Assumption of Mary? Didn't we just make this up?

[Mike_D30]

I’ve recently come back to the Catholic Church mainly because it’s the Church of my youth, and there are so many things I love about it. BUT! I’ve really grappled with many doctrines that I seem to get a definite NO from God about. Among them:

Predestination
Marian Dogmas (including the asscension)
Purgatory
People calling Mary Co-Redemptrix of which I’ve been involved in a few topics.

I’ve read almost every book I could find, and apologetic articles on this stuff and I can’t get my arms around it. Then when I seem to get to a point where I’m like whateve,r I’ll look past it and just keep trucking I get hit with something else like a Cardianl endorsing a book called “Meditation on the Tarot”.

I came back to the Chruch with huge fire, but since after so much research and reading that flame is basically a bic lighter now.

But enough about my spirituality issues,and compalining. The topic. The asscension of Mary and being named Queen of Heaven. Didn’t we just make this stuff up? There’s nothing in the writings of the Early Church Fathers (which is how I handled the other Marian Dogmas’, theer’s no doubt that they lvoed Mary and showed her much reverence, and anyone who didn’t let them be anathema, that is HUGE for a guy with my type of mind), there’s zip until about 600 A.D. that even points to the idea of Mary being consumed bodily to Heaven. I feel in my heart that this was simply made up, I can’t find any other explanation to this.

 

[bigdawg]

Mike_D30:

I’ve recently come back to the Catholic Church mainly because it’s the Church of my youth, and there are so many things I love about it. BUT! I’ve really grappled with many doctrines that I seem to get a definite NO from God about. Among them:

Predestination
Marian Dogmas (including the asscension)
Purgatory
People calling Mary Co-Redemptrix of which I’ve been involved in a few topics.

I’ve read almost every book I could find, and apologetic articles on this stuff and I can’t get my arms around it. Then when I seem to get to a point where I’m like whateve,r I’ll look past it and just keep trucking I get hit with something else like a Cardianl endorsing a book called “Meditation on the Tarot”.

I came back to the Chruch with huge fire, but since after so much research and reading that flame is basically a bic lighter now.

But enough about my spirituality issues,and compalining. The topic. The asscension of Mary and being named Queen of Heaven. Didn’t we just make this stuff up? There’s nothing in the writings of the Early Church Fathers (which is how I handled the other Marian Dogmas’, theer’s no doubt that they lvoed Mary and showed her much reverence, and anyone who didn’t let them be anathema, that is HUGE for a guy with my type of mind), there’s zip until about 600 A.D. that even points to the idea of Mary being consumed bodily to Heaven. I feel in my heart that this was simply made up, I can’t find any other explanation to this.

Without much effort I found the following:
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105sbs.asp

You may want to read it and search a little harder through the ECF’s.

 

[Mike_D30]

bigdawg:

Without much effort I found the following:
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105sbs.asp

You may want to read it and search a little harder through the ECF’s.

I’ve read that, and that article is not very reaffirming. There’s no confirmation from the ECF’s about the asscension of Mary, I’ve read quite a bit on them because of my unease with Mrian Dogmas. This isn’t to take shots at me, or beliefs, but to answer a question.

How the miracle of the Earthly body of the mother of our Lord asscending into Heaven didn’t make it into the New Testament as a witness to Mary’s role is tough to reconcile since they were written more than likely way after the event occured. Not only that but it isn’t spoken of until some 600 years later as a literal event in Christian history.

 

[Nicene]

These are considered apocryphal, however they do give insight into what christians believed in regard to Mary, circa 400.

The dormition of Mary (greek)
Latin version
2nd Latin version

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[DeFide]

Mike_D30:

I’ve recently come back to the Catholic Church mainly because it’s the Church of my youth, and there are so many things I love about it. BUT! I’ve really grappled with many doctrines that I seem to get a definite NO from God about. Among them:

Predestination
Marian Dogmas (including the asscension)
Purgatory
People calling Mary Co-Redemptrix of which I’ve been involved in a few topics.

I’ve read almost every book I could find, and apologetic articles on this stuff and I can’t get my arms around it. Then when I seem to get to a point where I’m like whateve,r I’ll look past it and just keep trucking I get hit with something else like a Cardianl endorsing a book called “Meditation on the Tarot”.

I came back to the Chruch with huge fire, but since after so much research and reading that flame is basically a bic lighter now.

But enough about my spirituality issues,and compalining. The topic. The asscension of Mary and being named Queen of Heaven. Didn’t we just make this stuff up? There’s nothing in the writings of the Early Church Fathers (which is how I handled the other Marian Dogmas’, theer’s no doubt that they lvoed Mary and showed her much reverence, and anyone who didn’t let them be anathema, that is HUGE for a guy with my type of mind), there’s zip until about 600 A.D. that even points to the idea of Mary being consumed bodily to Heaven. I feel in my heart that this was simply made up, I can’t find any other explanation to this.

Mary was ASSUMED into heaven, she did not “ascend” by her own power. This alone tells me that you haven’t done much research.

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Remember, the Bible does not record everything. It even said that there were many sayings of Christ that weren’t recorded… and that was the main purpose of the writing! It’s reasonable to assume that not all miracles were recorded either. These folks weren’t sitting around writing down everything they saw. They were traveling and preaching Christ’s teaching and being persecuted viciously.

 

[Mike_D30]

DeFide:

Mary was ASSUMED into heaven, she did not “ascend” by her own power. This alone tells me that you haven’t done much research.

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Remember, the Bible does not record everything. It even said that there were many sayings of Christ that weren’t recorded… and that was the main purpose of the writing! It’s reasonable to assume that not all miracles were recorded either. These folks weren’t sitting around writing down everything they saw. They were traveling and preaching Christ’s teaching and being persecuted viciously.

Mixing up words on a message board should simply tell you I may not have a ton of time to post, and made a very common mistake with verbiage, not that I am a liar.

You kow forget it, this is supposed to be a board where Catholics can come to get questions answered what it turns into is always. You’re an idiot I’m a better Catholic, and you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I have no idea why I bother…

Forget it, maybe the moderator can close the topic before it degrades into a full on assault on me?

Would it help if I said I’ve read every apologetic article on this site about Mary? Listened to the CA radio archives on the subject, read “all nations shall call me blessed”, before I am redirected to the same articles I’ve already read, and dismissed?

 

[Mike_O]

Mike_D30:

Mixing up words on a message board should simply tell you I may not have a ton of time to post, and made a very common mistake with verbiage, not that I am a liar.

The difference between “Assumption” and “Ascension” is CRITICAL.

Forget it, maybe the moderator can close the topic before it degrades into a full on assault on me?

Or, better yet, you should not begin topics where you conduct assaults on the Blessed Mother under the guise of a benevolent truth seeking mission.

Statements such as your initial “I’ve really grappled with many doctrines that I seem to get a definite NO from God about” underscore the point; your own visceral discomfort with what you have not studied leads you to elevate your own said discomfort to a dictum from God.

If your belief in the Church is what you say it is, you will accept on faith first that which Christ’s Church teaches, THEN perform the necessary study and arrive at the rational derivations.

 

[Della]

Mike_D30:

How the miracle of the Earthly body of the mother of our Lord asscending into Heaven didn’t make it into the New Testament as a witness to Mary’s role is tough to reconcile since they were written more than likely way after the event occured. Not only that but it isn’t spoken of until some 600 years later as a literal event in Christian history.

Here are some Bible verses that have been interpreted as referring to the Assumption (not asscension (sic) ) of Mary:

Song of Songs 2:10-11: Arise, make haste, my love, my dove, my beautiful one, and come. For winter is now past, the rain is over and gone.

Mary is the beloved of God because he chose her to be the mother of his Son. Her glorified body was assumed into heaven, not merely her fleshly body. Her body is like that of her Risen Son’s.

Psalm 132:8: Arise, O Lord, in the place of thy dwelling, thou and the ark of thy majesty.

The Early Church Fathers spoke of Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant because she is the fulfillment of what the Ark of the Covenant was–the vessel of the word of God. Mary is the vessel of the Word of God, Jesus, and so is the Mother of God himself.

Rev. 11:19–Rev. 1:1: Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.
And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars…

The ark is the type of Mary here, and the “woman clothed with the sun…” has long been seen as referring to Mary.

Most of the NT had been written before Mary’s Assumption, which is why the authors of the NT, except for John, did not write about it.

 

[DeFide]

Mike_D30:

Mixing up words on a message board should simply tell you I may not have a ton of time to post, and made a very common mistake with verbiage, not that I am a liar.

You kow forget it, this is supposed to be a board where Catholics can come to get questions answered what it turns into is always. You’re an idiot I’m a better Catholic, and you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I have no idea why I bother…

Forget it, maybe the moderator can close the topic before it degrades into a full on assault on me?

Would it help if I said I’ve read every apologetic article on this site about Mary? Listened to the CA radio archives on the subject, read “all nations shall call me blessed”, before I am redirected to the same articles I’ve already read, and dismissed?

OK, I’ll assume I’m wrong, and that you’ve read everything, but just mixed up words, and missed a few dates.

Mea culpa.

 

[Mike_D30]

Mike O:

The difference between “Assumption” and “Ascension” is CRITICAL.
Or, better yet, you should not begin topics where you conduct assaults on the Blessed Mother under the guise of a benevolent truth seeking mission.

Statements such as your initial “I’ve really grappled with many doctrines that I seem to get a definite NO from God about” underscore the point; your own visceral discomfort with what you have not studied leads you to elevate your own said discomfort to a dictum from God.

If your belief in the Church is what you say it is, you will accept on faith first that which Christ’s Church teaches, THEN perform the necessary study and arrive at the rational derivations.

I mixed up assecion and assumption, I know the difference, and reconcile I made a mistake.

YAWN

Is there anyone who cares to actually offer advice, or continue to call into question my intentions adn drive me further from the Church?

Seriously if this is what you offer to someone having trouble with teaching it would be better you just not participate in the discussion.

I’m sorry we’re all not blessed as perfect beleivign Catholics like you Mike O, but really this is nonsense what you post.

 

[wisdom_3_5]

We also know from the Bible that Enoch and Elijah both were taken into heaven with no mention of their death. So there is biblical evidence that it can happen to those who walk with the Lord. look at Gen 5:24, Heb 11:5,2 kg 2:11, Mt 27:52

As far as Queen of Heaven goes, that’s biblical too. In the early days of kingdoms the mother of the king was the Queen of the kingdom, not the wife. remember Solomon? He had 700 wives and 300 concubines. . . which one would be Queen? If Jesus is the King of Heaven then it logically follows that Mary, his mother, is the Queen. See 1 kgs 2:12-23 Note especially vs 19:

Then Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, and the king stood up to meet her and paid her homage. Then he sat down upon his throne, and **a throne was provided for the king’s mother, who sat at his right.

**This site will give some biblical references to Mary. I think it covers most of you questions biblically.
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Hi MIke!

I’ve personally never struggled with this particular doctrine, but I’ve read things by converts who have. More than once I’ve read a comment something like this:

I’ve come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ gave us. The holy Spirit himself does not allow her to teach error. If that is true, then the holy Spirit has not allowed her to teach error on this topic either. The problem lies not with the Church but with me. While I don’t understand it I’ll take it on faith that it’s true.

Not sure if that will help you, but you’re not alone in your struggle on this. Maybe find some conversion stories of people who struggled with Marian doctrine. I know Kimberly Hahn really struggled with it.

God bless you as you search for the truth.

In Christ,
Nancy

Mike_D30:

I mixed up assecion and assumption, I know the difference, and reconcile I made a mistake.

YAWN

Is there anyone who cares to actually offer advice, or continue to call into question my intentions adn drive me further from the Church?

Seriously if this is what you offer to someone having trouble with teaching it would be better you just not participate in the discussion.

I’m sorry we’re all not blessed as perfect beleivign Catholics like you Mike O, but really this is nonsense what you post.

 

[bigdawg]

Mike_D30:

I mixed up assecion and assumption, I know the difference, and reconcile I made a mistake.

YAWN

Is there anyone who cares to actually offer advice, or continue to call into question my intentions adn drive me further from the Church?

Seriously if this is what you offer to someone having trouble with teaching it would be better you just not participate in the discussion.

I’m sorry we’re all not blessed as perfect beleivign Catholics like you Mike O, but really this is nonsense what you post.

I guess I would point out that 2Thess2:15 is pretty clear that tradition is equal to scripture. Additionally, the Church claims to be infallible in matters of faith and morals.

So, I guess the deeper issue for you is the authority of the Church and whether or not you can accept the Church’s authority. Until you get this issue resolved you will continue to have issues with many things Catholic.

If you are looking for explicit proof from the scriptures that Mary was assumed into Heaven you are not going to find it but neither will you find anything that prevents one from believing in this doctrine.

My recomendation would be to learn more about the Church and the authority she claims and then come back to this issue.

Good luck,

BD

 

[Della]

Is there anyone who cares to actually offer advice, or continue to call into question my intentions adn drive me further from the Church?

Mike D

Well, I would, if I can.

I think the problem you are having with the Marian doctrines and dogmas is you don’t know why they are taught. Am I right?

All the teachings about Mary are related directly to those taught about Jesus. She doesn’t not stand alone in Catholic thought and practice.

Mary’s Assumption tells us certain things about Jesus:

1. firstly, it reinforces the fact that his Mother was a pure virgin, filled with grace, before, during and after she gave birth to him. This affirms that he was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin.
2. that Jesus truly rose from the dead and will raise up all who believe in him, who have been made perfect in his love. Mary is the first of us to be raised to the new, resurrected life, having the same type of body as her Son now has–a risen, glorified one.
3. that we can trust Jesus to keep his promises to us that we will be raised to glory with him because we have Mary as the perfect example of it.

All these concepts are biblical and quite sound. Take it from someone with a B. A. in Bible and religious education. The Church knows what it is doing and why when it teaches what it does about Mary or any other issue.

I hope that helps you.

 

[Subrosa]

Hi Mike -

I’m sorry that you are finding some posters too harsh. However, there is one issue you mentioned in your original post that I can help with…The understanding that Mary is Queen of Heaven. That comes right from the bible. Here are the passages:

**
Revelation
Chapter 12
****1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.
3. Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems.
4 Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth.
5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne.
6 The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.

Also from the same chapter…

17 Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus. **These passages from Revelation speak of a pregnant woman wearing a crown with twelve stars, vss.1-2. It also says that she gave birth to a male child destined to rule the world and who was caught up to God’s throne, vs.5.

Verse 17 calls the rest of her offspring “those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus”

There is a lot of symbolism here. The child destined to rule and caught up to God’s throne is most obviously Jesus. The woman wearing the crown can be read three different ways. Since she is wearing a crown with 12 stars she could be Israel with the 12 stars being the 12 tribes of Israel. She could be the Church, with the 12 stars being the 12 apostles. And lastly and most literally, she is Mary who gave birth to Jesus. It is this last interpretation that describes her as Queen of Heaven, after all, she is wearing a crown! Verse 17 has relationships with all three interpretations, also. But no matter how you understand verse 12 from each perspective, it is describing us Christians. Notice that vs, 17 says that we are her “offspring”.

Keep in mind that without Mary, Christ would not be born. Mary was chosen specifically by the Father. It is her DNA that mixed with the Holy Spirit which created Jesus in her womb. We are her “offspring” and therefore are indebted to her as though she were our own mother. She is, after all, the mother of Christianity as much as she is the mother of Christ.

Howzat?

Blessings,
Subrosa

 

[Thal59]

This is not in refference to Mike_D30, but to the point of view regarding Mary’s assumption being made up, i.e. doesn’t sound right.

This usually comes from the Protestants.

The point I am trying to get to, is that many Protestants believe in the rapture. In other words, it makes perfect sense to them that the Lord may raise them up into the air to join Jesus in the clouds and/or heaven… but heaven forbid it could have happened to Mary!

Thal59

 

[SemperJase]

Mike_D30:

I mixed up assecion and assumption, I know the difference, and reconcile I made a mistake.

YAWN

Is there anyone who cares to actually offer advice, or continue to call into question my intentions adn drive me further from the Church?

You call another person an idiot, and post condescending remarks after an apology is offered. Sounds like you expect more from other people than you do yourself.

You have been offered answers but blame people from driving you away from the church.

At this point, I’m not really sure what answer you are looking for. Please understand people attacking the church frequently misrepresent catholic beliefs by using the same words you have in your posts. In that light, maybe you can understand the skepticism of someone else.

 

[Nicene]

Thal59:

This is not in refference to Mike_D30, but to the point of view regarding Mary’s assumption being made up, i.e. doesn’t sound right.

This usually comes from the Protestants.

The point I am trying to get to, is that many Protestants believe in the rapture. In other words, it makes perfect sense to them that the Lord may raise them up into the air to join Jesus in the clouds and/or heaven… but heaven forbid it could have happened to Mary!

Thal59

I always bring this up to them. It’s kind of a stumper

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Mike_D30]

SemperJase:

You call another person an idiot, and post condescending remarks after an apology is offered. Sounds like you expect more from other people than you do yourself.

You have been offered answers but blame people from driving you away from the church.

At this point, I’m not really sure what answer you are looking for. Please understand people attacking the church frequently misrepresent catholic beliefs by using the same words you have in your posts. In that light, maybe you can understand the skepticism of someone else.

What are you talking about, no one apologized and I never called anyone an ‘idiot’?

For those that attempted to address my concerns I really appreciate it. Especially Nicene who sent a great PM, and Superrosa and a few others.

For those calling into questions my intentions and attacking me, I would look in the mirror and possibly realize that you aren’t the perfect Catholic after all. Your time would be better spent being charitable and helpful to those struggling with doctrine instead of assailing them.

I requested the thread to be closed due to those who can’t participcate like adults, and continue to act like SemperJase and a few others.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Mike_D30:

For those calling into questions my intentions and attacking me, I would look in the mirror and possibly realize that you aren’t the perfect Catholic after all. Your time would be better spent being charitable and helpful to those struggling with doctrine instead of assailing them.

I have not read this thread so I have no idea who he is talking about, but I have to say honestly that this is the number one problem that goes on around here all the time. It doesn’t matter if a person is being a complete jerk and clearly ignoring facts and does this 70 times 7 times, we still must be completely and utterly charitable. So often I will see folks who simply attack people after even only one post. As a spiritual work of mercy, I am warning everyone to consider themselves and the way they present themselves in life and on these forums. You will be held accountable for it some day, especially if so many as one soul remains outside of the Church because of you.