Assumption of Mary

[kepha1]

An event takes place first, then it is passed on and later written down. The Church came before the Bible. The big hang up I see here is that it must be written down before it is accepted as an event. Sorry, but that is ridiculous. The notion that the Church came after the Bible is just as ridiculous.

The bible is true because the Church says it is.
The Assumption of Mary is true because the Church says it is.

The Assumption of Mary cannot be understood with a false premise of the Bible, nor can the theology be accepted with a redefinition of the Church as part of the false premise. The final argument boils down to authority, and we are faced with another false premise: a redefinition of infallibility.

I don’t think the Apostles fully understood all the implications when they come upon Mary’s empty grave. They did not have all of Mariology at their fingertips. But one thing I am sure of, they did not hide Mary’s body and make up some story to fit a theology that would take centuries to unfold. The Apostles are not liars. And what was handed down carries the same divine protection as what was written. Pitting Tradition against Scripture is wrong. They have different modes of transmission but are inseparable. Another note: Protestants refuse to understand that the Jews held Tradition to be just as sacred as the written word, and have redefined Judaism as well.

Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith (TRADITION) included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, belief in baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, and others. The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

To see the Son without the Virgin Mother, the Seed without the Woman, the King without the Queen-Mother, the New Adam without the New Eve is to do violence both to Scripture and to all of Christian history. For the Christian who enters the mind of the New Testament Church, the idea of “Jesus alone” without Mary is as unthinkable as the idea of the New Testament alone without the Old or the divinity of Jesus without the Humanity. mariology.com/content/view/12/28/

 

[Cachonga]

crazzeto:

Yeah, I realize and it was only posted because I saw the question embedded in a post (literally right there). It’s an important question, which does merit answer.

Not sure what you’re looking for. I have no problem believing Peter and Paul were executed in (or just outside of) Rome. I have doubts that Peter was crucified upside down (this could easily have been an embelishment that cropped up over the years, much like the exaggerated exploits of Davey Crockette). To add to this would be to go beyond the subject of this thread, so I’ll stop here.
The Way:

Whom do you say the child is that fits the description of the following verse?

“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.” – Revelations 12:5

Regarding Rev 12:1, Victorinus writes, “1. “And there was seen a great sign in heaven. A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried out travailing, and bearing torments that she might bring forth.”] The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient Church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles,(2) which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people. Moreover, being clothed with the sun intimates the hope of resurrection and the glory of the promise. And the moon intimates the fall of the bodies of the saints under the obligation of death, which never can fail. For even as life is diminished, so also it is increased. Nor is the hope of those that sleep extinguished absolutely, as some think, but they have in their darkness a light such as the moon. And the crown of twelve stars signifies the choir of fathers, according to the fleshly birth, of whom Christ was to take flesh.” (see here). Yes, the child born is the Messiah, Jesus Christ, and yes, Mary is His mother (I notice the woman in Rev 12 had pains in giving birth). However, I am sure that Mary had already left this life by the time John wrote this. Why didn’t he tell us plainly that it was Mary? Why didn’t the early Church teach that it was Mary? And if you say they did, then why doesn’t Victorinus mention this in his commentary (and why do we have no documentation prior to the late 3rd-early 4th century)? (I’ll stand back and watch for the double-standard that is sure to come).

The earliest references to the Assumption of the Virgin Mary appear in the 4th (or possibly late 3rd) century in Liber Requiei Mariae (The Book of Mary’s Repose), and in the writings of Bishop Meliton.

In other words, there are no reports from any eye-witnesses. This is all based on hearsay and “what seems good and appropriate” to men. Please explain how the assumption is an oral tradition going back to the Apostles.

kepha1:

Pseudo – Melito

Again, the earliest record is the year 300 (4th century). There are no direct reports from credible eye-witnesses, so how can I know that this is a true Apostolic tradition and not some man-made embelishment that crept in over time (and please don’t say “because the Church says so!”)?

An event takes place first, then it is passed on and later written down. The Church came before the Bible. The big hang up I see here is that it must be written down before it is accepted as an event. Sorry, but that is ridiculous. The notion that the Church came after the Bible is just as ridiculous.

It is obvious that you are a hard-core Roman Catholic, and that your mind is made up regardless of the facts. Rather than show you the problems with your comments, I will just ask - who witnessed the assumption? Didn’t they know how to write? Why do we not have a single eye-witness account of this event that your church says you MUST believe to be in right-standing with them?

 

[crazzeto]

this is the question asked and being answered

want to be sure I understood what you just said - are you saying that the Church requires you to believe that Peter and Paul were martyred in (or just outside of) Rome? If so, please give the reference (CCC, dogmatic decree, papal encyclical, whatever), as well as when this was declared a matter of faith.

I never made any assumptions beyond what is written here.

 

[Cachonga]

crazzeto:

this is the question asked and being answered

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The point was that the belief in where (and how) Peter and Paul ended their life was not something that is required to believe in order to be in right standing with the Church, so why is it a dogma of the Church to believe in the assumption (which has far less solid, historical evidence than the martyrdom of Peter and Paul). In other words, it’s ok to for me to doubt that Peter was crucified upside down, and even to doubt that he was actually martyred in Rome, and I can still be considered in right standing with the Church (though, perhaps, viewed with sympathy by some for my simplicity). However, to doubt that Mary was bodily assumed is to deny a dogma of the Church (though prior to the middle of the 19th century, I would have been OK). Why is the assumption a dogma? What evidence is it based on? Why should anyone believe it?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I acknowledge that I have my “traditions”, but I try to keep them subserviant to the Scriptures. I am guessing that the extra-biblical tradition you are referring to is the Scriptures themselves (if not, please let me know what you are referring to).

That would be one.

I suspect that you also believe that there will be no more Apostles.

I also suspect that you believe that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

Interestingly, is there a scripture which specifically forbids polygamy for Christians?

 

[crazzeto]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The point was that the belief in where (and how) Peter and Paul ended their life was not something that is required to believe in order to be in right standing with the Church, so why is it a dogma of the Church to believe in the assumption (which has far less solid, historical evidence than the martyrdom of Peter and Paul). In other words, it’s ok to for me to doubt that Peter was crucified upside down, and even to doubt that he was actually martyred in Rome, and I can still be considered in right standing with the Church (though, perhaps, viewed with sympathy by some for my simplicity). However, to doubt that Mary was bodily assumed is to deny a dogma of the Church (though prior to the middle of the 19th century, I would have been OK). Why is the assumption a dogma? What evidence is it based on? Why should anyone believe it?

Perhaps because it’s not so much a statement of faith to believe everything you state about Peter. I just intrisicly proved everything short of crusified upside down. It’s a little harder to do with Mary and the assumption. At least that is my take.

 

[kepha1]

Cachonga

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
(…message truncated…)
However, to doubt that Mary was bodily assumed is to deny a dogma of the Church (though prior to the middle of the 19th century, I would have been OK). Why is the assumption a dogma? What evidence is it based on? Why should anyone believe it?

When you start believing the unanimous teaching of the Fathers on baptismal regeneration then I’ll start thinking your historical arguments against the Assumption mean something.

(though prior to the middle of the 19th century, I would have been OK). This statement is misleading. The Doctrine of the Assumption was not invented in the 19th century. This is a common anti-Catholic canard.

Melito of Sardis, as quoted in my next post, also testifies to the Blessed Mothers assumption into heaven. The manuscript dates from the 400s. The teaching is as old as the Church herself. That’s proof you demand but refuse to accept, just as you refuse to accept the unanimous teachings of the fathers on baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. More was written on these doctrines than anything else and you refuse to accept them too. The real issue is Tradition as it is understood by the Church, not by Protestants who alter the true definition to fit their agenda. The real issue is authority, not as defined by a Gnostic denial of the divine and the human, because its easy to deny an authority as perceived to be purely human, which is your error. The demand for historical proof is a smoke screen.

I also would like to add that the manuscripts date from the 5th century, but the writer himself died around 180AD. **The writings have been attributed to him. So, if this can be historically documented, which it has in several historical accounts, then that would make the teaching reach back into the 2nd century. **

A couple things to notice: this encyclical as well refers to a development of doctrine. The infallible Holy Spirit of Truth directs the Church “toward an ever more perfect knowledge of the revealed truths…[and the Assumption] has been expounded and explained magnificently” in the work, science and wisdom of Catholic theologians. Elsewhere this is stated also:

“Various testimonies, indications and signs of this common belief of the Church are evident from remote times down through the course of the centuries, and this same belief becomes more clearly manifest from day to day.”; and “[the holy Fathers] presented it more clearly. They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ…” (Pius XII).

 

[kepha1]

*Melito of Sardis: *
*15. And the apostles, carrying Mary, came to the place of the Valley of Jehoshaphat which the Lord had showed them; and they laid her in a new tomb, and closed the sepulchre. And they themselves sat down at the door of the tomb, as the Lord had commanded them; and, behold, suddenly the Lord Jesus Christ came with a great multitude of angels, with a halo of great brightness gleaming, and said to the apostles: Peace be with you! And they answered and said: Let Thy mercy, O Lord, be upon us, as we have hoped in Thee. Then the Saviour spoke to them, saying: Before I ascended to my Father I promised to you, saying that you who have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit upon the throne of His majesty, will sit, you also, upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Her, therefore, did I choose out of the tribes of Israel by the command of my Father, that I should dwell in her. What, therefore, do you wish that I should do to her? Then Peter and the other apostles said: Lord, Thou didst choose beforehand this Thine handmaid to become a spotless chamber for Thyself, and us Thy servants to minister unto Thee. Before the ages Thou didst foreknow all things along with the Father, with whom to Thee and the Holy Spirit there is one Godhead, equal and infinite power. If, therefore, it were possible to be done in the presence of the power of Thy grace, it had seemed to us Thy servants to be right that, just as Thou, having vanquished death, reignest in glory, so, raising up again the body of Thy mother, Thou shouldst take her with Thee in joy into heaven. *
*16. Then the Saviour said: Let it be according to your opinion. And He ordered the archangel Michael to bring the soul of St. Mary. And, behold, the archangel Michael rolled back the stone from the door of the tomb; and the Lord said: Arise, my beloved and my nearest relation; thou who hast not put an corruption by intercourse with man, suffer not destruction of the body in the sepulchre. And immediately Mary rose from the tomb, and blessed the Lord, and falling forward at the feet of the Lord, adored Him, saying: I cannot render sufficient thanks to Thee, O Lord, for Thy boundless benefits which Thou hast deigned to bestow upon me Thine handmaiden. May Thy name, O Redeemer of the world, God of Israel, be blessed for ever.
17. And kissing her, the Lord went back, and delivered her soul to the angels, that they should carry it into paradise. And He said to the apostles: Come up to me. And when they had come up He kissed them, and said: Peace be to you! as I have always been with you, so will I be even to the end of the world. And immediately, when the Lord had said this, He was lifted up on a cloud, and taken back into heaven, and the angels along with Him, carrying the blessed Mary into the paradise of God. And the apostles being taken up in the clouds, returned each into the place allotted for his preaching, telling the great things of God, and praising our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with the Father and the Holy Spirit, in perfect unity, and in one substance of Godhead, for ever and ever. Amen.
*

 

[jokerman]

this isnt any kind of proof but i like what my priest had to say about it one time.

we all know that Jesus assumed the flesh of Mary at the beginning of His earthly life; why would He not Assume her flesh again at the end of her earthly life?

 

[Cachonga]

Randy Carson:

That would be one.

I suspect that you also believe that there will be no more Apostles.

I also suspect that you believe that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

Interestingly, is there a scripture which specifically forbids polygamy for Christians?

Eph 4:11 makes it clear that God gives Apostles, so I do not doubt there could be apostles beyond the original apostles. I do believe new revelation ended with the death of the last original apostle (that would be John). As far as polygamy goes, I could make a Scriptural arguement against it, however, I’m having a difficult enough time with one wife, why would I want another?

kepha1:

When you start believing the unanimous teaching of the Fathers on baptismal regeneration then I’ll start thinking your historical arguments against the Assumption mean something.

The term “unanimous teaching” sounds like every ECF made it clear they believed in something (such as baptismal regeneration). Yet, when I look up some of the ECF’s, I find many who never made any comment on the concept. Therefore, I suggest the use of the term “unanimous teaching” should be discarded.

This statement is misleading. The Doctrine of the Assumption was not invented in the 19th century. This is a common anti-Catholic canard.

Perhaps you just misunderstood what I was saying. My point with this is that the assumption was not made a dogma until the middle of the 19th century. Prior to this, it would have been OK to doubt the assumption (just as it is OK for me to doubt Peter was crucified upside down). However, since it was made a dogma (in the middle of the 19th century), it is now required to believe in order to be in right standing with the Church (it originally had an anathema on it, but, apparently anathemas have been removed from the Code of Canon Law, though I have yet to see specifically where this is found).

Melito of Sardis, as quoted in my next post, also testifies to the Blessed Mothers assumption into heaven. The manuscript dates from the 400s. The teaching is as old as the Church herself. That’s proof you demand but refuse to accept, just as you refuse to accept the unanimous teachings of the fathers on baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. More was written on these doctrines than anything else and you refuse to accept them too. The real issue is Tradition as it is understood by the Church, not by Protestants who alter the true definition to fit their agenda. The real issue is authority, not as defined by a Gnostic denial of the divine and the human, because its easy to deny an authority as perceived to be purely human, which is your error. The demand for historical proof is a smoke screen.

Melito was not an eye witness to this event. I find this assumption story as believable as the story of Davey Crockette killing a bear when he was 3 years old. I find this account in “The Passing of St. Mary”, specifically in the “Second Latin Form” (see here). I didn’t find any name attached to this document (how do you know it was from Melito of Sardis?), but I find it interesting that, according to section 2, Mary apparently left this world just a couple years after Jesus was raised and ascended into heaven. It would certainly seem very strange that something like this would not have some mention somewhere in Scripture, unless it either didn’t happen or is not important enough for God to mention it in His book. Bottom line - I find no compelling reason to believe the dogma with the evidence presented. (Just curious, where does Melito mention baptismal regeneration?)

jokerman:

we all know that Jesus assumed the flesh of Mary at the beginning of His earthly life; why would He not Assume her flesh again at the end of her earthly life?

Human logic sounds good, but if this what the dogma of the assuption is based on, why should anyone believe it?

 

[jokerman]

Human logic sounds good, but if this what the dogma of the assuption is based on, why should anyone believe it?

thats why i was careful to add that i wasnt posing this as any kind of proof but something interesting to think about.

 

[The_Way]

Please give evidence that this is an apostolic tradition! In the earliest commentary I could find on Revelation (by Victorinus, late 3rd, early 4th century), there is no mention of Mary ANYWHERE in chapters 11 or 12. In fact, the only mention of Mary in the entire commentary is in Chapter 4, where the 4 living creatures are compared to the 4 gospels, and he mentions that Matthew showed the genealogy of Jesus through Mary’s line. Do you know of an earlier commentary that says otherwise? Do you have any evidence that anyone challenged and corrected Victorinus on his commentary?
[continued…]

Hi Cachonga,

Since you’re neither Catholic nor Orthodox, you cannot choose when to follow “Sola Scriptura” and/or apostolic tradition at your convenience when it suits you. It will raise a couple of problems such as:

1. You’ll be contradicting yourself.
2. You’re not an inspired preacher to decide which apostolic tradition to follow and which not to follow.

God bless,

 

[Cachonga]

The Way:

Since you’re neither Catholic nor Orthodox, you cannot choose when to follow “Sola Scriptura” and/or apostolic tradition at your convenience when it suits you. It will raise a couple of problems such as:

1. You’ll be contradicting yourself.
2. You’re not an inspired preacher to decide which apostolic tradition to follow and which not to follow.

I was a Roman Catholic for almost 34 years of my life, and have received 6 of the 7 sacraments of the church. I do my best to follow Sola Scriptura, and have made adjustments at times as I learn more. In the question of Mary’s assumption, I find no Scriptural basis for it, and I find the Catholic claims of “tradition” to be highly questionable. I try not to use the ECF’s because I do not believe they were inspired or infallible (for example, Irenaeus claimed that Jesus was 50 years old when He was crucified, and that this had been taught by John and the other Apostles). However, when a claim is made like “The woman of Rev 12:1 is Mary!” and I find a 3rd/4th century commentary that doesn’t mention her, how can I (or anyone) take the claim seriously? When someone brings up writings from someone who lived long after these events allegedly took place and claims them to be authoritative for the doctrine (such as with Melito of Sardis), am I just supposed to accept it? Sorry, I can’t do that.

 

[The_Way]

I was a Roman Catholic for almost 34 years of my life, and have received 6 of the 7 sacraments of the church. I do my best to follow Sola Scriptura, and have made adjustments at times as I learn more. In the question of Mary’s assumption, I find no Scriptural basis for it, and I find the Catholic claims of “tradition” to be highly questionable. I try not to use the ECF’s because I do not believe they were inspired or infallible (for example, Irenaeus claimed that Jesus was 50 years old when He was crucified, and that this had been taught by John and the other Apostles). However, when a claim is made like “The woman of Rev 12:1 is Mary!” and I find a 3rd/4th century commentary that doesn’t mention her, how can I (or anyone) take the claim seriously? When someone brings up writings from someone who lived long after these events allegedly took place and claims them to be authoritative for the doctrine (such as with Melito of Sardis), am I just supposed to accept it? Sorry, I can’t do that.

So I should disregard the doctrine of the assumption of our Lady because you don’t think it’s valid. Why should I do that? Can you prove that you are an inspired preacher so that I should follow your teaching?

God bless,

 

[Randy_Carson]

Eph 4:11 makes it clear that God gives Apostles, so I do not doubt there could be apostles beyond the original apostles. I do believe new revelation ended with the death of the last original apostle (that would be John).

Cachonga-

Does scripture ever say that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle?

 

[Cachonga]

The Way:

So I should disregard the doctrine of the assumption of our Lady because you don’t think it’s valid. Why should I do that? Can you prove that you are an inspired preacher so that I should follow your teaching?

Absolutely not! Since Scripture doesn’t say one way or the other, then you should be free to believe it, and I should be free to disbelieve it. Unfortunately, because it has been declared a dogma of the Church, I cannot disbelieve it and remain in right standing with the Church.
Randy Carson:

Does scripture ever say that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle?

Good question. No, there is nothing in Scripture that says that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. However, since there has been no new revelation since the death of John (unless you happen to be a Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, or something similar), it seems apparent that the canon is closed. Or do you believe the “Sacred Traditions” are ongoing revelation?

 

[Reuben_J]

I thought one of the references the Church has used for the doctrine of assumption is “A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” – Revelation 12:1

God bless,

This may be beside the topic - I thought that the Church has not made any explicit official interpretation of Rev 12:1. Pope JP II did mention this as his reference. I know we love this and I have no problem accepting that the woman was Mary but like the Church we have to be careful about alluding Revelation to specific interpretation and the Church has rightly does not do that. Would you mind to give some reference though?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Good question. No, there is nothing in Scripture that says that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. However, since there has been no new revelation since the death of John (unless you happen to be a Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, or something similar), it seems apparent that the canon is closed.

As a true believer, am I required to believe that revelation has ended?

Or am I free to believe whatever I want in this regard?

 

[Cachonga]

Reuben J:

This may be beside the topic - I thought that the Church has not made any explicit official interpretation of Rev 12:1. Pope JP II did mention this as his reference. I know we love this and I have no problem accepting that the woman was Mary but like the Church we have to be careful about alluding Revelation to specific interpretation and the Church has rightly does not do that. Would you mind to give some reference though?

I don’t believe Rev 12:1 has been “officially” declared to represent Mary, but it is argued by many RC Apologists, and I have heard it claimd that this has been a “constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years”. I don’t know what (if any) scripture was used to confirm the dogma when it was made in the middle of the 19th century.
Randy Carson:

As a true believer, am I required to believe that revelation has ended?

Or am I free to believe whatever I want in this regard?

This is a trick question, right? Perhaps I should back up a bit and explain that I have no problem with traditions, so long as they do not conflict with Scripture (which we know by its own testimony is “God-breathed”). While belief in the assumption does not conflict with Scripture, making it a dogma with no Scriptural proof makes it a “tradition of men”, and is not binding on my conscience.

Now, to answer your question, you are certainly free to believe what you want in this regard. However, if you accept something as revelation from God apart from Scripture, you should be able to confirm that it is from God by Scripture (for example, claims that the Book of Mormon are additional scriptures does not hold up when this book is examined and compared with recognized scriptures).

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is a trick question, right? Perhaps I should back up a bit and explain that I have no problem with traditions, so long as they do not conflict with Scripture (which we know by its own testimony is “God-breathed”). While belief in the assumption does not conflict with Scripture, making it a dogma with no Scriptural proof makes it a “tradition of men”, and is not binding on my conscience.

Now, to answer your question, you are certainly free to believe what you want in this regard. However, if you accept something as revelation from God apart from Scripture, you should be able to confirm that it is from God by Scripture (for example, claims that the Book of Mormon are additional scriptures does not hold up when this book is examined and compared with recognized scriptures).

Not so much a trick as a clarifying question.

The point is that if believers are required to believe sola scriptura AND and extra-biblical doctrine such as this, then they are REALLY believing the Bible Alone, are they? Thus, sola scriptura is disproved.

This, however, is not your position, so we can conclude here, I think.