Assumption of Mary

[Kalona]

Juxtaposer, I found the booklet (Mary–The Second Eve) on-line. The nun who compiled Newman’s writings on Mary was Sr. Eileen Breen, F.M.A. The booklet is divided into 3 parts on the site. I’ll give you the links for each one. The first link has the thoughts of the early church fathers on Mary. The third one is about her Assumption, but it makes more sense if you read the whole thing first.

Newman lived during the 19th century, but he gives the history of what the church believed about Mary from early times.

[lchristendom-awake.org/pages/marian/newman1.htm](Newman on Mary as the New Eve - part 1)
christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/newman2.html

[lchristendom-awake.org/pages/marian/newman3.htm](Newman on Mary as the New Eve - Part 3)

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ22.HTML

 

[twf]

Patg: You can believe that if you want, but there is no reason to do so. Are you aware of the massive historical evidence for the Gospels? Perhaps you should read Lee Strobel’s The Case For Christ. While he is a Protestant, it is an excellent defence of the historical accuracy of the Gospels. Christ would have ascended up, but that doesn’t mean he continued to do so…He probably ascended to a certain height and then was ‘teleported’, if you will, into Heaven. We know God loves to use outward signs, like the sacraments…so why wouldn’t he physically raise the person up to a certain height to bring home the concept of ascending or rising to a higher place?

Juxtaposition: You still didn’t respond to my original post! (That’s ok, though). I’m not sure if you understood what I meant. No, not everyone who has ascended or been assumed is waiting for a glorified body. What I said was that Christ was the first person to be raised to a glorified body. Mary was the second. All the various people who were raised from the dead prior to this, would not yet have had glorified bodies, but would have been raised back to their mortal state, and then eventually die again. They would not have been assumed.

 

[patg]

twf:

Patg: You can believe that if you want, but there is no reason to do so. Are you aware of the massive historical evidence for the Gospels? Perhaps you should read Lee Strobel’s The Case For Christ. While he is a Protestant, it is an excellent defence of the historical accuracy of the Gospels. Christ would have ascended up, but that doesn’t mean he continued to do so…He probably ascended to a certain height and then was ‘teleported’, if you will, into Heaven. We know God loves to use outward signs, like the sacraments…so why wouldn’t he physically raise the person up to a certain height to bring home the concept of ascending or rising to a higher place?.

I suggest you try reading some authors who are true authorities in historical-critical biblical scholarship in addition to someone like Strobel who, though he frequently reminds you that he used to be a hard-nosed, skeptical journalist, leaves out comments and interviews and knowledge from everyone whose viewpoint he opposes.

If a person’s world view is that heaven is a physical place above the clouds, then that is what they will use for imagery in their stories. We can either accept the mythological description and adapt it to today’s context or make up some even more bizarre explanation like “teleporting”.

Pat

 

[dominosNbiscuts]

Matt16_18:

… Find an Orthodox or Catholic Church that claims to possess a bone fragment from Mary that it venerates as a relic.

Wait a second!

If the early church accepted as truth the Assumption of Mary and some dude came running down the road waving a femur yelling: “It’s Mary! It’s Mary! I know it’s her!”, who would believe him and venerate it as a relic?

If you visit modern day Ephesus you’ll see the ruins of a home said to be that of John and Mary. And I believe that ‘Mary’s tomb’ is said to be there as well as in Jerusalem. A third location suggested is on the Welsh island of Anglesey.

The most important question is not: “Where is Mary buried?”, but rather: “What Catholic is willing to depart from church authority and comport with alternate views?”.

But ‘Assumers’ and ‘Non-Assumers’ - God bless us all!

DB

 

[mercygate]

dominosNbiscuts:

Wait a second!

If you visit modern day Ephesus you’ll see the ruins of a home said to be that of John and Mary. And I believe that ‘Mary’s tomb’ is said to be there as well as in Jerusalem. A third location suggested is on the Welsh island of Anglesey.

But ‘Assumers’ and ‘Non-Assumers’ - God bless us all!

DB

Jesus had a tomb also.

 

[jmm08]

Juxtaposer:

Can anyone tell me why it’s believed that Mary was assumed into Heaven? Please don’t tell me anything like, “Jesus wants the best for His mother”, or anything like that. What are the earliest writings on the Assumption? Which of those writings define the belief?

I’m Baptist signed up for RCIA / RCIC.

I can tell you why as a non-Catholic I believe it.
Maybe Catholics have a different reason.

Look at Moses. He died. Satan wanted to do something evil with Moses’s body.

Jude 9: Yet the archangel Michael, when he argued with the devil in a dispute over the body of Moses, did not venture to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him but said, “May the Lord rebuke you!”

Although Deuteronomy 34:6 says Moses “was buried in the ravine opposite Beth-peor in the land of Moab”, I suppose that the archangel Michael had to remove Moses body from its initial secret burial place and take it back to heaven. We see Moses again in the transfiguration. And Moses isn’t mentioned in “the Bosom of Abraham”, is he?

And Elijah was given a ride out of here.

Even as a Baptist, I strongly believe the Assumption of Mary because Satan would love to do evil to her body. And God in his Love and Mercy would certainly spare her physical body from Satan’s pathetic desires (degradation and vulgarization).

 

[dominosNbiscuts]

Matt16_18:

Next step on your treasure hunt. Find a source on the internet that gives a plausible explanation as to why the early Christians would simply forget to honor the Mother of God by keeping her bones in a reliquary.

See:

homepage.ntlworld.com/yvan.cartwright/books/marian.htm

Disclaimer: I haven’t examined these claims and have not formed any opinion as to who is nuts and who is not! But here is one ‘plausable explanation’, as requested. Again, I can hardly expect Catholics who are bound by church dogma to be open to such alternate theories.

DB

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Juxtaposer:

If Revelation were read alone, it would seem as though the ark could be the country of Israel. For example, the twelve stars would represent the twelve tribes of Israel. However, due to these parallels, it seems more plausible that the ark in Revelation was in fact Mary. This doesn’t necessarily mean that she was assumed, though. We don’t know what our glorified bodies will look like. Maybe they’ll look something like our earthly bodies. Maybe John’s vision was of Mary’s glorified body. Wouldn’t that make sense? That he saw her glorified body? After all; she was in Heaven.

I think it better to read scripture ‘together’ rather than ‘alone’.

It isn’t the looking-like which determines a glorified body.
Jesus himself was seen on the road to emmaus. The interesting thing is that no one recognized him by his appearances but by his actions.
(If his body is not granted to be glorified, it makes the point even stronger for it was unreconizable even before the transformation was complete!)

Remember that chapters are a later invention. The passage immediately preceeding chapter 12 says that the temple was opened and the ark was seen. Traditional signs of deity by storm are shown followed by the description of the woman.
But, that is where the ark should be described.

To place Israel as the woman would be strange, for Israel was never described as an ark. But Mary was.
Israel did not give birth to Jesus, except through the Jew, Mary.
The crowned woman is also a bit odd, for the twelve tribes were the children of Israel/Jacob who is the patriarch (Man).
If it were him, a king giving birth would be expected.
( e.g. Gal 4:19 would do so.).

No other effimate image represents all twelve tribes. (Judah vs Israel…). Perhaps Zion might be crowbar fit into it?
Also, the crown suggests a queen. Bathsheba? etc.
But none of those are a tabernacle for Jesus, nor gave birth to him.

In any event, the prophetic imagry of revelations re-echoes earlier prophetic images. To make this really clear consider Joseph, one of the twelve tribes, who had a vision of stars, sun, and moon.

Gen: 37:9-11.

Since Joseph is a tribe, eleven stars bow to him. And the Sun and moon represent the father and mother.
In revelations, the same imagry is being used.
However, the father clothes her and the mother is under her feet. This woman far exceeds the dignity of her mother, and the father is her glory, and she bears Jesus.

The image becomes possible because of Jesus.
That means the woman is a new testament figure.
Mary ( and the Church ).
The Church, forms christ in people. These people are her children. The same is true of Mary. But the images are inseperable. If the image is of the church, it is also of Mary.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Matt16_18:

The bones of the holy saints were were kept as relics from the very beginning of the Church, as can be seen by reading The Martyrdom of Polycarp, one of the earliest Christian writings that we have outside the canon of the NT scriptures.

Next step on your treasure hunt. Find a source on the internet that gives a plausible explanation as to why the early Christians would simply forget to honor the Mother of God by keeping her bones in a reliquary.

Thank you (Father?). However, would the Church define a doctrine based on lack of evidence of a body alone?

 

[stompalot]

On August 15, the feast of the Assumption, we found this in the first reading:
Rev 11:19-12:1 Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm.
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.

These verses refer to Mary. Jesus is the new covenant. Mary is the Ark of teh new convenant because she carried Jesus in her undefiled womb. If God’s temple is in heaven, and Mary is the new ark, then this means that Mary’s body is in heaven.

WHATT!!! this chapter does not mean that at all. even if it did, its in future tense, as in talking about the end days. seriously, this is way out of context. there is DEFINITELY no mention of mary’s assumption inm the bible at all.

 

[Zooey]

WHATT!!! this chapter does not mean that at all. even if it did, its in future tense, as in talking about the end days. seriously, this is way out of context. there is DEFINITELY no mention of mary’s assumption inm the bible at all.

It is** not** in future tense; I grew up in the house with the English teacher; I know these things, yean.
It says “a great sign was seen in Heaven”." Heaven was opened up." “There came flashes of lightning”. “A…sign appeared in Heaven…a woman clothed with the sun”.“Within His temple** was seen** the ark of the covenant”.
All **past **tense, laddie; not a future tense in the lot!! (A couple of past perfect, a couple of passive past, but nary a future tense to be seen…Not one, in the whole lot…).

And Mary’s assumption into Heaven is as:thumbsup: Biblical as can be…Indeed, it:thumbsup: makes sense out of some of the most disputed passages in the whole Bible…