen to let al... (show quote)
Unfortunately Bahmer, you have essentially decided that you will not listen to or consider any information that there may be any truth other than what you currently believe. Citing a multitude of fellow heretics does not gain access to truth, only rational consideration of the arguments will do that. A closed mind is a total waste.
Dec 11, 2018 15:07:16 #
pafret wrote:
Unfortunately Bahmer, you have essentially decided that you will not listen to or consider any information that there may be any truth other than what you currently believe. Citing a multitude of fellow heretics does not gain access to truth, only rational consideration of the arguments will do that. A closed mind is a total waste.
It all depends on who and what you classify as a heretic. You and the Roman Catholic Church classify all protestants as heretics because they don't believe your doctrines and so because you believe the doctrines that you do believe in we also classify the Roman Catholic Church a Pagan religion and therefore her doctrines as well. If you so choose to follow Lucifer instead of Jesus Christ that is up to you but as far as for me and myself we will serve the Lord.
Dec 11, 2018 15:21:29 #
pafret wrote:
Unfortunately Bahmer, you have essentially decided that you will not listen to or consider any information that there may be any truth other than what you currently believe. Citing a multitude of fellow heretics does not gain access to truth, only rational consideration of the arguments will do that. A closed mind is a total waste.
The source of information should be the bible. If one is presented with an argument or doctrine then we have to search the scriptures to see what is true - like the Bereans did. That is what led to me leaving Catholicism. The bible was and is my truth.
Dec 11, 2018 15:22:57 #
balmer,
Your protestant religion is a dead man-Made religion and does not practice the Faith and sacraments that Jesus commanded.
Jesus taught and instructed his Apostles and early Church fathers, the Pope's, Bishop's, Cardinal's, Priest's, Deacon's, Friars-Brother's, Sisters-Nun's and the Church laity faithful.
Jesus said very explicitly John 6:53-54
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
Doc110
Your protestant religion is a dead man-Made religion and does not practice the Faith and sacraments that Jesus commanded.
Jesus taught and instructed his Apostles and early Church fathers, the Pope's, Bishop's, Cardinal's, Priest's, Deacon's, Friars-Brother's, Sisters-Nun's and the Church laity faithful.
Jesus said very explicitly John 6:53-54
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
Doc110
bahmer wrote:
br br Do you really think that I would listen t... (show quote)
Dec 11, 2018 15:25:42 #
Doc110 wrote:
balmer, br br Your protestant religion is a dead ... (show quote)
Get back in your Bible there Doc110 and you will find that your doctrines are not supported there. It appears again that you don't know what the Bible says about many of your doctrines and beliefs.
Dec 11, 2018 15:30:57 #
rose42,
Oh Please, . . . stop with the Sola Scriptura man-Made crap compost.
You have a false Man-Made Protestant doctrine . . .
Sola Scriptura can't be found in the Bible.
It's a Man-Made protestant invention with out any legs, teeth of scriptural passages.
You doing the Straw-Man fallacy argument again.
The Bereans Protestant faith is a dead Protestant religion.
Its the Bible, Church Traditions and Oral traditions that we are to follow.
You seem to have a mental block on those biblical passages.
To be deep in the Bible and in Church history, is to cease being Protestant.
Convert to Catholicism, Cardinal Henry Newman
Doc110
Oh Please, . . . stop with the Sola Scriptura man-Made crap compost.
You have a false Man-Made Protestant doctrine . . .
Sola Scriptura can't be found in the Bible.
It's a Man-Made protestant invention with out any legs, teeth of scriptural passages.
You doing the Straw-Man fallacy argument again.
The Bereans Protestant faith is a dead Protestant religion.
Its the Bible, Church Traditions and Oral traditions that we are to follow.
You seem to have a mental block on those biblical passages.
To be deep in the Bible and in Church history, is to cease being Protestant.
Convert to Catholicism, Cardinal Henry Newman
Doc110
Rose42 wrote:
The source of information should be the bible.
If one is presented with an argument or doctrine then we have to search the scriptures to see what is true - like the Bereans did.
That is what led to me leaving Catholicism. The bible was and is my truth.
The source of information should be the bible.
If one is presented with an argument or doctrine then we have to search the scriptures to see what is true - like the Bereans did.
That is what led to me leaving Catholicism. The bible was and is my truth.
Dec 11, 2018 15:41:32 #
Balmer,
The Protestant faith is a Dead faith and has dead Doctrines . . .
Know your Truths, Scripture, Tradition written and oral.
The Catholic Church has 1,987 Years of History and is responsible of the Testament bible.
Tell me your Assembly of God church is less than 100 Years old. What doctrines and traditions do you even have ? Oh Please . . .
I laughed on day as I heard the AOG church minster, read an out of context Nicene Creed during your service's.
And they tried to reaffirm their doctrine and faith by a plagiarized version of the Catholic creed.
This was how low the OAG church has sunk . . .
What else did the AOG church steal from the Catholic Church
Doc110
The Protestant faith is a Dead faith and has dead Doctrines . . .
Know your Truths, Scripture, Tradition written and oral.
The Catholic Church has 1,987 Years of History and is responsible of the Testament bible.
Tell me your Assembly of God church is less than 100 Years old. What doctrines and traditions do you even have ? Oh Please . . .
I laughed on day as I heard the AOG church minster, read an out of context Nicene Creed during your service's.
And they tried to reaffirm their doctrine and faith by a plagiarized version of the Catholic creed.
This was how low the OAG church has sunk . . .
What else did the AOG church steal from the Catholic Church
Doc110
bahmer wrote:
Get back in your Bible there Doc110 and you will find that your doctrines are not supported there.
It appears again that you don't know what the Bible says about many of your doctrines and beliefs.
Get back in your Bible there Doc110 and you will find that your doctrines are not supported there.
It appears again that you don't know what the Bible says about many of your doctrines and beliefs.
Dec 11, 2018 15:42:14 #
Doc110 wrote:
rose42, br br Oh Please, . . . stop with the Sol... (show quote)
Cardinal Newman made a rather silly and ignorant statement for it wasn't the Catholics who were there at the beginning...it was the Christians.
The protestants have no man made doctrine like the Catholic church. They use the bible. That's all we need - as God told us that was all we need.
Dec 11, 2018 15:51:41 #
Doc110 wrote:
Balmer, br br The Protestant faith is a Dead fait... (show quote)
I will trust in the Bible and you are perfectly welcome to all of the oral and written apostolic tradition that you want. If it can't be found in the bible it is immediately subject to doubt as far as I am concerned and If one of your popes blessed the teaching or tradition it is truly skeptical at that point in time. Most of the Roman Catholic Tradition is truly skeptical anyway to start with. All of that garbage surrounding Mary and Mariology and praying to the saints and other dead people paying alms and praying for people imn purgatory all of which are not supported in the Bible you are welcome to them.
Dec 11, 2018 16:22:33 #
Balmer,
This is what is said in all Christian Bibles about Catholic Church Traditions and Oral traditions.
So be a Blind-Man sycophant that believes in a dead Protestant AOG Religion.
There are 22 bible passages on bible Scripture and Catholic Church Tradition and Oral Traditions and teaching and instructions of Jesus Christ.
So balmer, continue to lie to yourself all you want . . . on these 22 Biblical verses and of these Scriptural passages, . . . . Catholic Church Tradition and Oral Traditions.
I forgot your AOG has no history or traditions, it another schismatic break-off 30,000 denomination Protestant religion
They believe in a dead protestant man-made religion.
1. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven...Matthew 16:18ff
2. Some Christians claim that there is no need for a Church as guardian of the truth, since the Bible is the sole rule of faith. To prove their position they usually cite:
3. And that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. [2 Tim 3:15-17, NASB]
On closer examination it becomes apparent that these verses really do not teach on the sufficiency of the Bible.
Verse 17 (especially when verse 14 is ignored) seems to imply the sufficiency of Scripture "for every good work," but no connection is made to salvation, a key part of the faith.
Verse 15 connects the importance of sacred writings to salvation, but these writings are those that Timothy knew since childhood, i.e. Old Testament only.
Even though verse 16 enumerates the great utility of "All Scripture" for teaching the faith, still no sufficiency is implied.
A glass of water is profitable for health, but not sufficient, since air and food are also needed to live.
3. It is ironic that in 2 Tim 3:14, Timothy is told:
"Continue in the things you have learned ...knowing from whom you have learned them." This verse strongly suggests Apostolic Tradition.
In the same letter, Timothy is informed on how to pass on Christ's teachings:
Things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. [2 Tim 2:2]
4. St. Paul actually commands the Thessalonians Christians to hold fast to the Traditions taught by the Apostles, both oral and written:
2 Thessalonians 2:15
5. So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. [2 Thess 2:15; see 1 Cor 11:2]
Finally if everything that Jesus and the Apostles did and taught were recorded in the Bible, then why did St. John close his Gospel with this curious verse:
6. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. [John 21:25, RSV; see 20:30]
Or his last two Epistles with these verses:
John says;
I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.
2 John 12
John say's
13 I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink.
14 I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.
3 John 13-14 ?
Jesus in Mark 7:5-13 or Matt. 15:1-9 does not condemn all traditions but those corrupted by the Pharisees.
Unlike the human traditions of the Pharisees, Apostolic Tradition is God's Word spoken through the Apostles, not recorded in the Bible.
The Church as promised by Christ (Matt 16:18-19, see front panel; Matt 18:17-18)
Preserves and teaches the Apostolic Tradition. This Church is the pillar and support of the truth, as is written:
You may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
1 Tim 3:15, NASB;
20 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
Eph 2:19-21
Another function of the Church is to explain passages in the Bible. St. Peter warns about teachings in Scripture that are difficult to understand:
As also in all his (St. Paul's) letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Pet 3:15-16
According to the Bible, the disciples had to explain the Scriptures.
An example is St. Philip explaining the Book of Isaiah to the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:30-31.
Also this function of the Church includes interpreting the Bible:
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation;
For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
2 Pet 1:20-21
St. Peter in this passage warns us not to personally interpret God's message (prophecy) in Scripture.
The Church being "men moved by the Holy Spirit" can only rightfully serve at this capacity.
Even though the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, it is not the only guiding rule of faith.
Both the Bible and Apostolic Tradition are the Word of God. Both are important sources for the Faith.
The Catholic Church being the Church founded by Christ preserves both from corruption and uses both to teach God's Word with guidance from the Holy Spirit.
(Matt 28:16-20; John 16:12-15).
This is what is said in all Christian Bibles about Catholic Church Traditions and Oral traditions.
So be a Blind-Man sycophant that believes in a dead Protestant AOG Religion.
There are 22 bible passages on bible Scripture and Catholic Church Tradition and Oral Traditions and teaching and instructions of Jesus Christ.
So balmer, continue to lie to yourself all you want . . . on these 22 Biblical verses and of these Scriptural passages, . . . . Catholic Church Tradition and Oral Traditions.
I forgot your AOG has no history or traditions, it another schismatic break-off 30,000 denomination Protestant religion
They believe in a dead protestant man-made religion.
1. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven...Matthew 16:18ff
2. Some Christians claim that there is no need for a Church as guardian of the truth, since the Bible is the sole rule of faith. To prove their position they usually cite:
3. And that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. [2 Tim 3:15-17, NASB]
On closer examination it becomes apparent that these verses really do not teach on the sufficiency of the Bible.
Verse 17 (especially when verse 14 is ignored) seems to imply the sufficiency of Scripture "for every good work," but no connection is made to salvation, a key part of the faith.
Verse 15 connects the importance of sacred writings to salvation, but these writings are those that Timothy knew since childhood, i.e. Old Testament only.
Even though verse 16 enumerates the great utility of "All Scripture" for teaching the faith, still no sufficiency is implied.
A glass of water is profitable for health, but not sufficient, since air and food are also needed to live.
3. It is ironic that in 2 Tim 3:14, Timothy is told:
"Continue in the things you have learned ...knowing from whom you have learned them." This verse strongly suggests Apostolic Tradition.
In the same letter, Timothy is informed on how to pass on Christ's teachings:
Things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. [2 Tim 2:2]
4. St. Paul actually commands the Thessalonians Christians to hold fast to the Traditions taught by the Apostles, both oral and written:
2 Thessalonians 2:15
5. So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. [2 Thess 2:15; see 1 Cor 11:2]
Finally if everything that Jesus and the Apostles did and taught were recorded in the Bible, then why did St. John close his Gospel with this curious verse:
6. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. [John 21:25, RSV; see 20:30]
Or his last two Epistles with these verses:
John says;
I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.
2 John 12
John say's
13 I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink.
14 I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.
3 John 13-14 ?
Jesus in Mark 7:5-13 or Matt. 15:1-9 does not condemn all traditions but those corrupted by the Pharisees.
Unlike the human traditions of the Pharisees, Apostolic Tradition is God's Word spoken through the Apostles, not recorded in the Bible.
The Church as promised by Christ (Matt 16:18-19, see front panel; Matt 18:17-18)
Preserves and teaches the Apostolic Tradition. This Church is the pillar and support of the truth, as is written:
You may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
1 Tim 3:15, NASB;
20 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
Eph 2:19-21
Another function of the Church is to explain passages in the Bible. St. Peter warns about teachings in Scripture that are difficult to understand:
As also in all his (St. Paul's) letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Pet 3:15-16
According to the Bible, the disciples had to explain the Scriptures.
An example is St. Philip explaining the Book of Isaiah to the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:30-31.
Also this function of the Church includes interpreting the Bible:
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation;
For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
2 Pet 1:20-21
St. Peter in this passage warns us not to personally interpret God's message (prophecy) in Scripture.
The Church being "men moved by the Holy Spirit" can only rightfully serve at this capacity.
Even though the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, it is not the only guiding rule of faith.
Both the Bible and Apostolic Tradition are the Word of God. Both are important sources for the Faith.
The Catholic Church being the Church founded by Christ preserves both from corruption and uses both to teach God's Word with guidance from the Holy Spirit.
(Matt 28:16-20; John 16:12-15).
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.