True2Ourselves
Already a member? login
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
  
+
Register FAQ A-Z directory Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

True2Ourselves Forums   > Community Topics > Theology  > The DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-15-2012, 10:11 AM
Josiah
 
Posts: n/a
Question The DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary

.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AHJE

Mary is ASSUMED by the POWER of her Incarnate Son into the Glory of Heaven, Body and Soul, was she assumed. Her bones have never been found! You really need to be careful the things that you say. Speaking unworthily about Mary is blasphemy.


1. I'd like to discuss the Scriptures that teach that it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all persons on earth, a matter of greatest certainty of Truth and Fact, a matter impacting the eternal salvation of souls that Mary never died and that that was "assumed" body and soul into heaven at the second of her undeath.


2. And if what God says in Scripture is irrelevant or inadequate and what matters instead is what some sinful man said, then I'd like to discuss the quote of any such man or men from the time of Mary's life and undeath who witnessed this event and who states that it is a dogmatic fact that Mary never died and was assumed, body and soul, into heaven at the second of her undeath. Let's discuss those quotes.


3. And let's discuss if it is, specifically, blasphemy, to not teach such as dogma (or even at all).


4. And let's discuss if unfound bones is substantiation to the level claimed that one never died and that that one was ergo assumed, body and soul, upon the second of their undeath into heaven.




Thank you!


- Josiah





.

Last edited by Josiah : 02-15-2012 at 10:15 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-15-2012, 10:16 AM
AHJE's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,014
Wink Re: The DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary

If Jesus let Mary rot in A grave, He who took Flesh of her flesh, and Bone of her bones, ... indeed this would redound to His Dishonor.

But I have to go to work right now and I'm looking forward to this one.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-15-2012, 12:14 PM
Giuliano
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: The DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
1. I'd like to discuss the Scriptures that teach that it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all persons on earth, a matter of greatest certainty of Truth and Fact, a matter impacting the eternal salvation of souls that Mary never died and that that was "assumed" body and soul into heaven at the second of her undeath.
You set the bar too high. It's not mentioned in the Bible. If you set the bar a little lower and were willing to compare the traditions of various religions, such as what Judaism says about the assuming of bodies into Heaven, we could discuss this and then see how reasonable it is to think Mary would have been assumed into Heaven.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-15-2012, 01:06 PM
Linsinbigler's Avatar
Representative Clergy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,150
Default Re: The DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
.






1. I'd like to discuss the Scriptures that teach that it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all persons on earth, a matter of greatest certainty of Truth and Fact, a matter impacting the eternal salvation of souls that Mary never died and that that was "assumed" body and soul into heaven at the second of her undeath.


2. And if what God says in Scripture is irrelevant or inadequate and what matters instead is what some sinful man said, then I'd like to discuss the quote of any such man or men from the time of Mary's life and undeath who witnessed this event and who states that it is a dogmatic fact that Mary never died and was assumed, body and soul, into heaven at the second of her undeath. Let's discuss those quotes.


3. And let's discuss if it is, specifically, blasphemy, to not teach such as dogma (or even at all).


4. And let's discuss if unfound bones is substantiation to the level claimed that one never died and that that one was ergo assumed, body and soul, upon the second of their undeath into heaven.




Thank you!


- Josiah





.

I am inclined to agree with Josiah on a few of the points. The term "blasphemy" is usually used with regard to God. If one were to say "Mary is not the mother of Christ" and implied Christ did not come in the flesh, that is blasphemy, and according to St. John the spirit of Antichrist. But regarding her bodily assumption, I don't think that blasphemy is correct.

Regarding point 4, I believe that the RC dogma of Assumption does not require one to believe that she did not die, and allows one to either believe that she died and then was assumed or to believe she did not die and was assumed.

The Orthodox Church does not hold the assumption to be dogma. It does celebrate the feast of her dormition (bodily death) and translation ("assumption") into heaven on August 15, recognizing it as something that happened, without saying that those who don't violate dogma, as it is simply not dogma. It was not even dogma in the RCC until the mid-20th century.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-15-2012, 02:01 PM
Dwaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: The DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary

According to the teaching of Pope Pius 12,"She was not subject to the law of remaining corruption of the grave,and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body".She was assumed into heaven,right after her death.There have been many alleged sightings of the Virgin Mary in her bodily form,In Fatima portugal in 1917,In tepayac hill mexico in1531,and more recently in medjugorge bosnia in1981.Believe it or not.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-15-2012, 09:47 PM
AHJE's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,014
Default Re: The DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary

The Reason why I said it was Blasphemy is because the Second Commandment "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" extends to everything that is ASSOCIATED with God. Anything SACRED.

The Second commandment governs HOW WE SPEAK about sacred things, places, persons, priests, the Church, Mary, the Saints, and so on. If you speak unworthily about any of these you are in violation of the SECOND COMMANDMENT.

We must not profane what is Sacred with our words.

If you want to know how seriously Jesus takes this, then just recall how He cleansed the Temple which was meant to be Sacred of the money changers who were profaning the Temple by turning it into a den of thieves and selfish gain.

This is somewhat related to what has been said about Blaspheming Mary who is also considered a Sacred Vessel, worthy of special honor.

God bless you.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-15-2012, 09:58 PM
xenic101's Avatar
Knight of the Forum
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,341
Default Re: The DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary

This thread, wow.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-15-2012, 11:41 PM
Giuliano
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: The DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary

Quote:
Originally Posted by AHJE View Post
The Reason why I said it was Blasphemy is because the Second Commandment "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" extends to everything that is ASSOCIATED with God. Anything SACRED.

The Second commandment governs HOW WE SPEAK about sacred things, places, persons, priests, the Church, Mary, the Saints, and so on. If you speak unworthily about any of these you are in violation of the SECOND COMMANDMENT.

We must not profane what is Sacred with our words.

If you want to know how seriously Jesus takes this, then just recall how He cleansed the Temple which was meant to be Sacred of the money changers who were profaning the Temple by turning it into a den of thieves and selfish gain.

This is somewhat related to what has been said about Blaspheming Mary who is also considered a Sacred Vessel, worthy of special honor.

God bless you.
It may or may not be blasphemy for all I know. It was considered blasphemy under Jewish Law to say or do certain things to the anointed king.

The false charge against Naboth was that he had blasphemed both God and the king (1 Kings 21:13).

The Rabbis say that David should have turned Uriah over to the Sanhedrin to be tried on the charge of blasphemy. Uriah swore an oath by the life of the king (2 Samuel 11:11). He deserved the death penalty. David's error was wishing to avoid the embarrassment of a trial and taking justice into his own hands instead of letting a proper court put him on trial.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-16-2012, 07:56 PM
Linsinbigler's Avatar
Representative Clergy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,150
Default Re: The DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giuliano View Post
It may or may not be blasphemy for all I know. It was considered blasphemy under Jewish Law to say or do certain things to the anointed king.

The false charge against Naboth was that he had blasphemed both God and the king (1 Kings 21:13).

The Rabbis say that David should have turned Uriah over to the Sanhedrin to be tried on the charge of blasphemy. Uriah swore an oath by the life of the king (2 Samuel 11:11). He deserved the death penalty. David's error was wishing to avoid the embarrassment of a trial and taking justice into his own hands instead of letting a proper court put him on trial.
Thank you Guiliano and Alex. You are both correct, that there is such a thing as blasphemy against God and then sacrilege, which would be blasphemy against what God has made holy or sacred.

But even given that, as a person who indeed believes that she was translated to heaven, I am not sure that those who do not believe this would equate to blasphemy of either type.

Alex, such persons do not seem to be in any way denigrating her nor her position who challenge this.

Let me give you an example. If someone tried to topple the Ark of the Covenant then that would surely be grievous sin. But if someone believes that the Ark is in Ethiopia while another believes it is under the temple mount, does the one or the other equate to blasphemy so long as they acknowledge its sacredness? I bring this up because the Mother of God has been called the Ark from the earliest liturgical texts.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-16-2012, 08:14 PM
Josiah
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: The DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josiah

1. I'd like to discuss the Scriptures that teach that it's a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all persons on earth, a matter of greatest certainty of Truth and Fact, a matter impacting the eternal salvation of souls that Mary never died and that that was "assumed" body and soul into heaven at the second of her undeath.


2. And if what God says in Scripture is irrelevant or inadequate and what matters instead is what some sinful man said, then I'd like to discuss the quote of any such man or men from the time of Mary's life and undeath who witnessed this event and who states that it is a dogmatic fact that Mary never died and was assumed, body and soul, into heaven at the second of her undeath. Let's discuss those quotes.


3. And let's discuss if it is, specifically, blasphemy, to not teach such as dogma (or even at all).


4. And let's discuss if unfound bones is substantiation to the level claimed that one never died and that that one was ergo assumed, body and soul, upon the second of their undeath into heaven.




Thank you!


- Josiah



Quote:
Originally Posted by Linsinbigler View Post
Thank you Guiliano and Alex. You are both correct, that there is such a thing as blasphemy against God and then sacrilege, which would be blasphemy against what God has made holy or sacred.

But even given that, as a person who indeed believes that she was translated to heaven, I am not sure that those who do not believe this would equate to blasphemy of either type.

Alex, such persons do not seem to be in any way denigrating her nor her position who challenge this.

.

Thank you.


The specific "blasphemy" accusation was but one point I raised. IF some Catholics are right and there are 50,000 denominations, then it seems there are 49,998 or 49,999 that have no dogma regarding any "assumption of body and soul" of Our Lady. To me, to insist their silence is specifically and particularly "blasphemy" is ... unfortunate and inappropriate. I love, adore, revere, and hold in highest esteem Our Lady, regarding Her as chief among the saints and the Mother of God. I don't currently affirm (certainty as a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all persons, a matter of greatest certainty of Truth and Fact, a matter impacting the salvation of souls) that She was so assumed upon Her death (or, if you prefer, undeath) into Heaven. But I don't deny it, either. I appear to be with 49,998 denominations on this. But I don't regard my position to be - specifically and particularly - "blasphemy." But, such declarations are, sadly, often the result (if not purpose) of making things dogma, at least in our western tradition. That (and worse) is often lopped my way. Father, while I regard such accusations sad, I also take no offense. It's what dogma tends to do; our Catholic brother is simply reflecting that.


To ME, respect for Our Lady, for truth, and for unity of the church (including the matter above) suggests some substantiation. To ME, this always applies but especially with dogma. I'm not suggesting some "proof" (such is often difficult in such matters) but something appropriate to the level claimed, something our Catholic brother would embrace as valid from others (say me... or you). I may be that while I'm still not convinced to the point of declaring such to be a dogmatic fact of highest certainty of Truth and Fact, a matter impacting the salvation of souls - I may regard it as valid, even likely. I may still yet be labeled "apostate" or "heretic" or "blaspheming" or.... but that's just a function of it being dogma in one denomination. My interest in substantiation is what lies behind the other 3 points in my post - all points our Catholic brother has so far chosen to bypass. He may yet choose to respond.


Thank you very much!


May His blessings all be yours....


- Josiah




.

Last edited by Josiah : 02-16-2012 at 08:24 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Assumption Of The Blessed Virgin CatholicCrusader Theology 260 11-19-2013 11:05 AM
Mary and Scripture Nancy Spirituality 5 01-20-2012 05:58 AM
How Can Mary Be Godís Mother? CatholicCrusader Theology 55 08-05-2010 05:18 PM
Mary in Adam Mysteryman Theology 97 02-04-2010 06:28 PM
Could Mary Have Said: No? Olsen Theology 87 06-22-2009 06:41 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:56 AM.


true2ourselves
 
 
 

Flashcoms

You need to upgrade your Flash Player.

Version 8 or higher is required.

download from http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29