Assumption of Mary

[Cachonga]

Randy Carson:

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.

OK, let’s think about this. If she was buried before being assumed, then she was either buried alive or she was dead. If she was dead, she was either a sinner (for the wages of sin is death… Rom 6:23), or the Bible is incorrect. Of course (someone may argue), Jesus died on the cross, and He was sinless. I would remind you that He was made sin (and worthy of death) on our behalf (2 Cor 5:21). Furthermore, Jesus had no need to be raised by someone else ("'Because of this doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that again I may take it;" John 10:17 YLT emphasis added).

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.

Fair enough. However, I would ask if you believe that revelation died with the last Apostle, or if it is ongoing in the Magisterium?

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.

In the case of Peter and Pauls dying in Rome, we have that by tradition. The destruction of the temple we know as historical fact by people like Josephus (plus acrheoligical evidence).

Obviously, the Bible is not an all-inclusive, exhuastive account of everything that happened during that time. But, has the Church ever, dogmatically proclaimed that Peter was crucified upside down, or that Paul was beheaded outside of Rome? Is your right-standing in the Church dependent upon you believing these things? If not, then I would ask why it is required to believe in other things that are not recorded in Scriptures (like the assumption)?

I do appreciate that you mentioned the 2 tombs of Mary. I was going to mention earlier (but didn’t because I haven’t been able to track down the source) that I had heard that the Church at Wittenberg had, among the many thousands of relics, some of the dirt from Mary’s grave.

 

[Shaken]

You are going to love this! I once asked a priest about the Assumption and he said, there is no record of the death of the Blessed Virgin Mother. Isn’t that a delightful response? It’s slick and satisfying, a reply worthy of Jesus Himself.

 

[Randy_Carson]

OK, let’s think about this. If she was buried before being assumed, then she was either buried alive or she was dead. If she was dead, she was either a sinner (for the wages of sin is death… Rom 6:23), or the Bible is incorrect.

Or you simply have attempted to force me into a false dilemma.

Catholic apologist John Salza provides the following:
“Jesus and Mary, even though they were sinless, still inherited the defects of the body, to the extent these defects were not inconsistent with their perfection of grace (this is the teaching of the angelic doctor, Thomas Aquinas). For example, Jesus and Mary had hunger, thirst, and fatigue. These were defects of their human natures that were brought into the world by Adam. These defects are to be distinguished from other defects such as proneness toward evil and difficulty in doing good. Neither Jesus nor Mary suffered from these kinds of defects because they would be inconsistent with their perfection of grace. Thus, if Mary did die, which would be the natural consequence of her human nature, her death cannot be attributed to her having any sin on her soul.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Fair enough. However, I would ask if you believe that revelation died with the last Apostle, or if it is ongoing in the Magisterium?

Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Teaching with Apostolic Authority does not mean that the Church adds to the faith delivered once for all to the saints.

On the other hand, understanding of that faith and development of the theology we use to explain it can occur. Picture an onion as the complete deposit of faith…there are many layers to peel, are there not?

In the case of Peter and Pauls dying in Rome, we have that by tradition. The destruction of the temple we know as historical fact by people like Josephus (plus acrheoligical evidence).

I grant that we have archeological evidence since there is not temple standing in Jerusalem today. But before belaboring the point, do you agree or disagree that Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome? If you agree, then we can move on.

Obviously, the Bible is not an all-inclusive, exhuastive account of everything that happened during that time. But, has the Church ever, dogmatically proclaimed that Peter was crucified upside down, or that Paul was beheaded outside of Rome? Is your right-standing in the Church dependent upon you believing these things? If not, then I would ask why it is required to believe in other things that are not recorded in Scriptures (like the assumption)?

The answer to the first two questions is no.

We are required to believe the other items because an authoritative, infallible Church declares them to be true. Knowing that will not satisfy you, I will give some thought as to WHY the Church declared the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption to be dogmas. In the interim, here is something I wrote some time back in response to a closely related question:
Why Marian Dogmas are Important

One reason - perhaps the main reason - we seek to accept and understand the Marian dogmas is because of our love for our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Think about this for a moment…when you first fell in love with your husband, wife or current “significant other”, weren’t you completely fascinated by him or her? Didn’t you want to know all the details you could possibly learn about him or her?

Where she grew up? What kind of music he liked to listen to? Favorite restaurants, foods, books? Didn’t you want to know where (s)he went to school or where (s)he worked, lived and hung out on the weekends?

Didn’t you want to know what he/she thought about politics, religion and the local sports teams? Did you want to learn about his or her family background?

Loving Jesus is a lot like that. We study the scriptures to learn what He said. We read commentaries to get background information on the geography of Israel and the religious climate of the day. What and where are the Sheep Gate and Pool of Siloam? Why were the Romans in Jerusalem? Who were the Sadducees and what made them different from the Pharisees? What was life like for Jesus growing up, and what may have happened during those silent years before his public ministry began? We want to know these things because we love.

We look at Mary because we love her son, and we want to know everything we can about Him. Mary loves Him, too, and by her excellent example, she leads us right back to Him: “Do whatever He tells you.”

I do appreciate that you mentioned the 2 tombs of Mary. I was going to mention earlier (but didn’t because I haven’t been able to track down the source) that I had heard that the Church at Wittenberg had, among the many thousands of relics, some of the dirt from Mary’s grave.

Although the Church has not definitively settled this matter (and may never do so!), I have no problem with the idea that Mary humbly chose to follow her Son and Savior in death as well as life and that dirt from her actual tomb COULD have been preserved.

 

[Cachonga]

Randy Carson:

Or you simply have attempted to force me into a false dilemma.

So catholic apologist John Salza finds something in the writings of a 13th century church father, but doesn’t give anything from Scripture to support the claim. Perhaps T.A. gave some Scriptural references. Would you happen to know which work Mr. Salza was quoting from?

Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Teaching with Apostolic Authority does not mean that the Church adds to the faith delivered once for all to the saints.

On the other hand, understanding of that faith and development of the theology we use to explain it can occur. Picture an onion as the complete deposit of faith…there are many layers to peel, are there not?

Your analogy brings a tear to my eye. Funny thing is, when Paul explained God’s plan to the Bereans, they searched the Scriptures to see if what he said was true. However, if I attempt to find the assumption, immaculate conception or perpetual virginity in Scripture, it cannot be done (there have been some very “creative” attempts to force scriptures to “indicate” these things, but God speaks very clearly in His word about what we are to believe). Seriously, if the bodily assumption of Mary was taught by any of the apostles, where is the evidence? If not, how can it be an “apostolic tradition” and a matter of faith that MUST be accepted to be in right standing with the Church?

I grant that we have archeological evidence since there is not temple standing in Jerusalem today. But before belaboring the point, do you agree or disagree that Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome? If you agree, then we can move on.

I see no reason to believe otherwise (though I do question whether or not Peter was crucified upside down).

The answer to the first two questions is no.

We are required to believe the other items because an authoritative, infallible Church declares them to be true. Knowing that will not satisfy you, I will give some thought as to WHY the Church declared the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption to be dogmas.

I 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.

In regard to your article, Why Marian Dogmas are Important, it was very well written, but I don’t think the analogy holds. I have been married over 23 years, but I know very little about her mother (her father passed away long before we even met). Does that mean I don’t truly love my wife? Would I love her more if I knew her mother better? The fact is, I love my wife and am faithful to her, even in my dreams! I doubt I could love her more, but if it’s possible, then it would have to be from God, not my knowledge of her mother. You finished by saying ‘We look at Mary because we love her son, and we want to know everything we can about Him. Mary loves Him, too, and by her excellent example, she leads us right back to Him: “Do whatever He tells you.”’. Where does Jesus tell us what the church has declared about Mary? Keep in mind that when his mother (and brothers) came to see Him, He didn’t rush out to meet her, nor did He command the people to make a path for her to come to him (Matt 12:46-50). How does it honor Jesus to say things about His mother that are not supported by His word?

 

[NHInsider]

Funny thing is, when Paul explained God’s plan to the Bereans, they searched the Scriptures to see if what he said was true. However, if I attempt to find the assumption, immaculate conception or perpetual virginity in Scripture, it cannot be done (there have been some very “creative” attempts to force scriptures to “indicate” these things, but God speaks very clearly in His word about what we are to believe).

You’re kidding, right? Does that mean you also don’t believe in the Trinity? Or the contents of Scripture?

 

[kepha1]

Funny thing is, when Paul explained God’s plan to the Bereans, they searched the Scriptures to see if what he said was true. However, if I attempt to find the assumption, immaculate conception or perpetual virginity in Scripture, it cannot be done (there have been some very “creative” attempts to force scriptures to “indicate” these things, but God speaks very clearly in His word about what we are to believe).

Funny thing is, the Assumption of Mary took place AFTER the Epistles were written, so demanding proof text from scripture is grossly unfair. God speaks very clearly in His word, but nowhere in His Word means the written word alone. Furthermore, Mary’s perpetual viginity was believed by ALL the early remormers, proving that otherwise is a recent man-made invention. There is not one verse anywhere in the bible that teaches the bible is perfectly clear and self explanatory. That is a man-made biproduct of a man-made doctrine of sola scriptura.
*Protestants have lost the concept of the sacred. The Ark of the Covenant was sacred. This same ark, found in Revelation 11:19 and carried on in Rev. 12:1 flows together as one verse (verse numbers were added in the 13th century, not when it was written) The Ark of the Covenant forshadows Mary and there are too many “very clearly” parallels from the OT to ignore. *

 

[The_Way]

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,

 

[BrianH]

Epiphanius of Salamis writes a great deal about the Virgin Mary in his work Paranion. While the exact copy was hard to find, I did find a link to his work.

books.google.com/books?id=DAP…age&q=&f=false

If you wish to know more about him, this link from the Catholic Encyclopedia discusses him:

newadvent.org/cathen/13393b.htm

Quote:

11,3 11,5 I cannot decide for certain, and am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither am I affirming that she died. For scripture went beyond man’s understanding and left it in suspense with regard to the precious and chosen vessel, so that no one would suspect carnal behavior of her. Whether she died, I don’t know; and even if she was buried, she never had carnal relations, perish the thought.

78: 23,8 The holy virgin may have died and been buried-her falling asleep was with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death-as the scripture says, “and a sword shall pierce through her soul-her frame is among the martyrs and her holy body, by which light rose on the world, rests amid blessings. Or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. No one knows her end.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Your analogy brings a tear to my eye. Funny thing is, when Paul explained God’s plan to the Bereans, they searched the Scriptures to see if what he said was true. However, if I attempt to find the assumption, immaculate conception or perpetual virginity in Scripture, it cannot be done (there have been some very “creative” attempts to force scriptures to “indicate” these things, but God speaks very clearly in His word about what we are to believe). Seriously, if the bodily assumption of Mary was taught by any of the apostles, where is the evidence? If not, how can it be an “apostolic tradition” and a matter of faith that MUST be accepted to be in right standing with the Church?

Perhaps you missed my post on the Bereans and the Assumption of Mary. You can review it above in post #14. To that I add the following:

Berean Rejection of Sola Scriptura
From Steve Ray’s article: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703fea3.asp

If one group could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).

When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the “dogs,” not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).

We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was “unbiblical.”

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

The Bereans searched the Torah no less than the Thessalonians, yet they were eager to accept words of God from the mouth of Paul, in addition to what they already held to be Scripture, that is, the Law and the Prophets. Even if one claims that Paul preached the gospel and not a “tradition,” it is clear that the Bereans were accepting new revelation that was not contained in their Scriptures. These Berean Jews accepted oral teaching, the tradition of the apostles, as equal to Scripture, in addition to, and as an “extension” of, the Torah. This is further illustrated by the Christian community’s reception of Paul’s epistles as divinely inspired Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16; here Peter seems to acknowledges Paul’s writings as equal to the “other Scriptures,” which can be presumed to refer to the Old Testament).

 

[Randy_Carson]

I 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.

This is not what I said…and I think you know that.

In regard to your article, Why Marian Dogmas are Important, it was very well written, but I don’t think the analogy holds. I have been married over 23 years, but I know very little about her mother (her father passed away long before we even met). Does that mean I don’t truly love my wife? Would I love her more if I knew her mother better? The fact is, I love my wife and am faithful to her, even in my dreams! I doubt I could love her more, but if it’s possible, then it would have to be from God, not my knowledge of her mother. You finished by saying ‘We look at Mary because we love her son, and we want to know everything we can about Him. Mary loves Him, too, and by her excellent example, she leads us right back to Him: “Do whatever He tells you.”’. Where does Jesus tell us what the church has declared about Mary? Keep in mind that when his mother (and brothers) came to see Him, He didn’t rush out to meet her, nor did He command the people to make a path for her to come to him (Matt 12:46-50). How does it honor Jesus to say things about His mother that are not supported by His word?

Your own experience in your marriage is interesting, but it is just one example. If you have any doubt about how people long to learn all that they can about those whom they hold in high regard, simply consider the fascination that people have with Barack Obama, Michael Jackson or Lady Diana. Don’t pretend that there is not keen interest in them simply because of your own experience. Do you think that Christians are less interested in knowing their Savior and everything about Him simply because your own predilection runs in a different direction?

We honor Jesus by stating things that are true about His Mother whether they are supported in Scripture or not. Truth is truth regardless of whether it is enscripturated. Just as we honor an artist by recognizing the greatness of his painting, so we honor the Creator by venerating the greatest of His creations.

However, since the Word of God contains both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, I think the things the Church teaches concerning the Mother of God ARE supported by His Word…His COMPLETE Word.

Your questions presume that everything we can or must know is contained in scripture, and you also appear to believe that if something is NOT contained in scripture then it is either untrue (to a lesser degree) or unimportant (to a greater degree). Yet, you yourself hold fast to extra-biblical Tradition which you would very likely argue as essential to all believers.

The difference is that I acknowledge my acceptance of Tradition whereas you appear to deny yours.

 

[crazzeto]

Regarding Peter & Paul being Martyred in Rome, that may not be in the CCC but there is more than enough evidence to support it.

In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).

“When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew” (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [A.D. 318]).

“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . .While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven. And it was nothing to marvel at, for Paul was there—he that was caught up into the third heaven” (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).

“Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord” (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

And more

snippets can be found here: catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp

Most (or all) of the full versions can probably be found at www.earlychristianwritings.com, or you might check www.newadvent.com

 

[crowcounty]

gee i am glad about the dormition because it gives me faith in the resurection

 

[Danny69]

See Q5:

pugiofidei.com/questions.htm#5

 

[Cachonga]

NHInsider:

You’re kidding, right? Does that mean you also don’t believe in the Trinity? Or the contents of Scripture?

The doctrine of the Trinity is very clearly depicted in Scripture (it did take a while to come up with a word to describe this, but the doctrine is very clear). And of course I believe in the contents of Scripture.

kepha1:

Funny thing is, the Assumption of Mary took place AFTER the Epistles were written, so demanding proof text from scripture is grossly unfair. God speaks very clearly in His word, but nowhere in His Word means the written word alone. Furthermore, Mary’s perpetual viginity was believed by ALL the early remormers, proving that otherwise is a recent man-made invention. There is not one verse anywhere in the bible that teaches the bible is perfectly clear and self explanatory. That is a man-made biproduct of a man-made doctrine of sola scriptura.

And my point is, if it’s not in the written word, then how can it be a requirement of faith? I hear 2 Thes 2:15 (2:14 in the DR) used many times to prove the oral tradition, but let’s look at it - “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, **whether by **word, **or by **our epistle.” (DR emphasis added). Note, the tradition can be learned orally OR by epistle (not orally AND by epistle)! And if you look back a little, you will see that the tradition Paul was talking about was the gospel of Jesus Christ. In regard to the reformers believing things about Mary, I would point out that (1) it was not because of Marian abuses that they left, and (2) they were no more infallible than you or I (or even the pope).

kepha1:

Protestants have lost the concept of the sacred. The Ark of the Covenant was sacred. This same ark, found in Revelation 11:19 and carried on in Rev. 12:1 flows together as one verse (verse numbers were added in the 13th century, not when it was written) The Ark of the Covenant forshadows Mary and there are too many “very clearly” parallels from the OT to ignore.

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?
The Way:

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

See my comments above.

BrianH:

Epiphanius of Salamis writes a great deal about the Virgin Mary in his work Paranion. While the exact copy was hard to find, I did find a link to his work.

Since the perpetual virginity is not the topic, I won’t comment on that. However, I note that Epiphanius does not seem to believe Mary was bodily assumed.
Randy Carson:

Perhaps you missed my post on the Bereans and the Assumption of Mary. You can review it above in post #14. To that I add the following:

I didn’t miss it, but this is not a discussion on Sola Scriptura (I think I did comment that there were a number of errors with this, but that is beyond the topic of this thread).

Your own experience in your marriage is interesting, but it is just one example. If you have any doubt about how people long to learn all that they can about those whom they hold in high regard, simply consider the fascination that people have with Barack Obama, Michael Jackson or Lady Diana. Don’t pretend that there is not keen interest in them simply because of your own experience. Do you think that Christians are less interested in knowing their Savior and everything about Him simply because your own predilection runs in a different direction?

It appears something was missed in what was said. How can I love Jesus any more than I do by knowing His mother? And if I can’t confirm (in His written word) what is being said about her, how does that honor Him? Surely God, who is the author of Scripture, would have included everything we need to believe to be saved and live a godly life in His written word. As far as peoples fascination with Obama, Jackson, etc…, this seems (in some instances) to border on idolatry (and I would suggest that some people carry Marian devotion to an idolatrous level as well).

We honor Jesus by stating things that are true about His Mother whether they are supported in Scripture or not. Truth is truth regardless of whether it is enscripturated. Just as we honor an artist by recognizing the greatness of his painting, so we honor the Creator by venerating the greatest of His creations.

Rom 1:25 says, “Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (DR). We do give honor to whom honor is due, and respect to whom respect is due, but we do not elevate anyone above what Scripture says of them, and to do so borders on idolatry.

However, since the Word of God contains both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, I think the things the Church teaches concerning the Mother of God ARE supported by His Word…His COMPLETE Word.

See my comment above on 2 Thess 2:15.

[continued…]

 

[Cachonga]

Randy Carson:

Your questions presume that everything we can or must know is contained in scripture, and you also appear to believe that if something is NOT contained in scripture then it is either untrue (to a lesser degree) or unimportant (to a greater degree). Yet, you yourself hold fast to extra-biblical Tradition which you would very likely argue as essential to all believers.

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). Peter referred to Paul’s writing as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). Scripture is from God, and God led fallible men to recognize His written word (both the Old testament cannon by the Jews and the New Testament cannon by the Christians). The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. Since this is off topic, I will end it here.

crazzeto:

Regarding Peter & Paul being Martyred in Rome, that may not be in the CCC but there is more than enough evidence to support it.

,and following…>

This is not on topic, but thanks!

crowcounty:

gee i am glad about the dormition because it gives me faith in the resurection

Gee, I am glad for Jesus, who was raised on the third day, because I KNOW there will be a resurrection, and I have faith in Him!

 

[crazzeto]

This is not on topic, but thanks!

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.

 

[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…]

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

God bless,

 

[The_Way]

Also,

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.

I hope that helps you out.

God bless,

 

[kepha1]

Pseudo – Melito
If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: “Be it done according to your will” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300]).

Timothy of Jerusalem
Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

John the Theologian
The Lord said to his Mother, “Let your heart rejoice and be glad. For every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens”. . . And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise (The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).

Gregory of Tours
[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones. . . (Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 [A.D. 575]).

Theoteknos of Livias
It was fitting … that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory … should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God . (Homily on the Assumption [ca. A.D. 600])