SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MVNDI

sewonandsewforth:

sewonandsewforth:

Yeah, and the myth of Mary ascending into heaven is NOWHERE in the Bible. It was a myth propagated in the 7th century, and only made official Church doctrine in 1950.

That’s one of my biggest problems with the Catholic Church. Everyone is prepared to up and change…

The Church doesn’t “change.” In fact, the Church has remained steadfast against the trends of secular culture throughout its 2000-year existence.

Councils. Example: The First and Second Lateran Councils (1123 and 1139, respectively), forbade priests from marrying as a response to the SECULAR problems of the day.  Was it anywhere in previous scripture? No, and thousands of women and children were cast off because of it.  Vatican II did the same thing- that’s what councils are FOR. Look at the Mass of Pardon in 2000.  Pope John Paul II changed the Church’s opinion on many matters, such as trials of witches.  Even recently, as the words to masses change (I was raised Roman Catholic), we’re told that this has been done by the Pope for a “more effective mass,” like God has changed the way he wants us to say things? 

 Furthermore, Church doctrine doesn’t change. If a “new” doctrine comes up, it’s because it is the Church relying on the precedent of its prior doctrines to elaborate and explain a new trend in a society that changes. A “new” teaching only comes up if it is held to be in accordance with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

 The Assumption of Mary is not based on “the precedent of prior doctrine”, and that is including those gospels which were not included in the Bible. At the VERY soonest, the Assumption story was created a full 400 years after Jesus’ birth, which, while it may seem like a long time AGO, is a bit late to be called ‘Sacred Tradition’.

And I want to ask you a question: Where in the Bible does it say which books should be within it? Is there a list at the end which states which books belong and which don’t? No. There isn’t. It was the Catholic Church that compiled and canonized (in the sense of making canon) the books of the Bible.

 You are correct in saying that the Catholic Church decided those Books which would comprise the Bible. Thus there is no list IN the Bible of the books which comprise it, since the Bible kind of IS the list…

There are three requirements which must be met for the inclusion or alteration of any doctrine or Book to the Bible:

1) Must be written by a prophet inspired by God. (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21)

2) Must be in harmony with other canonical books.

3) Must be widely accepted and applicable. 

Since the original post was about the Assumption of Mary, while it may be argued that while she was not a prophet, she was inspired by God, and she is certainly widely accepted, it absolutely cannot be said that she is in harmony with other canonical books, because the only thing that they say about her is that she was there for the birth (one would hope haha) and the death of her son. 

If Mary’s Assumption was already in the Bible, the Church would not have had to make it doctrine in 1950. 

On the count of Church doctrine, clerical celibacy was practiced at least since Ambrose’s time, about 800 years before the Lateran Councils. They merely affirmed an ancient tradition. It is in accord with 1 Corinthians 7:32-33. Also note that not all Catholic priests are celibate: Marriage is allowed in the Eastern Rites, and many Latin Rite priests remain married when converting from, for example, Lutheranism or Anglicanism, which also allow their priests to get married.

You said, “The First and Second Lateran Councils (1123 and 1139, respectively), forbade priests from marrying as a response to the SECULAR problems of the day.” Is that the Church bending to secular whims? No. That is the Church responding to secular problems by reaffirming a long-held practice.

Blessed Pope John Paul II changed no doctrines. Maybe opinions on historical matters, but definitely no doctrines. It’s not like he took the doctrine of the Real Presence and flushed it down the toilet. Also, the words of the Mass did not change. They were re-translated because the older translations (from the Latin, which are words which have been spoken for centuries) were indeed ineffective, e.g. and with your spirit is spoken by the rest of the world, and due to the re-translation is now being spoken by English speakers in fuller accord with the rest of the Church.

On the count of the Assumption, I’m just going to reply with this video. Also note that the doctrine was “prior” in the strict sense that Munificentissimus Deus was merely reaffirming a prior belief, one held at least since the 4th Century (and, if held similarly to the Dormition, much longer).