Tuesday, August 15, 2023

On Today's Feast

I agree with Trent Horn on the conclusion, but not on his epistemology:

Answering Arguments from Silence Against Mary's Assumption
The Counsel of Trent, 15 August 2023

5:15 Indeed. The Orthodox call today's feast the Dormition. Meaning there was a death bed and something that somehow corresponds to normal dying, though not quite. Because the non-presence of original sin and the divine motherhood made a difference. Dito for the story told by St. Andrew of Crete, pre-schism. She was buried, and St. Thomas wanting to take a last farewell opened her tomb and found a veil and a belt.

Wen Shan
I believe another version in tradition records the Assumption as witnessed by all the Apostles except Thomas, who happened to be evangelising in India. Doubting, as Thomas was with the resurrection of Christ, he asked for a sign. The Blessed Mother appeared on a chariot in the sky and gave him her girdle. Thomas took the girdle to India. In 394 A.D., it was relocated to Urfa, Turkey, and subsequently to Homs, Syria.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Thank you, @wenshan9101 !

Could you tell me where you got that, I think my memory matches what St. Alfons of Liguori wrote from St. Andrew of Crete.

Wen Shan
@hglundahl this version is included in Blessed Jacobus' The Golden Legend (Readings on the Saints). The relocation of the cincture to Homs is from a Syriac Orthodox source.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Ah, thank you @wenshan9101 !

I have not read The Golden Legend all that much.

Wen Shan
@hglundahl Thank you, Hans! I have had the privilege of learning from you in more ways than one.
God bless, and may Our Lady keep you safe under her mantle!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Thank you @wenshan9101!

Yajun Yuan
@hglundahl Do you think Epiphanius taught the bodily assumption of Mary in his writings?

Hans Georg Lundahl
I do not recall, @YajunYuanSDA .

I have heard of him, but if he was an early witness or one of the exceptions early on, I do not recall.

I do note, since his time, unanimity is reached in all Churches with Apostolic Succession, Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians.

This could not have happened if it were an error.

Yajun Yuan
@hglundahl I made a definitive video of the interpretations of his Panarion 78 and 79, giving both the Protestant and Catholic interpretations of it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Christ promised infallibility to His Church, not just up to the end of the life of Epiphanius, but up to the end of the world.

By now, not just Catholics, but also Orthodox, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians support this. IT having been in doubt in the time of Epiphanius doesn't make it doubtful any more.

Yajun Yuan
@hglundahl So you believe in the assumption of Jesus not because of the documentary evidence but only because several denominations accept it today?

Hans Georg Lundahl
1) I am fine with the Roman Catholic one.
2) "several denominations" are the other realistic candidates for the Christian Church, those who took no root in a Reformation several centuries after Christianity began, which, while in fact condemned by the Church, could have some kind of claim to at least subjectively think it was they who were condemning and that they Church was what was being condemned.

Luther and Ellen Gould White had no such excuse.

Sry, @YajunYuanSDA .

"the assumption of Jesus"

It's called the ascension.

I believe in it because of Church tradition, as expressed in early documents.

But I believe the Church to be divine because of associated promises, and so the traditions of the Church to be correct even if they have way fewer such early documents, or documents from later on.

Yajun Yuan
@hglundahl @hglundahl "so the traditions of the Church to be correct even if they have way fewer such early documents, or documents from later on."

So you telling me even though Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians all accept that Mary died and even though there is more documentary evidence for death than her assumption.

You choose to be dogmatic that she was assumed and tolerant on her death because you think your denomination is divine?

Hans Georg Lundahl
@YajunYuanSDA "So you telling me even though Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians all accept that Mary died and even though there is more documentary evidence for death than her assumption"

All accept she rose and was assumed.

I checked.

Catholics traditionally accept:
  • She died in a sense (but not as a punishment for Adam's sin)
  • then She rose and was assumed.
Check The Glories of Mary, by Alfons Maria Liguori. He quotes St. Andrew of Crete on this.

Precisely as the other ones mentioned by you also do.

I am dogmatic both on Her dying and on Her being raised and assumed, as that is the Catholic tradition, also shared with these other Churches.

Yajun Yuan
@hglundahl Do you also accept that her soul was separated from her body? that her soul went to heaven first and her body came later?

Hans Georg Lundahl
I think @YajunYuanSDA , that Christ came down to hold His Mother's soul in His arms.

Early on at my Catholic conversion, I thought this was contrary to the Catholic dogma, but after reading Glories of Mary, not so.

9:16 I'd say at least the writing of the Apocalypse and of the Gospel of St. John, probably Epistles too, was after the Assumption, and this may have been the case for some Petrine Epistles too.

10:46 This fits in with Ortlund's claim that the earliest source is Coptic.

The "third century" assignation means it is from before the Monophysite heresy and schism after Chalcedon.

15:17 IT can be added, both the Protestants you are speaking of, and the Catholics in the time of Pope St. Pius X believed that the Exodus narrative we have was written by none other than Moses, one of the participants. IN other words, those "historians" are wrong.

15:25 An Evangelical would say we came from Adam and Eve, as would a Catholic.

C. S. Lewis was an Anglican who in his Problem of Pain, about a decade after his conversion (hope he changed his mind later) said Adam and Eve were not individual people and Genesis 3 is not history.

James Upton
A Catholic up on science would not.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@jamesupton4996 What you call a Catholic "up on science" I call a heretic as per Trent Session V.

I also call him a dupe of pseudo-science.

James Upton
@hglundahl Well you"re wrong then. Just check out Catholic teaching on Faith and reason , evolution and so on. And that the Big Bang Theory for example was formulated first by a Catholic Priest who had no problem also bring a theoretical physicist, and nor had the Church.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@jamesupton4996 "Well you"re wrong then."

Were you intending to give any arguments for it?

"Just check out Catholic teaching on Faith and reason,"

I don't consider Antipope Wojtyla for 1998 as "Catholic teaching" but the document you refer to has no anathema attached and is therefore of lower dignity than Trent Session V, and it also does not deny individuality of Adam. On the contrary:

“The truth is that only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a type of him who was to come, Christ the Lord. Christ, the new Adam, in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling”

Which is a quote from Redemptor Hominis.

"evolution and so on."

I don't think there is a document named "evolution and so on" ... but seriously, Humani Generis 1950 is not teaching on evolution, it's teaching on what rejections of the theory oblige, rejecting polygenism being one of these.

"And that the Big Bang Theory for example was formulated first by a Catholic Priest who had no problem also bring a theoretical physicist,"

Did he deny Adam was an individual?

"and nor had the Church."

If he didn't, perhaps that's part of the reason why the Church had no problem with it.

Now, one of the problems with a document called "Fides et Ratio" is, it gives the impression faith and reason are coordinated, like two attitudes man can take. In fact the first sentence seems to be an unacknowledged quote from Baha'ulla, the founder of the Baha'i heresy.

However, I cannot find it ... I just recall it from a high school class on Bahai from more than 10 years before "Fides et Ratio" ...

Reason is not an attitude of man, it is a faculty of all men. Faith is not an alternative attitude, it is one of the qualities reason can have. Therefore they cannot be coordinated. Just as "eyes and blue" is weird or "hair and blond" is weird, so also "reason and faith" is weird, for the exact same reason. Pun acknowledged.

Now, if you think Fides et Ratio authorises you to disbelieve in an individual Adam (unbelief, specifically heresy or apostasy, being alternative states of reason to faith), this means, at least some of the readers of Fides et Ratio have shipwrecked their faith.

Why didn't George Lemaître do so? First, it should be noted, I am not affirming he didn't - he could be an early bird for the modern apostasy, in a corner where the Church was less watchful. But as far as he knew, he was denying literality of creation days, like Sulpician Father Fulcran Vigouroux, and Vigouroux had believed the Biblical chronology from Adam on was fairly easy to save, even with modern geology. Note, he had also promoted a limited Flood, but from the Biblical Commission in Rome, he only had occasion to promote the extension of Creation days.

Libby received the Nobel prize 6 years before Lemaître died, and died in de facto communion with an antipope. It is very possible that Lemaître had never heard of a human - everyone would agree, anatomically fully human - skull in Peștera Muierilor carbon dated to 34 000 or 29 000 BP. It is very possible that he, like I, considered the skull Cro-Magnon 1 as posterior to Adam, rather than 27 680 BP.

It is very possible that he also had not heard of the definitive proofs that Neanderthals are human - the superglue used by some of them to attach a spearhead to a shaft, the man of Shanidar who was kept alive after losing an arm sufficiently long for the cut off bone to "heal" or the fact we have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in many human populations today.

It is therefore possible he either considered Neanderthals as a pre-human, non-human kind, or that he considered the Neanderthals as descending from Adam within the Biblical time scale (in the Roman Martyrology, there are 3259 years between creation of Adam and vocation of Abraham, just before he visited a pharao).

It is also possible that he strictly kept aloof from all things anthropology, so the only implications of what he took for science he ever needed to bother about were the creation days, before Adam was created. I have heard some scientists are good at specialisation, that is compartmentalisation.

Btw, @jamesupton4996 ... what is my hunch more precisely about Cro Magnon 1?

The carbon date would be 25 680 BC, close enough to 25 362 BC, for which the real date is 2912 BC, 45 years after the Flood.*

Anatomically, they have argued Cro Magnon 1 is just 40 years old. Probably none of Noah's sons died this soon after the Flood, even if chronological 140 years with their biology would anatomically probably match our 40. But no one said all of Noah's grandsons lived to their normal lifespan.

Could also be, in the calcium rich waters over there, someone dying later than 2912 BC was dated as older than he was for real, by reservoir effect. Like if he died 200 years later, 2711 BC, he would normally have carbon dated as 12 611 BC - but a two hundred year reservoir effect is not unheard of more recently.

15:31 Where is your genetic difficulty?

The presence of Neanderthal and Denisovan genes and the dating of latest purely N or D skeleta or skeletal parts to no more recent than 40 000 BP?

The solution is not all that difficult.

Neanderthals and Denisovans were pre-Flood races, perhaps one or the other more or less connected to Nephelim. But they were also post-Adam races. However, this depends on carbon date 40 000 BP being reducible to Flood date, 2957 BC in the Roman martyrology (in fact, 2957 BC would rather have the carbon date 39 000 BP, as per tephra from Campi Flegrei eruption - the one pre-historic supervolcano eruption so far carbon -dated).

15:42 The kind of "secular historic science" that denies historicity to Genesis 3 or Exodus is modernist pseudo-science. Here is Haydock on the historic epistemology for Genesis 3:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. (Haydock)

You: "no solid history for Genesis 3 or even Exodus, but this is remedied by revelation"
Haydock: "pretty good solid history for Exodus and even Genesis 3 - and THEN the absolute veracity furthermore added by revelation"

Your position could at worst be taken as neither Genesis 3 nor Exodus were recorded while taking place, or the record was lost, and a later revelation as in apparition or audition repaired this loss or omission.
Haydock's is clearly that Genesis 3 events were recorded orally and revelation is a theological extra qualifier, like for the Gospel of Luke, based on interviews, just like a journalist would do a biography today.

Unlike electromagnetism, I don't think history has made any methodological breakthrough since the day of Haydock. The criteria taken from the Weibull school are fair enough for 19th C. history, if it's the 19th C. AD. They'd be atrocious for any criterium (contemporary, independent, multiple) and especially all together for 19th C. BC events.

15:57 "the Bible that revealed them to us"

You'd find it atrocious to say "the Bible told the Eleven that Jesus had risen and shown Himself to them, and they believed this because of the inerrancy of the Gospel of Luke" ... in fact, when it comes to defending tradition, this is one of the things you'd state, the Resurrection was preached before Gospels were written, and both the preaching and the Gospels simply record this fact, with no epistemological break in the memory.

Why would you be doing that exact same mistake with Exodus or Genesis 3 events?

17:00 I'd disagree. The Coptic sources being from before the Monophysite heresies, and from a region close enough to Palestine, they are a fairly believable source material for Mary's Assumption, even if Pius XII wasn't Pope.

Precisely as 3 versions of St. Helen finding the cross makes it believable that happened, with associated miracles.

To discount these, one would purportedly misapply Weibull criteria for a period which they cannot apply to, and in reality show one's prejudice against miracles.

To a Christian, furthermore, the consensus of liturgies adds a theological argument.

Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians all honour Our Lady's assumption into Heaven. To say this were not true would be to posit that error crept into universal tradition, which is contrary to the promises in Mt 28:16-20.

* For a real date 2912 carbon dating as 25 362, see this item:

2912 B. Chr.
0.066161 pmC/100, so dated as 25 362 B. Chr.

It's from table I to II on this post.

Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables

From a carbon date associated with the Flood for 2957 BC and a carbon date associated with beginning of Babel (= Göbekli Tepe) for 2607 BC, I have taken (for table I to II) an evenly curved increment of C14 over time periods of real time 22 ~ 23 years. The one for 2912 BC has 6.6161 pmC, as outset value of any sample not affected by reservoir effect, which gives an instant age of 22 450 years, which added to 2912 BC gives the carbon date 25 362 BC or 25 562 BP. Other tables have been similarily made.

No comments: