Assumption of mary

[Lenten_ashes]

Something to consider…Mary’s life isn’t totally spelled out in the scriptures, probably because it didn’t need to be. Jesus saves us not the blessed virgin. When you consider 2 Thess 2:15 and the end of John’s gospel it becomes clear that most of what Jesus said and did was not recorded. And he is God. Thank God for what we do have but realize that just because it’s not recorded in scripture doesnt mean it didn’t happen. In a manner of speaking i think the gospel writers had more important things to write about.

And i see the Marian dogmas not as exaltation of her but as Christo-centric. It’s appropriate that the Lord had a pure vessel to dwell in and appropriate that his mother was assumed into heaven. I mean we have saints of lesser status who’s bodies are not corrupted after being in a casket for 100 yrs. And when they open the casket you dont smell death you smell roses. Im sure it sounds creepy to a protestant but these things are true and documented. It’s easy to trust the Church if you trust the gospels and he continues to prove that he remains with this Church just as he promised

 

[catholic1seeks]

If God could do it, would he do it?
Should he do it (in the sense of fittingness)?

Plenty can be said about patristic and biblical evidence.

But think of it another way. Mary was Jesus’ own mother. She bore him in her womb, raised him, gave him his flesh, nurtured him, taught him, watched over him, laughed with him, cried with him, touched him, loved him.

They were together for 30+ years. Think of the close bond they had – and on two levels: the physical bond of mother and son, and the spiritual bond of Mary’s discipleship.

There is nothing preventing God to protect Mary from bodily corruption. Should he? Would he? Christ was raised from the dead and is now in glory, bodily in heaven. Why should he allow his mother – whom he received flesh from – to undergo corruption? Why would he not prevent his mother from bodily death and decay? If he could do it, why shouldn’t he?

 

[Church_Militant]

Are you a Catholic Hap?

The posting style and at least 2 threads like it certainly made me assume otherwise.

 

[SJacob7]

That is not for us to decide whether or not you will go to heaven.

The Church teaches that only God knows what is in your heart. He alone knows if you deny the assumption or if you are not able to understand.

When I have trouble with a teaching of the Church I take it on faith that the Church is correct and I just haven’t gotten to a point of understanding her teaching. Basically, I am the one that must be incorrect and I need to study a little harder.

I would recommend you pray about this and ask yourself why you don’t believe in the assumption? What about it are you against? What doesn’t make sense? Where does your difficulty lie?

I would give you the same recommendations I gave the OP.

Especially this video.

youtube.com/watch?v=xg2OQ_iPTv8&t=31s

Let me ask it this way, is it a mortal sin not to believe in the assumption of Mary?

 

[MT1926]

Let me ask it this way, is it a mortal sin not to believe in the assumption of Mary?

This is a question I can’t answer. Maybe you could post this question under the apologetic section of the forum.

I wish I could be of more help but all I can do is restate what I said earlier

Why would I ever think Jesus wouldn’t just snap his fingers and assume his Mother into heaven. It’s not that it had to be done, it’s because it is fitting. We are to follow the example of Jesus why would he tell us to honor our parents and then treat his own Mother the same as every other run of the mill Christian.

I would recommend you pray about this and ask yourself why you don’t believe in the assumption? What about it are you against? What doesn’t make sense? Where does your difficulty lie?

God Bless

 

[Hap]

The posting style and at least 2 threads like it certainly made me assume otherwise.

I understand, I copied the rebuttal against the Assumption word for word from a Protestant I have debated for years to no avail, just looking for a new approach, This forums was very helpful when I was coming into the Church.

 

[Hockeygurl]

If God could do it, would he do it?
Should he do it (in the sense of fittingness)?

Plenty can be said about patristic and biblical evidence.

But think of it another way. Mary was Jesus’ own mother. She bore him in her womb, raised him, gave him his flesh, nurtured him, taught him, watched over him, laughed with him, cried with him, touched him, loved him.

They were together for 30+ years. Think of the close bond they had – and on two levels: the physical bond of mother and son, and the spiritual bond of Mary’s discipleship.

There is nothing preventing God to protect Mary from bodily corruption. Should he? Would he? Christ was raised from the dead and is now in glory, bodily in heaven. Why should he allow his mother – whom he received flesh from – to undergo corruption? Why would he not prevent his mother from bodily death and decay? If he could do it, why shouldn’t he?

1. Sure he could
2. Fitting? That depends. GOD often does things that we humans would not expect. For example: the Jewish people, HIS people expected Christ to be something completely different than what they were given. What GOD does can be beyond our understanding as we are… well… human and HE is GOD. Therefore, we need to not say it is a FACT it happened because humans feel it was fitting that it should happen.
3. Why shouldn’t he? Maybe that was not in his plan.

I’m agnostic on all of the Marian dogmas. I accept that it is possible, but not necessarily fact.

 

[Della]

I understand, I copied the rebuttal against the Assumption word for word from a Protestant I have debated for years to no avail, just looking for a new approach, This forums was very helpful when I was coming into the Church.

Perhaps you should give up trying to rebut your friend if, after years of effort, he has no inclination to accept Church teachings. Firstly, it will save you the time and effort of “casting your pearls before swine” (not that your friend is despicable, but rather he simply isn’t disposed to hear your arguments). Secondly, it will let him know that you are not trying to convince him nor trying to convert him. Now you should leave it with him as to what he wants to do with the information you’ve given him.

Now your “job” is to pray for him and be there for him if/when he decides he actually wants to know something instead of merely challenge your beliefs. I have the feeling his goal has been to pry you away from your Catholic faith. You have to let him know in no uncertain terms that that will not happen. When he realizes that, he will either give up his effort and/or he will drop you as a friend. If the first happens you will still have a friend, if the second, he was never a true friend to begin with.

 

[NeoBenedictine]

At the risk of not answering the OP’s question, it’s worth remembering that all the original Protestant reformers were Marianists… that says something that this idea of venerating Mary who effectively points to Christ who points to the Father reduces or takes the focus off Christ’s redemptive work is simply wrong.

We are called upon to be like Christ, and simultaneously to honor our mother and father… there is nothing wrong with honoring our Earthly parents AND being like Christ both honoring our common spiritual mother Mary and our God the Father…

The earliest Church records show this was the norm, as someone originally raised in a Pentecostal church I wondered the same thing… now I understand in full context that honoring and recognizing Mary is what Christ would want us to do… never to the exclusion or lowering of Christ, but in the proper context.

 

[catholic1seeks]

1. Sure he could
2. Fitting? That depends. GOD often does things that we humans would not expect. For example: the Jewish people, HIS people expected Christ to be something completely different than what they were given. What GOD does can be beyond our understanding as we are… well… human and HE is GOD. Therefore, we need to not say it is a FACT it happened because humans feel it was fitting that it should happen.
3. Why shouldn’t he? Maybe that was not in his plan.

I’m agnostic on all of the Marian dogmas. I accept that it is possible, but not necessarily fact.

I use “fitting” in the sense of “does this seem reasonable, even if it’s not strictly necessary? Does it make a more beautiful picture?” Fittingness doesn’t prove doctrine. But it’s suggestive of why God would do something, if he in fact did – and he did, for he has revealed this to us.

As a Protestant, you may regard holy scripture as containing all of God’s revelation, even explicitly so. Catholics (and Orthodox) think this is not the correct way to view revelation. God didn’t want a book for everyone to determine Christian truths through their own efforts at interpretation. The Bible was formed in the much larger context of a living apostolic tradition. This apostolic teaching preceded the first book of the New Testament by a few decades.

This aspotlic tradition preceded the last book of the Bible by 70 years. It existed before the final determination of the canon, which took another two hundred + years after the book of Revelation was written.

This apostolic teaching was maintained in the apostolic churches, which were pastored by the official teachers and shepherds of the church, the bishops. And the authentic Christian faith was maintained by these churches in their living tradition and teaching hundreds of years before the Bible was widely and easily available to all Christians.

We trust what is of Christian teaching by trusting the teaching authority and function of the church. Ephesians says that it is through the church that the wisdom of God is revealed to all, even the angels. According to scripture, the church is the “pillar of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). And this church is no mere collection of believers – but a society of believers who have different functions. Ephesians also says that some members of the Body of Christ are “apostles and teachers.” Of course there are no apostles in the strict sense now, but the NT (Acts, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy) and early Christian writings (Clement, Ignatius of Antioch) reveal that the apostles appointed others - the bishops - as the official teachers, pastors, and presiders of the Christian community.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Protestant objection to the Assumption, his two main points:

The New Testament was written over a period of approximately sixty-five years and not so much as one verse says anything about the bodily assumption of Mary. If this event actually occurred, then at least one of the New Testament writers should have told us.

What Catholicism has actually done in perpetuating this man made dogma of the Assumption, is to give a status to Mary that is not to be given to anyone but the Lord Jesus. Catholics place undo emphasis on Mary and give her glories reserve only for God. Any undo exaltation of Mary is repulsive to a true Bible believing Christian who desires to see the Lord Jesus Christ alone exalted. Phil. 2:10-11 “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Protestants think everything has to be in scripture. But in my view the Assumption was an historical event, just like Napoleon and the Battle of Waterloo was an historical event, and which everyone believes. The Assumption was most likely witnessed and that memory is perpetuated in Church tradition.

 

[Good_Fella]

Fitting? That depends. GOD often does things that we humans would not expect. For example: the Jewish people, HIS people expected Christ to be something completely different than what they were given.

God chose the Jewish people knowing that they would reject the Christ. But since the Messiah was to come from the Jews, God removed them from their pagan origins and separated them from the surrounding pagan nations to be a holy people and a nation consecrated to Him by His covenant. It was only fitting. I wouldn’t expect anything less from a holy and righteous God.

What GOD does can be beyond our understanding as we are… well… human and HE is GOD. Therefore, we need to not say it is a FACT it happened because humans feel it was fitting that it should happen.

So what you are saying is that we can never know God other than believe He exists. If that’s the case, how could we possibly ever have a personal relationship with him? How could we place our faith and hope in Him if He is beyond all human understanding? How could we be sure that He would never do anything untrue to Himself, like break a promise or dismiss one of His own Commandments? We couldn’t trust or even love God unless we knew Him well enough. And unless we could, God would never have revealed Himself to us.

Do you consider it a fact that Luke wrote the 3rd gospel and the Book of Acts? Or is it a fact that the other NT authors actually wrote the gospels and epistles that go by their names? To establish whether these are in fact facts, we would have to be in possession of the original texts written by these NT authors themselves and not copies of copies of copies (3,000 MSS from the 3rd/4th century to the the mid- 16th century). We don’t have the originial autographs, so how do we know for sure that Luke wrote the 3rd gospel as it is actually written without any adulteration? The answer: Catholic tradition as handed down from the apostles through the living voice of the Church. It’s the same with the Assumption of Mary. The Church has always known. But, then, you are outside the Church which was founded by Christ on Peter and the Apostles. Your starting point for doctrine is a dead book. And all you can rely on is your own fallible human reasoning with no Holy Spirit to guide you since Pentecost.

Why shouldn’t he? Maybe that was not in his plan.

Why wouldn’t the Assumption be part of God’s plan? If you can’t provide a reasonable answer, then there isn’t one. Maybe the death and resurrection of Christ hasn’t been part of His plan either? Jews and Muslims will tell you this. The NT doesn’t establish any facts, or else there wouldn’t be any Jews and Muslims. What it all boils down to is faith in the Christian tradition of the Church.

I’m agnostic on all of the Marian dogmas. I accept that it is possible, but not necessarily fact.

How are the Catholic Trinitarian and Christological dogmas which you’ve adopted from the Catholic Church “necessarily facts”? If you can emprically prove that these dogmas contain what is real, then you’ve established facts. Divine truths are objects of faith. We might consider them to be real, but that’s only because they appeal to us and seem the more reasonable to accept. But a fact isn’t something that’s taken in faith, i,e., light travels at 86,000 miles a second.

:heaven:

 

[joeybaggz]

Protestant objection to the Assumption, his two main points:

The New Testament was written over a period of approximately sixty-five years and not so much as one verse says anything about the bodily assumption of Mary. If this event actually occurred, then at least one of the New Testament writers should have told us.

What Catholicism has actually done in perpetuating this man made dogma of the Assumption, is to give a status to Mary that is not to be given to anyone but the Lord Jesus. Catholics place undo emphasis on Mary and give her glories reserve only for God. Any undo exaltation of Mary is repulsive to a true Bible believing Christian who desires to see the Lord Jesus Christ alone exalted. Phil. 2:10-11 “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

The crucifixion story places John, the beloved disciple at the foot of the Cross with the three women. Jesus looks to John and says, “John, behold your Mother” and to Mary, “Woman, behold your son.” From that day, John took Mary, the mother of Jesus, into his care. John knew what happened to Mary. Why didn’t it appear in the Bible? Well, a couple of surmises.

One, the Bible is about the history man, his relationship with God, and God’s salvation of man. It isn’t about facts or historical trivia. John, a gospel writer probably felt it was not key to the central point of the Gospel message. Though certainly John told the others what happened to Mary.

A second surmise is that the early church was beset with heresy, Arian, Gnostic, etc. Is it possible that the gospel writers and church leaders felt that including such information may be seen in a light that detracted from the central and necessary message of Jesus and our redemption. And that is why you will not find it in Scripture?

As to the feeling of Bible only Christians, Look at it this way. Mary is God’s Masterpiece. If you viewed an artist’s masterpiece with honor and respect, do you not honor the Artist? Is God upset at the devotion (not worship) that RC’s have to Mary? Doubtful. It doesn’t detract from God, it honors him more fully.
(By the way, this idea of the masterpiece is said wonderfully by Kimberly Hahn in her book written with her husband, Scott, Rome Sweet Home. You might want to read it. It tells the story of two rabid anti-Catholic Presbyterian theologians, and how they came to understand and embrace the RCC faith.

Our belief in the Assumption is extra-Biblical, yes, but it is not anti-Biblical.

Shalom

 

[The_Serpent]

An excellent source of Patristic writing on the Assumption can be found by clicking on the link.

svspress.com/on-the-dormition-of-mary-early-patristic-homilies/

 

[jcrichton]

Let me ask it this way, is it a mortal sin not to believe in the assumption of Mary?

Hi, S!

…the Church Teaches that it is Dogma (a revelation of Truth of the Faith); this means that to belong to the Catholic Church you must believe in it.

…as for Salvation, the Church does not Teach above her pay grade–she does not even condemn Judas since Judgment Belongs Only to God!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

1. Sure he could
2. Fitting? That depends. GOD often does things that we humans would not expect. For example: the Jewish people, HIS people expected Christ to be something completely different than what they were given. What GOD does can be beyond our understanding as we are… well… human and HE is GOD. Therefore, we need to not say it is a FACT it happened because humans feel it was fitting that it should happen.
3. Why shouldn’t he? Maybe that was not in his plan.

I’m agnostic on all of the Marian dogmas. I accept that it is possible, but not necessarily fact.

Hi!

…actually the Messiah was exactly what was given to them according to what they should have expected from Scriptures:

15 Aware of this, Jesus withdrew from that place. A large crowd followed him, and he healed all who were ill. 16 He warned them not to tell others about him. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:

18 “Here is my servant whom I have chosen,
the one I love, in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him,
and he will proclaim justice to the nations.
19 He will not quarrel or cry out;
no one will hear his voice in the streets.
20 A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out,
till he has brought justice through to victory.
21 In his name the nations will put their hope.”

(Matthew 12:15-21)

1 “I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty. (Malachi 3:1)

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.(Isaiah 7:14)

6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.(Isaiah 9:6-7)

16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” (St. Luke 4:16-20)
The Messiah was exactly as the Revelations through the prophets claimed… but as stated by the prophets, they could not listen to the Word of God–they were given to their own human desires and conclusions:

7 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 8 as it is written:

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that could not see
and ears that could not hear,
to this very day.”

9 And David says:

“May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever.”

(Romans 11:7-10)
Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Hockeygurl]

Protestants think everything has to be in scripture. But in my view the Assumption was an historical event, just like Napoleon and the Battle of Waterloo was an historical event, and which everyone believes. The Assumption was most likely witnessed and that memory is perpetuated in Church tradition.

No, just that those things that might be considered dogma, or necessary for salvation should be evident in BOTH tradition and scripture.

 

[jcrichton]

No, just that those things that might be considered dogma, or necessary for salvation should be evident in BOTH tradition and scripture.

Hi!

…what you are suggesting is that the Written and Oral Traditions should reflect each other… that seems nice… but do you actually believe that it is correct?

Take the example of Baptism… where in Scriptures do we find a formula for the practice… is there a place that mentions how many Apostles/disciples must be present or that “appointments” are necessary or that a running body of water must be first located before the Baptism may be administered or, if no such body found, the distance to travel to a non-running body of water (lake, pool, well) or how much water to sprinkle if there’s no water source or if there are prayers before, during or after the ceremony or if certain garments must be used…?

Oral Traditions would include reading from the Scriptures (both the OT and the Epistles and, perhaps, even the Gospel, but they would also have a more direct inclusion of practices and doctrine… Scriptures do not include such benefit–we only have instances where it is mentioned (i.e.: ‘as I teach in all the Churches’).

Interestingly enough not one passage in Scriptures demand that it must be included in Scriptures–rather, the only references to Authority is “as we Teach in all the Churches.”

Oral Teaching supersedes the Written Word, at least according to the Apostles!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mackbrislawn]

No, just that those things that might be considered dogma, or necessary for salvation should be evident in BOTH tradition and scripture.

That something needs to be in scripture is an assumption one makes.

 

[Della]

No, just that those things that might be considered dogma, or necessary for salvation should be evident in BOTH tradition and scripture.

If you mean explicitly so, then that doesn’t work. If it did work there would have been no need for Church councils to decide such important matters as the nature of Jesus (hypostatic union) or the nature of the Trinity. These are some core beliefs that are not evident (explicitly stated) in both oral Tradition and Scripture. Rather, oral Tradition and Scripture compliment each other and do not contradict one another, but neither needs to state anything explicitly to be believed.