Hi Greg, I did not say that Scripture is irrelevant. Re-read my 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 stance wherein "the church says" or "the bible says" or "tradition says". I mean to force thought … [Altro]

@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, … [Altro]

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 … [Altro]

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.

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 … [Altro]

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.

Nice piece on Our Blessed Mother's assumption. Do check out Miraculous Photos of the Blessed Virgin Mary

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, was delivered over to death for our sins, and was raised to life for our justification. Death … [Altro]

@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 … [Altro]

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 … [Altro]

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 … [Altro]

@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 … [Altro]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.



----------------------------------------------------------- [Altro]

"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 … [Altro]

It is therefore heresy to state that the Virgin Mary died and was resurrected.

Until the Church defines it infallibly, which has NOT occurred, it is not heresy to believe that Mary died even though you believe it is. If she did die, then she would have to have been “resurrected” before she was assumed into heaven. There is no heresy in that.

If you choose to believe that she did not die, you are no more of an heretic than the author of this article and others like him who believe that she did. [Altro]

@ Cannoli - Let us begin with the Patristic church. The earliest litterary mention of the Assumption occurs in De Obitu S. Dominae. For centuries, the Christian Church had no notion of Mary having died.

On the other hand, later on, John of Damascus (Patrologia Graeca, 96) states that at Chalcedon (451), the Bishop of Jerusalem proclaimed that Mary died in the presence of the Apostles. However, upon the Emperor Marcian and Pulcherian's demand for Her body (a prized relic now!), they found the … [Altro]

Yeah, what he said.

according to Roman Catholic theology and Dogma, Our Lady did not die,

Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus, does not define that the Blessed Virgin died, only that she "completed the course of her earthly life" (MD 44). Only the specific definition of the Assumption in paragraph 44 of Munificentissimus Deus is the infallible proclamation; the rest of the document is commentary. Although many theologians believe that the Virgin Mary did die, the Church is officially silent on the matter.

If … [Altro]

Attention!There are serious dogmatic difficulties with this article in the language used leading to serious theological problems. Herein lies the problem: "her death and resurrection",( somewhat like some of the Eastern Orthodox sects). According to Roman Catholic theology and Dogma, Our Lady did not die, she was assumed body and soul into heaven (the biblical presidence being Elijah in the Old Testament).

This incorrect use of language in this article, leading to theological difficulties, … [Altro]