In What Year Was Mary Assumed into Heaven?
In What Year Was Mary Assumed into Heaven? The Date of the Assumption There is no record of the exact day or year in which our Lady was assumed. This should not bother us too much. After all, we are …More
In What Year Was Mary Assumed into Heaven?
The Date of the Assumption
There is no record of the exact day or year in which our Lady was assumed. This should not bother us too much. After all, we are not sure of the day and year of Christ's birth, baptism, or death and resurrection.
However, we can get close. Let's look a few clues pertaining to the life and death of Mary.
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.
The tradition is almost universal that her death and resurrection occurred in Jerusalem. An alternate version has arisen from the visions of Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich that her 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 …More
The Date of the Assumption
There is no record of the exact day or year in which our Lady was assumed. This should not bother us too much. After all, we are not sure of the day and year of Christ's birth, baptism, or death and resurrection.
However, we can get close. Let's look a few clues pertaining to the life and death of Mary.
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.
The tradition is almost universal that her death and resurrection occurred in Jerusalem. An alternate version has arisen from the visions of Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich that her 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 …More
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
SBpfu- I have adopted this extreem stance only, yet again, to force chaps to THINK. (I does not mean I am Protestant!) Look at Greg, he quotes Scripture, because of a 'it says so in the bible' attitude. Then there is your good self, who still cannot see what I am trying to do here, blinded by subjectivity.
Let me be explicit then: I think that it is better to wrestle with our Faith, not from a …More
SBpfu- I have adopted this extreem stance only, yet again, to force chaps to THINK. (I does not mean I am Protestant!) Look at Greg, he quotes Scripture, because of a 'it says so in the bible' attitude. Then there is your good self, who still cannot see what I am trying to do here, blinded by subjectivity.
Let me be explicit then: I think that it is better to wrestle with our Faith, not from a stance wherein "the church says" or "the bible says" or "tradition says". I mean to force thought 'outside' the box as it were.
Of course, our conclusions, I had hoped, would be the same at the end. At that end point, even more soild, even more deeply understood, and therefore our hearts even MORE on fire with faith and love for Our Lord.
I rather think it sloth to keep to comfort zones in this regard. If one remains in ones comfort zone, how would one grow? (I could just imagine chaps reeling in horror at my challenge to the Messianic Resurrection on a purely historical plane......).
I reckon my challenge is to articluate WHY do you believe; not from a "I'm told so, therefore I do" stance, rather from a deeply interior exploration: Why do I believe Jesus is still alive, yes, people have told me so, but are there any pagans who saw Him after HIs death?". Have I experienced Him? What does it mean that Jesus has a glorified body? etc., etc. We who already believe ought not to begin from a point of belief, rather a point on the circumference of the circle, if you will, and work back into the centre. St Paul is an excellent example of this. Do you see what I was attempting to do?
Let me be explicit then: I think that it is better to wrestle with our Faith, not from a stance wherein "the church says" or "the bible says" or "tradition says". I mean to force thought 'outside' the box as it were.
Of course, our conclusions, I had hoped, would be the same at the end. At that end point, even more soild, even more deeply understood, and therefore our hearts even MORE on fire with faith and love for Our Lord.
I rather think it sloth to keep to comfort zones in this regard. If one remains in ones comfort zone, how would one grow? (I could just imagine chaps reeling in horror at my challenge to the Messianic Resurrection on a purely historical plane......).
I reckon my challenge is to articluate WHY do you believe; not from a "I'm told so, therefore I do" stance, rather from a deeply interior exploration: Why do I believe Jesus is still alive, yes, people have told me so, but are there any pagans who saw Him after HIs death?". Have I experienced Him? What does it mean that Jesus has a glorified body? etc., etc. We who already believe ought not to begin from a point of belief, rather a point on the circumference of the circle, if you will, and work back into the centre. St Paul is an excellent example of this. Do you see what I was attempting to do?
2 more comments from ACLumsden
@irenaeus - Indeed. However, miracles would come under category of a Theological Fact - that for which Faith is required for belief. However, as Aquinas has pointed out, the Incarnation is a miracle which is both a scientific fact, i.e. the Roman Census proves the birth of Jesus to Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem; and a Theological fact - the Church was founded on his ministry as recorded in the NT -…More
@irenaeus - Indeed. However, miracles would come under category of a Theological Fact - that for which Faith is required for belief. However, as Aquinas has pointed out, the Incarnation is a miracle which is both a scientific fact, i.e. the Roman Census proves the birth of Jesus to Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem; and a Theological fact - the Church was founded on his ministry as recorded in the NT - also corroborated by pagan accounts of the spread of the 'new religion' called 'The Way'.
So, while we can investigate the hard facts, we must also investigate these facts with objectivity. In addition to which the faith of the early church as recorded by their theologians and scribes, is invaluable to understanding the 'hard facts' in the context of faith. Therefore, one without the other is meaningless, rather like using Scripture as a primary source of archeological information without going into the soil itself!
Now all of this is interesting indeed. BUT, we have digressed. We are debating the Thesis of this above article that the Virgin Mary died and was resurrected. Shall we return to the matter at hand?
So, while we can investigate the hard facts, we must also investigate these facts with objectivity. In addition to which the faith of the early church as recorded by their theologians and scribes, is invaluable to understanding the 'hard facts' in the context of faith. Therefore, one without the other is meaningless, rather like using Scripture as a primary source of archeological information without going into the soil itself!
Now all of this is interesting indeed. BUT, we have digressed. We are debating the Thesis of this above article that the Virgin Mary died and was resurrected. Shall we return to the matter at hand?
Hi SBpfu. I am not speaking of Classicism here. Plato's works, Pliny the Elder and Xenophon can never be lumped together with the NT with regard to informational and theological value to the Christian. However,
the NT and the Gospels were written post facto that is to say, after the events were over, sometimes well over a century. This means that while the content of the NT is as I said of priceless …More
Hi SBpfu. I am not speaking of Classicism here. Plato's works, Pliny the Elder and Xenophon can never be lumped together with the NT with regard to informational and theological value to the Christian. However,
the NT and the Gospels were written post facto that is to say, after the events were over, sometimes well over a century. This means that while the content of the NT is as I said of priceless value regarding the Christian Way, it is only the recorded memories of the events, now inspired by Faith (in hindsight). This makes it rather different from a Platonic tome - a student was not present with stylus and tablet to record all that Jesus said..... Therefore, my point, that it is all 'reported speech'.
My point is that Scripture used in conjunction with other unbiased sources, e.g. archeology, anthropology, biochemistry (carbon-dating etc...), together work toward reinforcing our faith. To use only the Scriptures is good in and of itself, BUT, to go further, ones quest for truth one must go deeper, i.e. the exploration of the hard facts, e.g. the non-christian literature, the archeology,e tc.
Greg - you still have not understood this point, and are continuing to use Scripture like one would use the Dooms Day Chronicles to, say, ascertain how many monks were at Winchester Priory in 998AD. While Scripture can provide such information in specific cases, my point is that other sources, e.g. archeology and pagan chronicles (e.g. Josephus the Historian,Civil Census, other records which are contemporaneous with the events) must be used to collaborate the information in the NT.
Therefore, looking at coroboratory evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, in the Pagan world, we have none; we have no external written work anywhere to say that "the Jewish man called Jesus the Son of Mary and Joseph, who was Crucified amidst two robbers and laid in a new tomb by Joseph of Aramithea, miraculously dissapeared from his tomb" (or any such thing). But we do have such evidence for his birth, in the Roman Census of Herod.
the NT and the Gospels were written post facto that is to say, after the events were over, sometimes well over a century. This means that while the content of the NT is as I said of priceless value regarding the Christian Way, it is only the recorded memories of the events, now inspired by Faith (in hindsight). This makes it rather different from a Platonic tome - a student was not present with stylus and tablet to record all that Jesus said..... Therefore, my point, that it is all 'reported speech'.
My point is that Scripture used in conjunction with other unbiased sources, e.g. archeology, anthropology, biochemistry (carbon-dating etc...), together work toward reinforcing our faith. To use only the Scriptures is good in and of itself, BUT, to go further, ones quest for truth one must go deeper, i.e. the exploration of the hard facts, e.g. the non-christian literature, the archeology,e tc.
Greg - you still have not understood this point, and are continuing to use Scripture like one would use the Dooms Day Chronicles to, say, ascertain how many monks were at Winchester Priory in 998AD. While Scripture can provide such information in specific cases, my point is that other sources, e.g. archeology and pagan chronicles (e.g. Josephus the Historian,Civil Census, other records which are contemporaneous with the events) must be used to collaborate the information in the NT.
Therefore, looking at coroboratory evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, in the Pagan world, we have none; we have no external written work anywhere to say that "the Jewish man called Jesus the Son of Mary and Joseph, who was Crucified amidst two robbers and laid in a new tomb by Joseph of Aramithea, miraculously dissapeared from his tomb" (or any such thing). But we do have such evidence for his birth, in the Roman Census of Herod.
ACL said-
[---
2. Theological fact (e.g. through revalation in the church we believe Christ rose from the dead - a matter of faith not scientific fact).
---]
Well, miracles have nothing to do with what is natural. They are supernatural by definition. Science cannot comment on the supernatural order. So it goes without saying that they are not scientific fact.... but they are actual facts none …More
ACL said-
[---
2. Theological fact (e.g. through revalation in the church we believe Christ rose from the dead - a matter of faith not scientific fact).
---]
Well, miracles have nothing to do with what is natural. They are supernatural by definition. Science cannot comment on the supernatural order. So it goes without saying that they are not scientific fact.... but they are actual facts none the less.
[---
2. Theological fact (e.g. through revalation in the church we believe Christ rose from the dead - a matter of faith not scientific fact).
---]
Well, miracles have nothing to do with what is natural. They are supernatural by definition. Science cannot comment on the supernatural order. So it goes without saying that they are not scientific fact.... but they are actual facts none the less.
Hi Greg, Irenaeus . There are two types of facts in academic religious discourse: 1. Historical fact derived from official non-biased sources (like the Roman Census), 2. Theological fact (e.g. through revalation in the church we believe Christ rose from the dead - a matter of faith not scientific fact). Do no mix the two, e.g. there is no objective (non-biased) documentation supporting the …More
Hi Greg, Irenaeus . There are two types of facts in academic religious discourse: 1. Historical fact derived from official non-biased sources (like the Roman Census), 2. Theological fact (e.g. through revalation in the church we believe Christ rose from the dead - a matter of faith not scientific fact). Do no mix the two, e.g. there is no objective (non-biased) documentation supporting the Resurrection; even though sometimes the two types do comingle, e.g. the archiological evidence supporting the existence of Mannaseh therefore supporting the Biblical events therein, etc. Not to mention the archiological evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah!
One cannot site the Scriptures as objective evidence. Therefore, you might quote all you may from the Scriptures, you have still not offered objective evidence for the resurrection. On the other hand, there IS objective evidence for the birth of a baby boy named Jesus, who was born to Mary and a man called Joseph in Bethlehem. This evidence is located in the Roman Census ordered by Herod which still exists today.
Therefore, dear man, when one is embarking upon an academic enquiry into a problem, viz. the difficulties with the author of the above article and his 'death and resurrection' of the Virgin Mary, one MUST explore all possible angles, both objective facts (non-biased evidence) and subjective accounts (matters of faith and Divine Revalation in the Church of Christ). How these two interpenetrate and support each other (or do not support each other) can indeed strengthen our understanding of what we believe and therefore fuel our FAITH. Think a little more about this, get to know youself in the process while you try to reconcile the two; I promise you your faith will be strengthened. This is because you would be able to defend it from many angles (like the Apostles did, e.g. from Greek scholasticism, from a medical point of view, that of a fisherman, etc).
One cannot site the Scriptures as objective evidence. Therefore, you might quote all you may from the Scriptures, you have still not offered objective evidence for the resurrection. On the other hand, there IS objective evidence for the birth of a baby boy named Jesus, who was born to Mary and a man called Joseph in Bethlehem. This evidence is located in the Roman Census ordered by Herod which still exists today.
Therefore, dear man, when one is embarking upon an academic enquiry into a problem, viz. the difficulties with the author of the above article and his 'death and resurrection' of the Virgin Mary, one MUST explore all possible angles, both objective facts (non-biased evidence) and subjective accounts (matters of faith and Divine Revalation in the Church of Christ). How these two interpenetrate and support each other (or do not support each other) can indeed strengthen our understanding of what we believe and therefore fuel our FAITH. Think a little more about this, get to know youself in the process while you try to reconcile the two; I promise you your faith will be strengthened. This is because you would be able to defend it from many angles (like the Apostles did, e.g. from Greek scholasticism, from a medical point of view, that of a fisherman, etc).
One other thing to note is that Luke was active in the Church well before Paul. He was a disciple up until Christ said the Eucharist was his Body and Blood. Tradition says Luke was one of the followers who walked away from our Lord, but then returned to the Church later on with Paul. Therefore it is entirely possible his knowledge of much of the Gospel came from being a disciple.
SBpfu - Greetings . The say so of the Magdalene and the Apostles is reported speech. By historical evidence, I mean, official documented evidence in direct speech, e.g. that Jesus was born to Mary and Joseph is recorded in the Roman Census taken at the time of his birth.
Regarding 'assumption=resurrection' we are in agreement. I rather think the author of this article is in error.More
SBpfu - Greetings . The say so of the Magdalene and the Apostles is reported speech. By historical evidence, I mean, official documented evidence in direct speech, e.g. that Jesus was born to Mary and Joseph is recorded in the Roman Census taken at the time of his birth.
Regarding 'assumption=resurrection' we are in agreement. I rather think the author of this article is in error.
Regarding 'assumption=resurrection' we are in agreement. I rather think the author of this article is in error.
Nice piece on Our Blessed Mother's assumption. Do check out Miraculous Photos of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Pax in Christo. More
Nice piece on Our Blessed Mother's assumption. Do check out Miraculous Photos of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Pax in Christo.
Pax in Christo.
The Second Eve
When Adam sinned; death came into the world, and passed into all men. We have the decree and teaching that Mary was preserved free from all stain of original sin (Ineffabilis Deus). We have further the teaching that the second Eve was free from all sin, original or personal (Mystici Corporis, 110). How then could death touch the Immaculata?
The Second Adam
Jesus the sinless one, …More
The Second Eve
When Adam sinned; death came into the world, and passed into all men. We have the decree and teaching that Mary was preserved free from all stain of original sin (Ineffabilis Deus). We have further the teaching that the second Eve was free from all sin, original or personal (Mystici Corporis, 110). How then could death touch the Immaculata?
The Second Adam
Jesus the sinless one, was delivered over to death for our sins, and was raised to life for our justification. Death touched the second Adam on account of our sin. “Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again.” (John 10).
When Adam sinned; death came into the world, and passed into all men. We have the decree and teaching that Mary was preserved free from all stain of original sin (Ineffabilis Deus). We have further the teaching that the second Eve was free from all sin, original or personal (Mystici Corporis, 110). How then could death touch the Immaculata?
The Second Adam
Jesus the sinless one, was delivered over to death for our sins, and was raised to life for our justification. Death touched the second Adam on account of our sin. “Therefore doth the Father love me: because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down: and I have power to take it up again.” (John 10).
@greg - Excellent point that man! That is, Christ Himself died, therefore, since His mother is not part of the Godhead, it puts her rather beneath the Christ who is verily God. Therefore, she must have suffered death of the body.
On the other hand dear friend, we have the whole business of historical evidence. Since there is no historical evidence of the Resurrection of the Christ, what impels us …More
@greg - Excellent point that man! That is, Christ Himself died, therefore, since His mother is not part of the Godhead, it puts her rather beneath the Christ who is verily God. Therefore, she must have suffered death of the body.
On the other hand dear friend, we have the whole business of historical evidence. Since there is no historical evidence of the Resurrection of the Christ, what impels us Christians to believe that He is risen? The disciples, lead by the Magdalen, says so. In a similar way, we have no historical evidence of the death and resurrection of the Virgin Mary. So what impels us to believe in the Assumption? By "Assumption" do we mean resurrection?
I would suggest here, that faith as a result of the Teaching Authority of the Fathers of the Church inspired by the Holy Spirit, impels us to believe. However, in the case of Christ Jesus Our Lord, i would add to this, personal experience of His Resurrected presence in His Church and in our lives.
With regard to the Virgin Mary, she was not mudered on a Cross, an unnatural death, like her Son. Therefore, who are we to say that she suffered natural death. Therefore, I continue to say that the author of this article saying that the Virgin Mary "died and was resurrected" is in error.
On the other hand dear friend, we have the whole business of historical evidence. Since there is no historical evidence of the Resurrection of the Christ, what impels us Christians to believe that He is risen? The disciples, lead by the Magdalen, says so. In a similar way, we have no historical evidence of the death and resurrection of the Virgin Mary. So what impels us to believe in the Assumption? By "Assumption" do we mean resurrection?
I would suggest here, that faith as a result of the Teaching Authority of the Fathers of the Church inspired by the Holy Spirit, impels us to believe. However, in the case of Christ Jesus Our Lord, i would add to this, personal experience of His Resurrected presence in His Church and in our lives.
With regard to the Virgin Mary, she was not mudered on a Cross, an unnatural death, like her Son. Therefore, who are we to say that she suffered natural death. Therefore, I continue to say that the author of this article saying that the Virgin Mary "died and was resurrected" is in error.
Hey Greg hi. My point is that visionaries are meant to reinforce the Truth, that which has already been revealed in Christ Jesus the Lord and through the teaching Magesterium of the Church. Therefore, to have recourse to them alone is quite insufficient indeed. I prefer to go to the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church (in Her tomes of teachings and Her Lirtugy). One ought always to be …More
Hey Greg hi. My point is that visionaries are meant to reinforce the Truth, that which has already been revealed in Christ Jesus the Lord and through the teaching Magesterium of the Church. Therefore, to have recourse to them alone is quite insufficient indeed. I prefer to go to the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church (in Her tomes of teachings and Her Lirtugy). One ought always to be cautious, do not be part of that generation Our Lord describes as "wicked and evil" who seek signs and wonders (Lk.11), when the King of Glory , Truth Himself, is right there under you nose!
Holy Cannoli
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
I therefore conclude that while we cannot prove or disprove the Virgin Mary's death, it is reasonable to say that she could not die.
Well, well, well! The Englishman (who obviously believes in his own infallibility) concludes that “it is reasonable to say that she could not die.” It is just as reaonalbe to say that she did die. The point is that you don't get to make that decision although you …More
I therefore conclude that while we cannot prove or disprove the Virgin Mary's death, it is reasonable to say that she could not die.
Well, well, well! The Englishman (who obviously believes in his own infallibility) concludes that “it is reasonable to say that she could not die.” It is just as reaonalbe to say that she did die. The point is that you don't get to make that decision although you think you can.
Sorry, Mate but Rome doesn't agree with your conclusion. Therefore, you lose but thanks for playing.
Finally someone with an incisive mind.
This is typical of your arrogance.
Take your "crickey this" and your "crickey that" and your "chaps this" and chaps that" and stick all of it where the sun doesn't shine. In addition, don't post to me again you arrogant, condescending, patronizing, British twit.
Well, well, well! The Englishman (who obviously believes in his own infallibility) concludes that “it is reasonable to say that she could not die.” It is just as reaonalbe to say that she did die. The point is that you don't get to make that decision although you think you can.
Sorry, Mate but Rome doesn't agree with your conclusion. Therefore, you lose but thanks for playing.
Finally someone with an incisive mind.
This is typical of your arrogance.
Take your "crickey this" and your "crickey that" and your "chaps this" and chaps that" and stick all of it where the sun doesn't shine. In addition, don't post to me again you arrogant, condescending, patronizing, British twit.
@freedomlives - Finally someone with an incisive mind. A most excellent observation indeed. Therefore, what do we have:
1. In this article we have a PhD stating that the Virgin Mary died and was resurrected.
2. We have me objecting on the basis of Patristic theology and Doctrine supported by the Lex Credendi and Lex Orandi of the Roman Church.
3. Your objection to me, stating that lack of …More
@freedomlives - Finally someone with an incisive mind. A most excellent observation indeed. Therefore, what do we have:
1. In this article we have a PhD stating that the Virgin Mary died and was resurrected.
2. We have me objecting on the basis of Patristic theology and Doctrine supported by the Lex Credendi and Lex Orandi of the Roman Church.
3. Your objection to me, stating that lack of corporial decay is not indicative of death.
4. My conceeding to this, which leaves us with: a consumate lack of evidence for or against the Death of the Virgin mary. However, we still have the business of the "resurrection" to grapple with.
If the Blessed Virgin was without original sin (Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) and remained sinless all her life on earth, she is unique. This uniqueness is expressed by the Church as her being the "New Eve". The first of the restored, of the human race, to favour with God. But sin can not enter heaven. Since the Virgin Mary is completely sinless, she was 'assumed' into heaven in toto when her task on earth was complete.
Now, resurrection implies death. To be resurrected means that one must have died. Now, we are told that the "wages of sin is death". But the Virgin Mary was sinless from her conception in the womb. Therefore, she is exempt from the "wages of sin", i.e. death. The Blessed Virgin Mary could not therefore have died. Herein lies the problem with the Virgin Mary's "resurrection", as described be the author of this article.
I therefore conclude that while we cannot prove or disprove the Virgin Mary's death, it is reasonable to say that she could not die. Therefore, resurrection did and does not apply to Her. Hence, this article is dubious at best and heretic at worst.
1. In this article we have a PhD stating that the Virgin Mary died and was resurrected.
2. We have me objecting on the basis of Patristic theology and Doctrine supported by the Lex Credendi and Lex Orandi of the Roman Church.
3. Your objection to me, stating that lack of corporial decay is not indicative of death.
4. My conceeding to this, which leaves us with: a consumate lack of evidence for or against the Death of the Virgin mary. However, we still have the business of the "resurrection" to grapple with.
If the Blessed Virgin was without original sin (Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) and remained sinless all her life on earth, she is unique. This uniqueness is expressed by the Church as her being the "New Eve". The first of the restored, of the human race, to favour with God. But sin can not enter heaven. Since the Virgin Mary is completely sinless, she was 'assumed' into heaven in toto when her task on earth was complete.
Now, resurrection implies death. To be resurrected means that one must have died. Now, we are told that the "wages of sin is death". But the Virgin Mary was sinless from her conception in the womb. Therefore, she is exempt from the "wages of sin", i.e. death. The Blessed Virgin Mary could not therefore have died. Herein lies the problem with the Virgin Mary's "resurrection", as described be the author of this article.
I therefore conclude that while we cannot prove or disprove the Virgin Mary's death, it is reasonable to say that she could not die. Therefore, resurrection did and does not apply to Her. Hence, this article is dubious at best and heretic at worst.
freedomlives
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
It would seem that some of the incorruptible saints have not had decay touch their bodies either, even though their bodies are quite dead. So that some liturgical text says "You [Father] would not allow decay to touch her body, for she had given birth to your Son, the Lord of Life, in the glory of the Incarnation." is not incompatible with her dying before the assumption.
Holy Cannoli
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
My post is quite enough to alert the competent authorities.
You must be assuming that your post is read by "the competent authroities."
If they were actually competent, why in the world would they be reading your posts in the first place?
More
My post is quite enough to alert the competent authorities.
You must be assuming that your post is read by "the competent authroities."
If they were actually competent, why in the world would they be reading your posts in the first place?
You must be assuming that your post is read by "the competent authroities."
If they were actually competent, why in the world would they be reading your posts in the first place?
As I said in an earlier post, visionaries, and the like are optional. Once the doctrine is expressed by the Magesterium of the Church in Her Formal Sacred Litrugy of the Roman Church it is truth. Therefore, Ven.C.Emmerich could have been wisked back in time and witnessed the event, I would not believe her (unless HOly Mother Church says otherwise).
PS Cannoli, My post is quite enough to alert …More
As I said in an earlier post, visionaries, and the like are optional. Once the doctrine is expressed by the Magesterium of the Church in Her Formal Sacred Litrugy of the Roman Church it is truth. Therefore, Ven.C.Emmerich could have been wisked back in time and witnessed the event, I would not believe her (unless HOly Mother Church says otherwise).
PS Cannoli, My post is quite enough to alert the competent authorities. Thanks.
PS Cannoli, My post is quite enough to alert the competent authorities. Thanks.
Holy Cannoli
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Catherine Emmerich in her visions asserts that Our Blessed Lady died forty eight years after the birth of Christ, at the age of sixty four.
If I remember correctly, Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich wrote that Mary was given the option by the Almighty but chose to expereince the death of the body as her Son had done.
More
Catherine Emmerich in her visions asserts that Our Blessed Lady died forty eight years after the birth of Christ, at the age of sixty four.
If I remember correctly, Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich wrote that Mary was given the option by the Almighty but chose to expereince the death of the body as her Son had done.
If I remember correctly, Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich wrote that Mary was given the option by the Almighty but chose to expereince the death of the body as her Son had done.
Holy Cannoli
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
she [Mary] did not die
Until that is define by the Catholic Church (unlikely to ever happen), I will beleive as I do.
Regarding the author of this article, I think it's incumbent upon you to inform those Catholic agencies, who have given him a public forum, that he is a dangerous heretic and a threat to the faith of all Catholics. Not to do so would be a serious violation of charity on your part …More
she [Mary] did not die
Until that is define by the Catholic Church (unlikely to ever happen), I will beleive as I do.
Regarding the author of this article, I think it's incumbent upon you to inform those Catholic agencies, who have given him a public forum, that he is a dangerous heretic and a threat to the faith of all Catholics. Not to do so would be a serious violation of charity on your part and, quite possibly, sinful as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Taylor has appeared on EWTN's The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi, Catholic Answers Live, Al Kresta in the Afternoon, and a number of radio shows. He is the author of The Crucified Rabbi - Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity (Fall 2009) and The Catholic Perspective on Paul (Fall 2010).
"He was also formerly the Assistant Director of the Catholic Information Center in Washington, D.C., located three blocks north of the White House, where he lectured regularly.
"He is currently a Ph.D. student in Philosophy at the University of Dallas focusing on the Natural Law theory of Saint Thomas Aquinas."
cantuar.blogspot.com/…/about-taylor-ma…
Until that is define by the Catholic Church (unlikely to ever happen), I will beleive as I do.
Regarding the author of this article, I think it's incumbent upon you to inform those Catholic agencies, who have given him a public forum, that he is a dangerous heretic and a threat to the faith of all Catholics. Not to do so would be a serious violation of charity on your part and, quite possibly, sinful as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Taylor has appeared on EWTN's The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi, Catholic Answers Live, Al Kresta in the Afternoon, and a number of radio shows. He is the author of The Crucified Rabbi - Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity (Fall 2009) and The Catholic Perspective on Paul (Fall 2010).
"He was also formerly the Assistant Director of the Catholic Information Center in Washington, D.C., located three blocks north of the White House, where he lectured regularly.
"He is currently a Ph.D. student in Philosophy at the University of Dallas focusing on the Natural Law theory of Saint Thomas Aquinas."
cantuar.blogspot.com/…/about-taylor-ma…
"While interesting, neither the Patristics, nor visionaries, nor the Liturgy define what is to be held by the faithful." Cannoli
I disagree Cannoli. If the Lex Credendi (the Formal teaching of the Roman Church)is completely expessed in the Lex Orandi (the Sacred Liturgy), the Sacred Liturgy is to be regarded as a source of theological Truth (cf Sacrosanctum Concilium).
Regarding Patristic Theology …More
"While interesting, neither the Patristics, nor visionaries, nor the Liturgy define what is to be held by the faithful." Cannoli
I disagree Cannoli. If the Lex Credendi (the Formal teaching of the Roman Church)is completely expessed in the Lex Orandi (the Sacred Liturgy), the Sacred Liturgy is to be regarded as a source of theological Truth (cf Sacrosanctum Concilium).
Regarding Patristic Theology. It is upon the shoulders of the Patristic Fathers that the modern Church stands.
Now, as you suggest, there can be NO discrepency between Doctrine, Dogma and Formal Litrugy; Patristic Theology and Contermporary theology with regard to eternal truths (since God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow).
Therefore it is not what I 'choose to believe' , as you have said (putting words in my mouth), but what has been constant throughout the Church from the earliest of times to the present, culminating in the Formal Prayer of the Church:
"You [Father] would not allow decay to touch her body, for she had given birth to your Son, the Lord of Life, in the glory of the Incarnation" (Preface to the Solemnity of the Assumtion, Roman Rite).
Therefore, Our Lady did not suffer decay, she did not die, but like Elijah, was caught up into heaven; unlike Elijah, She was taken both body and soul - Glorified as the first of the redeemed.
I disagree Cannoli. If the Lex Credendi (the Formal teaching of the Roman Church)is completely expessed in the Lex Orandi (the Sacred Liturgy), the Sacred Liturgy is to be regarded as a source of theological Truth (cf Sacrosanctum Concilium).
Regarding Patristic Theology. It is upon the shoulders of the Patristic Fathers that the modern Church stands.
Now, as you suggest, there can be NO discrepency between Doctrine, Dogma and Formal Litrugy; Patristic Theology and Contermporary theology with regard to eternal truths (since God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow).
Therefore it is not what I 'choose to believe' , as you have said (putting words in my mouth), but what has been constant throughout the Church from the earliest of times to the present, culminating in the Formal Prayer of the Church:
"You [Father] would not allow decay to touch her body, for she had given birth to your Son, the Lord of Life, in the glory of the Incarnation" (Preface to the Solemnity of the Assumtion, Roman Rite).
Therefore, Our Lady did not suffer decay, she did not die, but like Elijah, was caught up into heaven; unlike Elijah, She was taken both body and soul - Glorified as the first of the redeemed.