Question:
I guess in my mind, when reading the scriptures, when the subject of “what must a man do to be saved” There is always an answer, and there is never any mention of the Marian Dogmas. Then while reading ( still reading )400 years of Church Fathers I have yet to read any mention of these dogmas. Except both Jerome and Epiphanius state no one knows for sure what happened to her..... and then 1900 years later it’s considered essential for salvation....this is a huge struggle for me...
Not 1900 years. It was "doctrine" for 1,900 years, so theologians were free to debate it a little, while still acknowledging the doctrine. The elevation to Dogma simply ended the debating, and that doesn't happen to obscure minority opinions.
Marian Dogmas aren't really about Mary. Check out fetal microchimerism, and also consider Jesus followed the 4th Commandment perfectly. "Honor" in that commandment (The word used) has a weighty definition. Attached is the protestant Strong's concordance, and a protestant sermon on its meaning.
We know Jesus is the same in heaven as He was on earth, and before. He's eternal, and never changes. He taught us "on earth as it is in heaven."
We know biblically that both Enoch and Elijah were assumed bodily into heaven. God is always consistent. Add this to the 4th Commandment discourse, and it becomes difficult to claim that the perfect Logos "honored" ("revered") His mother if He didn't treat her the same.
We know that the effects of original (and other) sins is aging, sickness, and death. We (and many Protestants) believe that Our Lord required a spotless vessel, a pure Ark, to work as a tabernacle during His gestation. So, even Martin Luther passionately preached the Immaculate Conception, hundreds of years before the Church elevated this constant doctrine by proclaiming it dogma.
We believe she remained sinless ever after, as did Martin Luther. As a result, she would not have experienced corruption of the body.
Add that to the 4th Commandment discourse. Would you leave your mother to be ogled for millennia, potentially subjected to abuse from bad people, or during war, etc? How much more would Our Lord honor His mother's form?
Mary is wonderful. But Marian Dogma isn't about Mary, it's about Christ.
Ok, I don't know how may tweets this'll end up being, but here goes: You mentioned scripture, but not oral tradition. Let me explain how oral tradition has always been part of salvation history, how it's binding, and acknowledged by Christ Himself. Stay with me, I get to the point.
Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt, “that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.'” (Matt.2:23).
All commentators admit that the phrase “He shall be called a Nazarene” is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Yet Matthew tells us that the Holy Family fulfilled this prophecy, which had been passed on “by the prophets.”
That's oral tradition. Here's another example-Just before denouncing the scribes and Pharisees for hypocrisy, Jesus delivers this command to the crowds: “The scribes and Pharisees **sit on Moses’ seat**; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” Matt. 23:2-3. He indicts their hypocrisy for not following their own teaching, but insists that the they have a position of legitimate authority, which he calls sitting “on Moses’ seat.”
We know this "seat" wasn't a metaphor. It was a stone seat in front of the Synagogue. David Hill ”The Gospel of Matthew" (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 310.
"Moses Seat" is nowhere in the OT. Yet everybody knew that there was an authoritative teaching office, passed on by Moses to successors. So here we have Jesus both a) repeating oral tradition, and b) acknowledging binding teaching authority via both written word and oral tradition
In fact, until Moses all scripture was oral tradition, and it didn't stop simply because he wrote some down. Joshua, the elders, the prophets, Moses and authoritative seat - passed to Aaron.
The Sanhedrin elected new high priests until Christ, and everyone recognized their authority to teach the scripture and pass on oral tradition, even Jesus Christ.
And then, Christ appointed Peter.
It's all very seamless, back to Adam. The new covenant didn't change "everything." It opened it all up salvation for the entire world, but what was good remains, and Christ clearly thought the structure and teaching authority was good. He was a Rabbi Himself.
Here's another trippy oral tradition example: The OT says nothing about the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites "moving" at all. (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13).
But in rabbinic tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness. See Tosefta Sukkah 3:11f., Pseudo-Philo Biblical Antiquities 10:7.
Why does it matter?
Because Paul relies on this oral tradition to teach and the reference is now in scripture: “All drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ” 1Cor. 10:4.
Why would oral teaching authority that had existed for 4,000 years, and affirmed by Christ Himself, simply stop? It wouldn't. It didn't. God is always the same. He appointed Peter, and he appointed the 12.
The 12 clearly knew that their job was to continuing doing so, which is why God made sure that the bible included how they chose Judas replacement, in detail.
If the authority of Peter and the first bishops was to end with them, why would the bible include the detailed account of them making sure the Church had 11 bishops & a Peter?
Couple more. Getting to the point. Jude 9 explains: "When the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.'” Jude 9. This is nowhere in the OT. 15/
Jude got it from oral tradition. That oral tradition is taught everywhere ... even Protestant churches.
Now the last example, that gets to the ultimate point.
Several Church Fathers say Moses’ body is assumed into heaven after his death. See Clement of Alexandria, Adumbrat. in Ep. Jud.; Origen, De Princ. 3:2:1; Gelasius Cyzicenus, Hist. Eccl. 2.17.17, 2.21.7.
This is supported by his appearance with Elijah (assumed) in bodily form at the Transfiguration.
Why does it matter? See the Jude St. Michael oral tradition quoted in scripture example.
Some versions of the story circulating in ancient Judaism depict Satan trying to intervene as Michael buries Moses body. For a detailed discussion, see R. J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Waco: Word Books, 1983), 65-7 6.
That's what Jude is referring to. Combine that and the early Church saying he was assumed, and we have Jude giving us a direct analogy to Mary's Assumption.
Thus, the bible shows that oral Tradition can be the basis upon which belief in this dogma may be based.
end/
