Assumption of Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter mlz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mlz

Guest
I am looking at the Catholic Church and been reading, asking questions about many of the teachings etc. and have come to one I don’t understand. It is the Assumption of Mary. The other areas of teaching I seem to understand but when I look up the verses regarding this they are quite vague nor is there much in the early church writings as well. Could someone help me understand why this is believed? Also, is it necessary to believe this in order to become Catholic?
Thank you for your response and God bless you,
mlz
 
Personally I can accept the Assumption on tradition. I can see where it might be a problem belief for some, for me this is just where my faith picks up.
 
My main beef with this is the earliest patristic references specifically state that the Bishop of the city it was alledged to have occured in said their was no tradition and they did not know if she died, was assumed, or martyred. Look it up on Wikipedia and follow the links to the source.
 
I’d just like to add that since Mary was “full of grace”, she was without stain of sin, and the book of Acts mentions that those who lack that sort of stain will “never see corruption”. Hence, she had no need for a new physical body after her death.
 
No country or region in the world ever claimed to have the tomb of Mary. One would think that if Mary were interred somewhere that place would be the first to announce the findings. To date there is no such place. This is just one thought on the assumption while there are theological reasons why Mary was assumed into heaven.

Yes, Catholics are always bound to believe infallible dogmatic teachings.
 
Firstly there are precedents - Enoch and Elijah were both bodily assumed into heaven.

Secondly - Jesus, being fully human, is subject to all the commandments, including the commandment to honour His mother. And being fully God obeyed all of them perfectly. That being the case, it is hardly honouring her if He leaves her to rot when He has assumed these others.

Thirdly - what happened to Mary is exactly what we hope will eventually happen to all of us, that we end up in heaven body and soul.

So where’s the problem?
 
mlz said:
I am looking at the Catholic Church and been reading, asking questions about many of the teachings etc. and have come to one I don’t understand. It is the Assumption of Mary. **The other areas of teaching I seem to understand but when I look up the verses regarding this they are quite vague nor is there much in the early church writings as well. ** Could someone help me understand why this is believed? Also, is it necessary to believe this in order to become Catholic?
Thank you for your response and God bless you,
mlz
Click to expand...
I assume you refer to the Bible. The Assumption of Mary is not to be found in the Bible perhaps because she outlived the Gospel synopsis; while the epistles concerned more on instructions about Jesus and Christian life. The likely source would therefore be the traditions.

The Assumption is included in one of the mysteries of the Rosary and Catholics are required to believe in it.

God bless you.
 
Reuben_J said:
I assume you refer to the Bible. The Assumption of Mary is not to be found in the Bible perhaps because she outlived the Gospel synopsis; while the epistles concerned more on instructions about Jesus and Christian life. The likely source would therefore be the traditions.

The Assumption is included in one of the mysteries of the Rosary and Catholics are required to believe in it.

God bless you.
Click to expand...
That’s a little misleading - something is not de fide because it is a mystery of the Rosary (in fact the Coronation of Mary is not de fide).

Paul’s description of the “mystery” in I Cor. 15 and what has come to be called the Rapture (1 Thes. 4) may well be based on accounts of Mary’s Assumption/Dormition (note that the Catechism carefully says “at the end of her life” so as to avoid the controversy over whether or not she died before being taken up).
 
The assumption is niether confirmed nor denied by Scripture. It has been argued that, since God took Enoch and Elijah alive into heaven, then why wouldn’t he do that for Mary? The thing is, we know He took Enoch and Elijah, because Scripture makes it crystal clear. To argue that Mary is “more worthy” than them is to miss the point of why they were taken up alive. I can find nothing in Scripture to indicate that they were “worthy” of being taken alive into heaven.

To argue that Jesus would want to honor his mother in this way doesn’t really work. Take, for example, Matt 12:46-50; Jesus was teaching in a house, and some said “Your mother and brothers are here to see you.” Did Jesus rush out, bow down to her, and see what she wanted? Did He command the people to open a way for her to come in and see Him? No! Instead He pointed out that all who do the will of the Father are his mother, brother and sister.

I have heard it said that the woman of Rev 12:1 is Mary (and that this has always been the teaching of the Church). However, the earliest commentary I can find on Revelation (late 3rd, early 4th century) doesn’t mention Mary anywhere in relation to the woman, or the Ark in Rev 11.

Bottom line - the assumption is a tradition of men that, while it does not necessarily violate Scripture (that is, there is nothing in Scripture to affirm or deny this idea), should NOT be a dogma of the Church of Jesus Christ.
 
teachccd said:
No country or region in the world ever claimed to have the tomb of Mary. One would think that if Mary were interred somewhere that place would be the first to announce the findings. To date there is no such place. This is just one thought on the assumption while there are theological reasons why Mary was assumed into heaven.

Yes, Catholics are always bound to believe infallible dogmatic teachings.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. There are two tombs of Mary - one in Ephesus where Mary lived for many years with the Apostle John (where she presumably expected to die) and another in Jerusalem where she was actually buried before her assumption.

It would be more accurate to say that no one claims to have any relics from the Blessed Virgin Mary.
 
Cachonga said:
The assumption is niether confirmed nor denied by Scripture. It has been argued that, since God took Enoch and Elijah alive into heaven, then why wouldn’t he do that for Mary? The thing is, we know He took Enoch and Elijah, because Scripture makes it crystal clear. To argue that Mary is “more worthy” than them is to miss the point of why they were taken up alive. I can find nothing in Scripture to indicate that they were “worthy” of being taken alive into heaven.

To argue that Jesus would want to honor his mother in this way doesn’t really work. Take, for example, Matt 12:46-50; Jesus was teaching in a house, and some said “Your mother and brothers are here to see you.” Did Jesus rush out, bow down to her, and see what she wanted? Did He command the people to open a way for her to come in and see Him? No! Instead He pointed out that all who do the will of the Father are his mother, brother and sister.

I have heard it said that the woman of Rev 12:1 is Mary (and that this has always been the teaching of the Church). However, the earliest commentary I can find on Revelation (late 3rd, early 4th century) doesn’t mention Mary anywhere in relation to the woman, or the Ark in Rev 11.

Bottom line - the assumption is a tradition of men that, while it does not necessarily violate Scripture (that is, there is nothing in Scripture to affirm or deny this idea), should NOT be a dogma of the Church of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
The Bereans and the Virgin Mary

When Paul preached the gospel to the Bereans, scripture records that “the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). It can be argued that the Bereans did not practice sola scriptura as did the Thessalonians who actually rejected the gospel, but for the purposes of this discussion, the point will be conceded.

The Bereans searched the scriptures, but they would have searched forever without finding the name of Jesus of Nazareth connected in any way with the messiah whose advent was foretold in the Old Testament prophecies. In order to help the Bereans understand his gospel message, Paul referenced and interpreted the Old Testament passages which supported his teaching and made the necessary connection between the prophecies and the actual events in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul’s authoritative interpretation of the scriptures was required in order for the Bereans to correctly understand that Jesus was the messiah foretold in the Old Testament.

In light of this, is it really so different when the Catholic Church authoritatively teaches that Mary was assumed into heaven or that she is the Queen of Heaven? Like the Bereans, we can search in vain for explicit references to these things, and yet the Church, by virtue of its Apostolic Authority, has infallibly defined the doctrine of the Assumption by interpreting scripture. The verse, of course, is Revelation 12:1 which reads: “A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.” Here, the Church finds a clear reference to Mary, her bodily Assumption and her position as Queen of Heaven.

It is the authoritative Apostolic interpretation of the Catholic Church which helps us to see the truths in scripture that we, like the Bereans, may not find if left to our own devices.
 
Your not going to find many commentaries or even allusions to the book of reveleation before the 4 or 5th century anyway, Irenaus and Hippolitus mention write on it , but not many besides that, til much later.

The most common interpretation of Revelation 12 is that it is the Church, some say Israel, all these interpretations are fine. Just because one commentator says its the Church does not rule out that its Mary, the bible and the Church has always given many verses many different, but compatible meanings.

Tradition suggests the Blessed Virgin Mary did die, but was shortly afterwards taken up to Heaven in Body and Soul. The early Christian honored the righteous that died and decorated their tombs in continuance of ancient Jewish biblical custom, however Mary does not have a tomb that people visit to go to visit her body, and this was recognized even in ancient times like around the Council of Ephesus. To the early Christians the bones of the righteous were considered more precious than jewels or gold, so the Virgins would have been even more priceless.

Benjamin Douglass provides some of the early evidence on his site: pugiofidei.com/assumption.htm

Sometimes the Psalms are used as part of the scriptural arguments that Mary was ASsumed into Heaven, even some Protestants that profess the assumption use them.

Psalm 132:8-- “Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might.”

also Psalms 45
 
Randy Carson:
Incorrect. There are two tombs of Mary - one in Ephesus where Mary lived for many years with the Apostle John (where she presumably expected to die) and another in Jerusalem where she was actually buried before her assumption.
Click to expand...
The Church is careful not to say that Mary died, but if she didn’t die before her body was assumed, why was she buried?
Randy Carson:
The Bereans and the Virgin Mary
Click to expand...
The problems with this go beyond the scope of this thread. I would point out (again) that the earliest commentary I could find on Revelation never mentions Mary as the woman of Rev 12:1 (I found her mentioned once in Chapter 4, where he compares the 4 living creatures to the four gospels, and here he mentions that Matthew gave us the genealogy of Mary “from whom Christ took flesh”). To claim this as an “apostolic” teaching, shouldn’t you be able to demonstrate that the apostles (any of them) taught this? Certainly Mary didn’t outlive John, yet where is there any clear reference to her bodily assumption? Of course, God is the author of Scripture, and He made it very clear that Enoch and Elijah were taken up alive into heaven. Why would God be clear on these 2, but not make it clear what your church claims about Mary? (BTW - the commentary was by Victorinus, from the late 3rd-early 4th century, and can be found here).
 
Cachonga said:
The Church is careful not to say that Mary died, but if she didn’t die before her body was assumed, why was she buried?
Click to expand...
The Church has never formally stated whether Mary died or not. It is my understanding that the general movement is toward the idea that Mary died and was assumbed bodily within a few days of her burial.

The Catechism is careful to state it this way:

**966 **“Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.” The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.
The problems with this go beyond the scope of this thread. I would point out (again) that the earliest commentary I could find on Revelation never mentions Mary as the woman of Rev 12:1 (I found her mentioned once in Chapter 4, where he compares the 4 living creatures to the four gospels, and here he mentions that Matthew gave us the genealogy of Mary “from whom Christ took flesh”). To claim this as an “apostolic” teaching, shouldn’t you be able to demonstrate that the apostles (any of them) taught this?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily…though I will double-check my position on this since I do not want to overstate the case. Fair enough?

In the meantime, my position is that that the Church teaches with the same authority with which the Apostles themselves taught. Therefore, when the Church teaches that Mary was assumed, that is stated with Apostolic Authority.
Certainly Mary didn’t outlive John, yet where is there any clear reference to her bodily assumption? Of course, God is the author of Scripture, and He made it very clear that Enoch and Elijah were taken up alive into heaven. Why would God be clear on these 2, but not make it clear what your church claims about Mary? (BTW - the commentary was by Victorinus, from the late 3rd-early 4th century, and can be found here).
Click to expand...
Was Paul beheaded in Rome? Was Peter crucified upside down?

How do we know this, and why did God allow Luke to end the book of Acts without recording these two events?

Why didn’t John mention the destruction of the Temple in the fourth Gospel? Surely that would have been a significant moment in the transition from Judaism to Christianity!

Obviously, not everything made it into the pages of Holy Writ.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Incorrect. There are two tombs of Mary - one in Ephesus where Mary lived for many years with the Apostle John (where she presumably expected to die) and another in Jerusalem where she was actually buried before her assumption.

It would be more accurate to say that no one claims to have any relics from the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Click to expand...
The anticipated tomb in Ephesus is irrelevant since she was not placed there and you would have to provide me with Chruch documents that reflect this tomb where she was supposedly buried before her assumption. The Church does not even take a stance in her actually dying before her assumption.

Please provide me with actual documentation of this tomb in Jerusalem since anyone can claim such a finding. And, of all the relics, wouldn’t those in Jerusalem be the first to exhume the Mother of Our Lord for relics? Why would her body remain in the tomb when all the other saints are exhumed for relics?
 
teachccd said:
The anticipated tomb in Ephesus is irrelevant since she was not placed there and you would have to provide me with Chruch documents that reflect this tomb where she was supposedly buried before her assumption. The Church does not even take a stance in her actually dying before her assumption.

Please provide me with actual documentation of this tomb in Jerusalem since anyone can claim such a finding.
Click to expand...
Mary’s Tomb is a tomb located in the Kidron Valley, on the foothills of Mount of Olives, near the Church of All Nations and Gethsemane garden, originally just outside Jerusalem. It is regarded as the burial place of Mary, the mother of Jesus by most Eastern Christians (many of whom regard her as Theotokos)[1][2], in contradistinction to the House of the Virgin Mary near Ephesus, or the belief that Mary was taken bodily to heaven, without dying.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary’s_Tomb

Regarding the tomb at Ephesus:

The tomb of the Blessed Virgin is venerated in the Valley of Cedron, near Jerusalem. Modern writers hold, however, that Mary died and was buried at Ephesus. The main points of the question to be taken into consideration are as follows.

You can continue reading the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia here:

newadvent.org/cathen/14774a.htm
And, of all the relics, wouldn’t those in Jerusalem be the first to exhume the Mother of Our Lord for relics? Why would her body remain in the tomb when all the other saints are exhumed for relics?
Click to expand...
I never said that Mary’s body remained in the tomb. She died and was assumed a few days later. No one exhumed her body for relics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top