You state that you do not believe that all of the Fathers believed in the Assumption of Mary. Please show us some statements indicating those who did not believe this.





Is it so hard to believe, especially in light of the passage from the Gospel of John above, that there are things which were carried into oral tradition but were not written in Sacred Scripture? What do you think the Church did for the first few hundred years after Christ, when there was no Bible? What did Jews do in the Old Testament? They passed things on via oral tradition.



Part of the verification for Mary being assumed can be seen in Revelation. Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the "woman," clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul. Of course you have to accept that Mary is the "Woman" mentioned, as the early Church fathers did. They actually accepted mutliple meanings, one being Mary, another being the Church. For examples of the Church fathers stating such belief see: St. Bernard, De B. Virgine, 2; St. Epiphanius, Haer. 78, 11; St. Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job, 34, 12.







Oh, and here is one talking about Mary being "immaculate" for good measure:



I strongly encourage anyone interested in seeing what the Church Fathers actually wrote and taught to pick up the three volume set by Jurgens. http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Early-Fathe ... gy_b_img_c

If you take the time to read them you will see that, similar to how God formed the people of Israel in the Old Covenant over thousands of years, Christ, through the Holy Spirit and acting through His Apostles whom He gave the power to bind and loose, has formed His people of the New Covenant. The Church.

This is from the follower of a guy who added the word "alone" in Rom 3:28 and based an entire new religion upon it.



Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.




I don't know what you're talking about since I don't follow [much] your debate with pax.


I held a simple believe. Jesus born and established a Church. Therefore any institution that exist 1500 years after Christ died could not possibly be His Church.

I'll jump in to address two of these; one as a matter of substance, the other to point out the question is flawed.



I'll give a nod in Pax's direction that this sort of challenge often is an exercise in the non-Catholic finding reason after reason to reject what is offered is "proof." But let's see how this goes.

One issue at the outset is "the way the Catholic Church defines it." Tradition is broadly understood as "transmitted teachings." So inherent within "Tradition" are the related notions of 1) content (the teachings) and 2) the mode of transmission. The relationship to Scripture is often expressed variously. Scripture is said to contain all revealed Truths, "either explicitly or implicitly." Thus, even the teachings of Scripture as passed on are "Tradition." Other times, the distinction of "Tradition" vis-a-vis Scripture is noted a bit more. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."

Protestants tend to see Tradition as primarily a matter of "content," i.e., as involving "things not taught in Scripture" (which, as noted, isn't really how Catholics define it). But to rise to the challenge, I'll work a bit more off the purely Protestant notion, as even that has historical foundation.

I'll cite here to St. Basil:

66. Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. Basil, On the Holy Spirit, 27, 66. (C.E. 377)(emphasis added)

So here Basil, like the Catholic Church today, affirms Tradition as a rule of faith. (Here I'm not focused on which particular teachings or practices Basil has in view, but rather the broader question of whether historically it was recognized that there were authoritative teachings that didn't find explicit sanction in the "writings" (Scripture)).

In that same work, Basil even cites to the verse (2 Thes. 2:15) Catholics often use to prove the distinct modes of transmission of the Word of God through Scripture and Tradition:

71. In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form “with the Spirit” has no written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. “I praise you,” it is said, “that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you;” [1 Cor. 11:2) and “Hold fast the traditions which you have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.” (2 Thess. 2:15). Ibid, 29, 71.[/list]

And here Basil affirms not just merely two modes of the same content (the typical Protestant read on 2 Thes. 2:15), but indicates that Paul is indicating a distinction in content (certainly, at least, as to explicitness).

So, Haparker, does Basil sufficiently affirm the "description of tradition." If not, why not? What sort(s) of "proof" would be required if not proofs of this type?

[Edited to add:] I noticed this on one of the other threads:



The bolded portion is NOT how the Catholic Church defines "Tradition." If you disagree, kindly provide something by way of a definition where the Church speaks of Tradition in such terms. I contend it is not to be found. So if that's what you're asking us to demonstrate within the ECF writings or elsewhere, your offering a strawman argument. [end edit]



This question is flawed at the start. Catholics don't claim any ECF's writing is infallible. Nor do Catholics assert that Papal encyclicals "claim themselves to be counted as infallible." Catholics may claim various Papal documents meet the criteria set forth by the Vatican Council (I) and thus are infallible. But we don't claim the documents explicitly self-identify as such.

There's no need to prove that which we don't assert.

Brian

Are you trying to convince me that it's so increasingly difficult to figure out an interpretation unless I have some infallible magisterium to tell me what it says in the context? If so, should I also consult them to help me understand what Genesis 1:1 means?

Parker

They did not believe this to be doctrinal fact as mentioned previously on this thread.


I am not disagreeing on the relationships between Scriptures and Tradition; you are creating a false dichotomy. As previously mentioned, tradition as the Church defines it is nowhere to be found in either Scripture or history. The problem with the text you cited provides no basis that there was a need for extra-biblical/a-historical teaching.


Revelation is a prophetic book; not a historical proof text for the assumption.


Right; however, in this case you would have to beg the question to use the text as proof for the assumption.



Again, another post-nicean document; not early enough.


I said bodily assumption; I was not arguing about the immaculate conception.

Parker

Merriam-Webster: truthiness (noun)
1 : "truth that comes from the gut, not books" (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," October 2005)
2 : "the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true" (American Dialect Society, January 2006)


You keep making claims without supporting evidence. I will make it simple for you. Please address the following questions as you have been asked to more than once.

1) what evidence do you have from the writings or homilies of the Church Fathers that they did not accept the Assumption of Mary to be true?
- Keep in mind that even if some early Christians did not accept such (which you have provided no evidence for) that it is ultimately meaningless. There were early Christians who did not accept the divinity of Christ or His humanity either. The whole purpose of the council of Nicea was called by Constantine to clarify questions and disagreements, not to serve as a proclamation of the entire deposit if faith. Those questions which were not under debate, were not even addressed. All of this is merely academic unless you actually provide some evidence of your claims.

2) What evidence do you have that two previous popes have taught against the assumption of Mary?
- Even if this were also true (again you have provided no evidence) one needs to realize that not everything which comes out of the pope's mouth or written in his hand represents infallible teaching. There are very strict guidelines as to when the Holy Father is intending to use the authority of his office under the protection of the Holy Spirit. To see an example in today's time we can look to Pope Benedict's writings on the Gospels. He has stated explicitly that his interpretations are not authoritative but rather meant to be discussed and debated for the future. Furthermore, those writings or statements which the pope might have made prior to being elected to the Chair of Peter were not under the protection of the Holy Spirit and thus, do not represent authoritative teaching at all. Either way, it is moot unless you deign to provide the evidence you claim to have.



You really ought to consider actually reading the Church Fathers. I doubt you will do it but in case you surprise me, here are some places to start.

http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Early-Fathe ... 123&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Four-Witnesses-Ea ... 0ZJYNJ8XOE
http://www.amazon.com/Catena-Aurea-Set- ... 0ZJYNJ8XOE
http://www.amazon.com/Sunday-Sermons-Gr ... 0ZJYNJ8XOE
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Traditi ... 0ZJYNJ8XOE
http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Interpre ... 80&sr=8-31
http://www.amazon.com/Teachings-Church- ... dp_product

A good source for the teachings of the Church Fathers specifically on Marian doctrine.
http://www.amazon.com/Mary-Fathers-Chur ... 84&sr=8-10

I gave you a quote 100 years earlier, prior to the Nicean Council but you chose to ignore it.

Was Paul's preaching to the Bereans infallible?

Btw, you're a liar haparker 321 ( a sin which gets you to hell).








You didn't even know the quotes from the fathers that pax gave you with regard to the bodily assumption.


You don't know about the fathers or The Father. You have your own father (John 8:44).

And I shall point out that your responses do the same.


Right.


The issue is not how the Word of God is 'transmitted' via tradition; in fact, I agree that the Word of God takes this route to an extent i.e., being spoken at one point. The key problem for the Catholic Church goes beyond this because the transmitted teachings (as she teaches), come unsupported by either the Bible or history. That is the common understanding of what tradition is meant as. I should have been a little more specific by attaching these two demands where the Early Church actually characterized tradition as something that can be taught infallibly without the support of either history or scripture.



No disagreement here; in fact, most of the Reformers believe this.


You're right; the Church does not specifically define tradition as such explicitly, but much of its teachings are considered so vitally important that they are regarded often as something that equal weight. The problem I have is that the Church does not specify which teachings are and are not 'orally transmitted.' You see, for most Protestants, Catholics have not come up with a concise list that shows which teachings were part of the original Scripture and which are not. Furthermore, it does not specify if tradition is allowed to have no foundations in either scripture or history. Unfortunately, Catholics do not make this distinction.


Again, the issue is not the definition of tradition; the issue is if tradition was ever used in the same way Catholics have defined it now. Does tradition have to have basis in scripture and in history or can we go on to say there is no need for that (as in such ideal doctrines like Marriage as a sacrament or the Bodily Assumption).


But tradition is used in that fashion; hence, the problem with the ambiguity of definition.


They do consider them to be part of the 'infallible magisterium' which cannot be proven.

Parker

"They do consider them to be part of the 'infallible magisterium' which cannot be proven."

Could you expand a little on this point?

GKC

Of course, we disagree with you on both points.



"Common understanding" among whom? Catholics? Not in the least!! Our view is that all teachings find some Scriptural support; and "Tradition" reflecting the "Deposit of Faith" transmitted forward through each generation is historical by definition. "Teachings that come unsupported by either the Bible or history" may be a common "definition" among Protestants; but (as I noted in my prior post), such is NOT the meaning of Tradition among Catholics.



Since no where in the early church was "Tradition" described or defined as "something that can be taught infallibly without the support of either history or scripture," I have no obligation to "prove" such from any Church Father. You're here just working off one rather large strawman of a definition of "Tradition."



And I quoted Basil who noted in the 4th Century that there are "unwritten" teachings delivered "by the tradition of the Apostles" that have the "same force" as the Scriptural teachings. So the present understanding in that regard is reflected in the historical record.



Of course it doesn't, as most all teachings bear the imprint of both Scripture (to varying degrees of explicitness) and Tradition. Even the Encyclical dogmatically defining the Assumption makes reference to Scripture, and that teaching probably has the least direct Scriptural support. A doctrine such as the Trinity finds much support in Scripture, though various aspects of the teaching (for example, the term "Trinity" itself and the "homoousios" of Jesus Christ and the Father) are revealed more explicitly through Tradition. So it's pretty much a pointless exercise for the Church to create a list of teachings that were transmitted orally versus those that come via Scripture. Tradition and Scripture overlap far too much to make that exercise meaningful.



That is not a problem that concerns us Catholics. For Protestants to act like it's such a big deal always smacks of disingenuous argumentation.



In our view, all teachings have foundation in Scripture and history. This has been pointed out to you before.



When at the outset you phrase the question as "Where in either history or the scriptures do we find a description of tradition the way the Catholic Church defines it," you make the definition of tradition central to the inquiry. (Do you that easily lose track of what you've asked?)



And we DON'T define it now as "something that lacks basis in Scripture or history." Though for some reason you keep suggesting we do. Again, it's your challenge to produce a definition (definitions usually take the form "Tradition is ____" or "Tradition means _____") or a discussion of Tradition that employs words to the effect that it encompasses "things that lack basis in Scripture or history." Either produce that, or else cease this line in inquiry.

I think your problem here is that what you're asking and the point you're trying to make are different things. ISTM that when you refer to a "basis in history," what you're looking for is not something in the historical record at some point (which is what "basis in history" usually means); rather what you mean is a continuous, documented pattern of belief or practicefrom the immediate post-Apostolic period onward. But the ECF's in appealing to "Apostolic tradition" rarely, if ever, purport to trace the lineage of a teaching in such precise terms. I'll refer to my exerpt from Basil: he speaks of an authoritative, unwritten apostolic tradition on the matter at issue before him, but he doesn't attempt to trace it historically backwards in time. Rather, he refers to this rather matter-of-factly, as if this is a something that would be known and not a matter of dispute among his readers. For Basil, the matter has "basis in history" even though he doesn't purport to document the historical evidence. I contend his attitude toward Tradition is reflective of many of his contemporaries and predecessors.

Brian

1. Why do you feel the need for personal attacks? That's just rude.
2. Lying no more gets you sent to hell than idolatry. That's somewhat hypocritical for someone who lives in glass houses to throw stones.

So much for being against personal attacks...

James 2:10.

It's not about the individual sins. We are all sinners in need of a savior. You sin once, you are guilty of breaking the whole law and are deserving of hell.

But we are no longer under the Law.

Exactly. Those that believe in Christ are saved. There is no longer any condemnation for those that are in Christ. That includes lying. Or idolatry.

What about apostasy?

So why then are you so concerned that Beng is making a personal attack? According to you, there is no fault or sinfulness in lying or in bearing false witness or in any other attack by a Christian against another person. Beng is a Christian.