A
aball1035
Guest
I’m wondering where the assumption and coronation are in the Bible. Also, how do we know these verses relate to the Blessed Virgin?
Thank you!
Thank you!
- Status
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi!
…part of the problem people have with Scriptures is that they want an exact point of reference with the dotted “i” and the crossed “t;” and everything listed in the right sequence–sadly, they think of Scriptures as a “proof text” gotcha thing… not really as the Word of God.
…here’s where it is:
(Apocalypse [Revelation] 12:1-18)
While some see a type of the Church (v 17) it is not about the Church; while some want to view it as Israel (in light of Genesis 3:15) v 17 definitely blows that exegesis out.
We have the Virgin as a sing in Heaven, followed by a second sign (Satan) trying to attack her and the child; attempting against the child; the exile to Egypt; the continue war against the Church who Claims Mary as her mom!
If anyone has a problem with the coronation of the Virgin Mary, they must take it up with Christ Who gave the Vision to St. John!
Maran atha!
Angel
J
joeybaggz
Guest
The Assumption is an extra biblical belief. It appears nowhere in Scripture. Where did it come from. I don’t know the history, but Jesus gave Mary into John’s care at the crucifixion. John took Mary into his home and cared for her the remainder of her days. The apostle John certainly knew what happened to Mary. My surmise is that he certainly told the remaining apostles and the early Church leaders (as John was the last of the twelve to die).
Why it took so long to be official Church dogma. Again, one can only guess. Given all the heresies abounding in the early days of the Church, possibly the early Magesterium didn’t want to add something that was only private revelation between John and the early Church leaders. You post does make me want to research the history of the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Mother. For that I thank you.
One other anecdotal “proof”. The early Church was manic about preserving the bones and relics of the early Saints and Martyrs. Yet there is not one shred of “evidence” in the form of a relic of the Blessed Mother. No shroud, no clothing, no organic (bones, etc.) matter of any kind. Kind of strange, don’t you think? Something to ponder I guess.
Shalom
po18guy
Well-known member
Where did Jesus teach that we must believe only that which is contained in the bible? Where did He teach of (or even mention) a bible as being authoritative?
Didn’t.
He established a Church, giving it all authority via the power of binding and loosing. Revelation 12 is a clue. Psalm 2 is a clue. The Apostolic Tradition (including the scriptures within it) are the source of this revelation.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi!
…so was the term Holy Trinity–yet, both based on Scriptures!
Maran atha!
Angel
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
The best answers to these kind of questions is to go right to the source
The Church is very explicit in defining a doctrine like the Assumption, with respect to how the doctrine came to be.
The Coronation is a mystery of the Rosary, but not a doctrine to my knowledge.
D
De_Maria
Guest
**Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:**
Basically, because the Church tells us so.
Notice, that the reference to the Dragon, points to Rev 12.
2853 Victory over the “prince of this world” was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life. This is the judgment of this world, and the prince of this world is “cast out.” “He pursued the woman” but had no hold on her: the new Eve, “full of grace” of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from sin and the corruption of death (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Holy Mother of God, Mary, ever virgin). “Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring.” Therefore the Spirit and the Church pray: “Come, Lord Jesus,” since his coming will deliver us from the Evil One.
Therefore, the Woman of Rev 12 is, in one sense, the Blessed Virgin Mary.
However, we know by other means, as well.
Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
That Woman is obviously, the Virgin Mary. If we go through the entire chapter, it is clear that the Woman is the Mother of the Messiah. The Messiah is Jesus Christ and His Mother is Mary. This is absolutely clear. But, Protestants will deny it. They claim it can only be a reference to Israel?
Israel is our Patriarch, not our Matriarch. Israel is a man.
John doesn’t say that he saw a man, crowned with twelve stars. So, at best, this can only be a very indirect reference to the fact that Jesus Christ is a very distant relative of the man, Israel. Because men do not get pregnant and have children. And that is how the Woman of Rev 12 is described:
Rev 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
What about the dream?
What dream? Joseph’s? Notice that it is a dream of a man, Joseph, not Israel, not crowned with twelve stars but with 13 heavenly bodies bowing to him. 11 of those were stars, one was the sun and one was the moon.
Genesis 37:9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.
So, if this is a reference to Joseph’s dream, it is very indirect and barely fits without a great deal of stretching.
Israel is a nation
This has some merit. But only secondarily, because, again, St. John described a woman, not a nation. Although, Israel is frequently described as a woman, in the OT. Still the vision fits Mary, the Woman, the Mother of Jesus Christ, perfectly.
The Woman is Mary?
- The Woman of Rev 12 gave birth to the Messiah. Who can deny that?
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:…5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
- This man child is the Messiah. Jesus Christ is the Messiah. Who can deny that?
- Mary is the mother of Christ. Who can deny that?
It seems really simple, don’t you agree?
I hope that helps!
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, De Maria!
…my twos…
the argument about Israel is at odds with Scriptures as Yahweh God Calls Jacob/Israel, His firstborn; yet, at times Yahweh God Calls Israel His spouse or, more to the point, His adulterous spouse.
Yet, I do concur with you that the woman in Apocalypse (Revelation) is not Israel because Israel refused to accept Jesus… and Jesus was never protected by Israel nor did Israel seek Egypt’s protection for the Holy Child; finally, Israel rejects Jesus and the New Covenant–so Israel will not see itself as a “mother” to Jesus’ Followers.
Maran atha!
Angel
D
De_Maria
Guest
But remember that there are two Israels. That is to say, two Jerusalems.
Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
But again, this does not fit the verse in Rev 12 as perfectly as His own mother, Mary.
R
Renan
Guest
There are two theological arguments that show us the Assumption is at least implicitly contained in the Bible. I’m just going to give you the basics of those two theological arguments, because there are theologians who could explain them much better, like Garrigou-Lagrange (cf. The Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life).
First argument.
1 - Mary received fulness of grace (Luke 1,28) and was exceptionally blessed by God (Luke 1,42) ----> revealed truth.
2 - This exceptional blessing negatives the divine curse to bring forth children in pain and to return to dust (Genesis 3,16-19) ----> revealed truth.
3 - Therefore, Mary was preserved from corruption in her body. It wouldn’t return to dust, but rather be resuscitated in an anticipated resurrection and assumed into heaven ----> conclusion capable of being defined.
Second argument.
1 - Jesus Christ’s complete victory over satan included victory over sin (Hebrews 9,26) and death (1Corinthians 15,54-57) ----> revealed truth.
2 - Mary was voluntarily (Luke 1,38) and most intimately associated with Jesus Christ on Calvary (John 19,25) in His complete victory over satan (Genesis 3,15). She participated in His sufferings as Simeon predicted (Luke 2,35).
3 - Therefore, Mary was associated with Him in His victory over death by her anticipated resurrection and her Assumption into heaven ----> conclusion capable of being defined.
First argument.
1 - Mary received fulness of grace (Luke 1,28) and was exceptionally blessed by God (Luke 1,42) ----> revealed truth.
2 - This exceptional blessing negatives the divine curse to bring forth children in pain and to return to dust (Genesis 3,16-19) ----> revealed truth.
3 - Therefore, Mary was preserved from corruption in her body. It wouldn’t return to dust, but rather be resuscitated in an anticipated resurrection and assumed into heaven ----> conclusion capable of being defined.
Second argument.
1 - Jesus Christ’s complete victory over satan included victory over sin (Hebrews 9,26) and death (1Corinthians 15,54-57) ----> revealed truth.
2 - Mary was voluntarily (Luke 1,38) and most intimately associated with Jesus Christ on Calvary (John 19,25) in His complete victory over satan (Genesis 3,15). She participated in His sufferings as Simeon predicted (Luke 2,35).
3 - Therefore, Mary was associated with Him in His victory over death by her anticipated resurrection and her Assumption into heaven ----> conclusion capable of being defined.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
It is not implicit in the Bible (at least not in the quotes you gave), but it is not contradicted either.
Your idea of implicit must be extremely broad.
For the Assumption to be implicit in the Bible would require texts that assume the reader knows the BVM was assumed into Heaven. The quotes you cite are all consonant with the Assumption, but do not imply the early Christian reader knew anything about the Assumption.
That is not the same as saying the Assumption was not taught from Apostolic times.
For example, the Trinity is not explicitly taught in the Bible, but it is implicit, through the texts that we have, especially the Baptismal wording.
D
Della
Guest
Neither are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, so that answers that question. Now the question is, is that a problem for Catholic teaching about Mary? No, it isn’t. Why? Because the Bible does not decide matters of faith and morals. Indeed, Jesus never commissioned anything be written for future generations to read. He founded the Church, not a book.
The Church produced the NT, in the writings of her Apostles (those who wrote anything, that is) and some of their disciples, such as Luke and Mark. We don’t go by the Bible alone, but by the whole of Sacred Tradition, which began with Adam and was fulfilled in Christ–both of whom are persons, not books.
The Bible verses cited on the feasts of Mary relate to Church teachings regarding her, but they are not proofs of any Church doctrine. Church doctrine is determined by the Magisterium–as they did in Acts 15 regarding eating of meat offered to idols and circumcision. It is the Church to whom Christ promised the Holy Spirit, who guides her into all truth, not, again a book.
I hope that helps you.
R
Renan
Guest
Fr. Gabriel Roschini, the greatest Mariologist of the 20th century, says:
“Antes de tudo, a Assunção de Maria ao céu está compreendida implicitamente, em termos equivalentes, na Sagrada Escritura” (ROSCHINI, Instruções Marianas, 1960).
“First of all, the Assumption of Mary into heaven is implicitly comprised, in equivalent terms, in the Sacred Scripture” (our translation).
D
De_Maria
Guest
On the contrary, yours must be extremely narrow.
That’s true. That is the way that CATHOLICS understand the Word of God. Unlike Protestants, we don’t discover doctrine in the Bible. We confirm Doctrine in the Bible. Because we are taught the Doctrines of Jesus Christ by Tradition and then we read the Bible based upon the Traditions which are the BASIS of the Bible.
On the contrary, the Catholic Church has never changed it’s procedure for Teaching the Faith. Scripture is a secondary tool. Preaching and Teaching are foremost. Scripture is only used to verify the Catholic Teaching.
Not sure what you mean by that. I’m not saying that the Assumption was not taught. I believe it was taught, by implication. If Mary was in heaven, crowned with Twelve Stars, then that implies that she was assumed into heaven. Here’s the Merriam Webster definition of “imply”.
Definition of imply
implied; implying
transitive verb
1
obsolete : enfold, entwine
2
: to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement rights imply obligations
True. It is a necessary consequence of the language used. If there is a Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then there must be a Holy Trinity. If Mary is seen bodily in heaven and crowned with twelve stars, then there must have been an Assumption.
But, in both cases, the Catholic Church had already taught the Catechumen about both Doctrines.
po18guy
Well-known member
As always, well said.
The following is not for you, Della. 
Jesus never mentioned running to any written document for answers. We are supposed to run to the Apostles (and those whom they laid hands on). They wrote the Catechism for us, which explains the meaning of the scriptures, as well as revealed truth which is not in the scriptures.The entire world - anyone who can read - knows what the bible says. They argue incessantly about what it means, each convinced by the power of the ego, that they alone are right. So it was that Luther became self-convinced. And Calvin. And Zwingli. And Smythe. And probably Jones. And on and on and on ad infinitum. The spirit of Pontius Pilate asks, “What is truth?”
We have the successors to the Apostles, and are at peace.
As to the crowned woman and Child Who will ‘rule the nations with a rod of iron’, David wrote of Him in Psalm 2. Jesus twice quoted David as He died on the cross to cement His connection as Son of David (Psalms 22 and 30).
Both Saints Peter and Paul wrote that we will receive crowns of glory in heaven (1 Peter 5:4, 2 Timothy 4:8). To oppose a teaching simply because it is Catholic will ultimately lead to a rejection of Christ Himself - as we have long seen with His rejection in the Holy Eucharist.
How anyone who claims to be a ‘bible Christian’ yet does not know the above is beyond my comprehension.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
De Maria:
Is that, although I maintain that there is nothing implicit about the Assumption in the Biblical quotes posted by Renan, I was NOT saying that the Assumption was NOT taught from Apostolic times. I know double negatives are difficult for modern readers.
The gist of what I am saying is that although there is nothing implied IN THE QUOTES USED BY Renan, there was STILL an apostolic Tradition regarding the Assumption.
The problem some Catholics have is trying to look objectively at their own beliefs and at the Bible. They presume, that because it is obvious to them, it is in plain sight for anyone. That is an error. One should objectively be able to see a text. That is the first step in ANY apologetic discussion. Apocalypse NEVER mentions the woman’s name as Mary. That is a Catholic interpretation.
What I meant by: "That is not the same as saying the Assumption was not taught from Apostolic times. "
Is that, although I maintain that there is nothing implicit about the Assumption in the Biblical quotes posted by Renan, I was NOT saying that the Assumption was NOT taught from Apostolic times. I know double negatives are difficult for modern readers.
The gist of what I am saying is that although there is nothing implied IN THE QUOTES USED BY Renan, there was STILL an apostolic Tradition regarding the Assumption.
The problem some Catholics have is trying to look objectively at their own beliefs and at the Bible. They presume, that because it is obvious to them, it is in plain sight for anyone. That is an error. One should objectively be able to see a text. That is the first step in ANY apologetic discussion. Apocalypse NEVER mentions the woman’s name as Mary. That is a Catholic interpretation.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, P!As always, well said.
The entire world - anyone who can read - knows what the bible says. They argue incessantly about what it means, each convinced by the power of the ego, that they alone are right. So it was that Luther became self-convinced. And Calvin. And Zwingli. And Smythe. And probably Jones. And on and on and on ad infinitum. The spirit of Pontius Pilate asks, “What is truth?”
We have the successors to the Apostles, and are at peace.
As to the crowned woman and Child Who will ‘rule the nations with a rod of iron’, David wrote of Him in Psalm 2. Jesus twice quoted David as He died on the cross to cement His connection as Son of David (Psalms 22 and 30).
Both Saints Peter and Paul wrote that we will receive crowns of glory in heaven (1 Peter 5:4, 2 Timothy 4:8). To oppose a teaching simply because it is Catholic will ultimately lead to a rejection of Christ Himself - as we have long seen with His rejection in the Holy Eucharist.
How anyone who claims to be a ‘bible Christian’ yet does not know the above is beyond my comprehension.
It’s called selective reasoning: ‘I have the Holy Spirit and he guides me to the truth;
but the Church Founded by Christ does not have it’ or ‘the Church Founded by Christ was forced into the underground for 1500 years by the Catholic Church.’
The whole issue lies in “Authority.” Who has the authority to speak for God? According to non-Catholics, everyone that is non-Catholic!
I’m Catholic yet if I ever dissented from the Church the only way that I could promote my own “understanding” as “the truth and authoritative” is if displace the Church from the Truth and her Divinely Delegated Authority.
…so either by ignorance or by design, those who reject the Church must ignore Scriptures that demonstrate her Teachings as Sound.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi!
You are so correct. The Scriptural passage does not explicitly states, ‘the Virgin Mary.’
Yet, is that enough to then jump to “Catholic interpretation?”
No.
When David speaks of: ‘they have pierced my hands and feet and I can count my bones,’ where is there an explicit reference to, “Jesus” or “Christ” or “the Messiah” of “the Son of man” or “the Son of God;” yet, that quote is applied directly to Jesus, is it not?
…so how many other virgins or women were crowned by the angels, persecuted by Satan while she carried the Lord, rescued by God Himself, taking into the dessert (Egypt), kept there for 3 and 1/2 terms (years), and made into the mother of all of Jesus’ Disciples?
Maran atha!
Angel
D
De_Maria
Guest
With all due respect, Renan’s quotes have nothing to do with it.
The Bible implies the Assumption of Mary by the mere fact that she is seen in heaven, crowned with 12 stars. What other explanation do you have for that circumstance during the life of the Apostles?
agreed. You sound as though you believe that Scripture is not part of Sacred Tradition.
I don’t consider it a problem. You do. But it is merely your opinion.
What do you mean by “objectively”? I believe that Jesus is God. Other people believe that He is a mere man. And still others believe He never existed. Should I say that they have as much credence in their beliefs as do I? Are you insinuating that all beliefs are equally valid?
On the contrary, the one doing the presuming is you. You presume that all Catholics should be exactly like you because perhaps you believe that your understanding of other religions is better than others.
Let me prove that you are the one presuming things here. I, for example, was atheist for a quarter of my life. Do you think that I have forgotten that the things which were obvious to me then, are no longer so? There was a time when the obvious thing to me, was that religion was ridiculous and people of faith were idiots. Is that proof enough for you?
I’ll make a presumption of my own. I presume that hardly anyone believes that their personal beliefs are in plain sight for everyone. Especially when it comes to those who discuss religion with Protestants.
Wrong.
That is merely your opinion. In other words, I let the Protestant know that I see a text within a particular belief system. I let them compare their reasons with mine. I believe that mine are superior, they believe theirs. But I never pretend that mine are lesser than their or that theirs are better than mine. I always clearly expound that I believe the truth of the Catholic Church and no other.
In any and every apologetic discussion, I set out to define the difference between how Protestants view Scripture. And the way that Catholics view Scripture.
Whereas, as I see it, you want Catholics to view Scripture the way Protestants do so. But the Catholic Church gives us specific instructions on how to read Scripture. And it’s completely different than Protestant methodology.
Protestants discover their doctrines in Scripture everytime they read it.
Catholics are taught their Doctrines in Cathechism and read Scripture with those Doctrines in mind. Here is what the Catechism says:
112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”…
113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
False. The Catholic Church does not “interpret” Scripture. Especially the New Testament. The New Testament was written by Catholics. Jesus Christ did not write a word of Scripture. He established a Church. Commanded the Church to Teach what He commanded and then the Church preached and taught His Word to the world. By Word and by Epistle.
Therefore, the Catholic Church Teaches that the Woman’s name is Mary.
R
Renan
Guest
Those two theologial arguments I gave you are extremely important.
“Similarly they have given special attention to these words of the New Testament: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women,”(25) since they saw, in the mystery of the Assumption, the fulfillment of that most perfect grace granted to the Blessed Virgin and the special blessing that countered the curse of Eve” (Munificentissimus Deus, 27).
“We must remember especially that, since the second century, the Virgin Mary has been designated by the holy Fathers as the new Eve, who, although subject to the new Adam, is most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium,(44) would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death which are always mentioned together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles.(45) Consequently, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and the final sign of this victory, so that struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her divine Son should be brought to a close by the glorification of her virginal body, for the same Apostle says: “When this mortal thing hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory.”(46)” (Munificentissimus Deus, 39).
They were both used by pope Pius XII when he defined this dogma.
“Similarly they have given special attention to these words of the New Testament: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women,”(25) since they saw, in the mystery of the Assumption, the fulfillment of that most perfect grace granted to the Blessed Virgin and the special blessing that countered the curse of Eve” (Munificentissimus Deus, 27).
“We must remember especially that, since the second century, the Virgin Mary has been designated by the holy Fathers as the new Eve, who, although subject to the new Adam, is most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium,(44) would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death which are always mentioned together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles.(45) Consequently, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and the final sign of this victory, so that struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her divine Son should be brought to a close by the glorification of her virginal body, for the same Apostle says: “When this mortal thing hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory.”(46)” (Munificentissimus Deus, 39).
They were both used by pope Pius XII when he defined this dogma.
- Status