Assumption of St. Mary #2

[Jimmy_B]

http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/biggerFiles/assumptionRubens.gif

Pieter Pauwel Rubens

Assumption of the Virgin (1626)

ASSUMPTION OF ST. MARY

John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am you also may be. Where (I) am going you know the way."

Genesis 5:24 And he walked with God, and was seen no more: because God took him.

Hebrews 11:5 By faith Henoch was translated that he should not see death: and he was not found because God had translated him. For before his translation he had testimony that he pleased God.

2 Kings 2:11 And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold, a fiery chariot and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose,

**1 **Thesslonians 4:17 (4:16) Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air: and so shall we be always with the Lord.

1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall rise again incorruptible. And we shall be changed.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, life everlasting in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Revelation 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple. And there were lightnings and voices and an earthquake and great hail.

Revelation 12:1 And 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.

What is the non-Catholic Christian response to the Catholic belief in the Assumption of St. Mary?

---

 

[Jimmy_B]

Catechism of the Catholic Church - "Assumption of St. Mary"

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.
2853 Victory over the “prince of this world” was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life. This is the judgment of this world, and the prince of this world is “cast out.” “He pursued the woman” but had no hold on her: the new Eve, “full of grace” of the Holy Spirit, is preserved from sin and the corruption of death (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Most Holy Mother of God, Mary, ever virgin). “Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring.” Therefore the Spirit and the Church pray: “Come, Lord Jesus,” since his coming will deliver us from the Evil One.
2177 The Sunday celebration of the Lord’s Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church’s life. “Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church.”

 

[Jimmy_B]

The original conversation started here.

 

[zdon011]

Thanks for these wonderful extracts, Jimmy. I’ve been participating in several threads on the necessity of Marian dogmas recently. Some of the responses (e.g. from non-Catholics) really got me down.
So it’s comforting to see the Church’s veneration for the Mother of God affirmed at last in those clear, authoritative words from Scripture and the Catechism which you’ve posted.

God bless, zdon

 

[Brian_Culliton]

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.

Where did your magisterium get that information?

 

[KathleenGee]

Brian,

The Holy Spirit working through the Communion of saints…remember, Jesus said He would give us His comforter Who would continue to teach us many things…and this in the context of Church. Before the Church, the Jewish people’s mission to prepare the world for the messiah.

The Church’s mission, to be His bride and to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world.

 

[SemperReformada]

Brian,

The Holy Spirit working through the Communion of saints…remember, Jesus said He would give us His comforter Who would continue to teach us many things…and this in the context of Church. Before the Church, the Jewish people’s mission to prepare the world for the messiah.

The Church’s mission, to be His bride and to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world.

Kathleen,

He may be alluding to the fact that there is no evidence of any belief in the assumption of Mary until around the year 400. In other words there is quite a gap between the apostles and any historic evidence of the church accepting the assumption. That may or may not be meaningful but it seems somewhat suspicious to those of us who are non-Catholic.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Kathleen,

He may be alluding to the fact that there is no evidence of any belief in the assumption of Mary until around the year 400. In other words there is quite a gap between the apostles and any historic evidence of the church accepting the assumption. That may or may not be meaningful but it seems somewhat suspicious to those of us who are non-Catholic.

Dear SemperReformada,

If by evidence you mean written evidence - we should remember that in those days people had a general suspicion of written pieces. Lots of heretical, gnostic ideas were written by people with apostollic names attached to them. We need to look to the experience of the Church herself and the tradition handed down from the Apostles on this matter in the first instance. This is why Dr Martin Luther and the Lutheran tradition (which always considered itself to be “Catholic” as well) affirmed that the Mother of God was assumed, body and soul, into heaven. ’

If this was good enough for Martin Luther, it’s good enough for me!

We must also look to the fact that,at that time, the Church was faced with Christological heresies and wished to define Trinitarian and Christological dogma as the first order of the day. So because something wasn’t defined, doesn’t mean it wasn’t believed or part of the mind of the Church and her life in Christ. Such definitions and things written down usually came about when they were attacked.

In any event, to see scripture or other written datum as a “sine qua non” of proof of this or that part of the Catholic faith is often a “non sequitur.”

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Where did your magisterium get that information?

Where did Martin Luther get the same information?

Alex

 

[ERose]

Kathleen,

He may be alluding to the fact that there is no evidence of any belief in the assumption of Mary until around the year 400. In other words there is quite a gap between the apostles and any historic evidence of the church accepting the assumption. That may or may not be meaningful but it seems somewhat suspicious to those of us who are non-Catholic.

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]).

Along these witnesses I think that the biggest evidence to her Assumption is the fact that there are no relics attributed to Mary. The early church was very big on relics, as is the case today. There are relics that can be found for every Saint in Christendom except for two people. Jesus and Mary. The proof that was offered for Jesus’ resurrection was that there was no body in his tomb. The same proof is applied to Mary. Where is her body? Where is her tomb?

 

[SemperReformada]

Dear SemperReformada,

If by evidence you mean written evidence - we should remember that in those days people had a general suspicion of written pieces. Lots of heretical, gnostic ideas were written by people with apostollic names attached to them. We need to look to the experience of the Church herself and the tradition handed down from the Apostles on this matter in the first instance. This is why Dr Martin Luther and the Lutheran tradition (which always considered itself to be “Catholic” as well) affirmed that the Mother of God was assumed, body and soul, into heaven. ’

If this was good enough for Martin Luther, it’s good enough for me!

We must also look to the fact that,at that time, the Church was faced with Christological heresies and wished to define Trinitarian and Christological dogma as the first order of the day. So because something wasn’t defined, doesn’t mean it wasn’t believed or part of the mind of the Church and her life in Christ. Such definitions and things written down usually came about when they were attacked.

In any event, to see scripture or other written datum as a “sine qua non” of proof of this or that part of the Catholic faith is often a “non sequitur.”

Alex

Thanks for your response Alex.

I wasn’t necessarily speaking of defined dogma w/ regards to the assumption but any evidence of the assumption as a belief at all in the early church. I am sure you are correct in that the church was likely more than busy enough with the Trinity but nonetheless there is a gap.

The early church wrote a lot on a variety of topics but nothing on the assumption of Mary. That of course doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a belief on the assumption but I do find it curious that there is nothing for 400 years.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

The catechism is awfully detailed; that alone makes it highly suspicious in my mind. If a doctrine with this magnitude of importance were true it would have certainly been mentioned somewhere among the legitimate works of the fathers.

 

[ERose]

The catechism is awfully detailed; that alone makes it highly suspicious in my mind. If a doctrine with this magnitude of importance were true it would have certainly been mentioned somewhere among the legitimate works of the fathers.

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]).

Modestus of Jerusalem

As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him (Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae [ante A.D. 634]).

Germanus of Constantinople

You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life (Sermon I [A.D. 683]).

John Damascene

It was fitting that the she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped when giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father, It was fitting that God’s Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God (Dormition of Mary [A.D. 697])

Gregorian Sacramentary

Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten Thy Son our Lord incarnate from herself (Gregorian Sacramentary, Veneranda [ante A.D. 795]).

 

[Rightlydivide]

We must also look to the fact that,at that time, the Church was faced with Christological heresies and wished to define Trinitarian and Christological dogma as the first order of the day. So because something wasn’t defined, doesn’t mean it wasn’t believed or part of the mind of the Church and her life in Christ. Such definitions and things written down usually came about when they were attacked.

Alex

I have read this theory before. Can you give an example of something else to support this contention? In other words, when I read the early church fathers I see every topic I can think of mentioned in some form. However, nothing about the Assumption. Can you give some other examples to support this contention?

 

[Rightlydivide]

I am interested in this Pseudo Melito and Timothy of Jersualem.
Why is Pseudo Melito dated 300 AD? Why is Timothy of Jerusalem dated 400 AD?
Who IS Timothy of Jerusalem?
Thanks we can start with these sources first.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Okay, let me rephrase: If a doctrine with this magnitude of importance were true it would have certainly been mentioned somewhere among the legitimate works of the Ante-Nicene fathers.

And wasn’t Pseudo – Melito rejected by the church as fraudulent?

 

[absitinvidia]

Just a little food for thought from Scripture:

Romans 8:28-30
“We know that all things work for good for all those who love God, who are called according to hi purpose. For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might become the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined he also called; and those he called he also justified; and those he justified he also glorified.”

Psalm 132:8
“Arise, Lord, come to your resting place, you and your majestic ark.”

Revelation 11:19
“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple.”

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Think about what was placed in the ark in the Old Testament: the bread that came down from heaven, and the ten commandment, the word of God. Jesus, who dwelt in Mary’s womb for 9 months, is the living bread that came down from heaven (John 6:51) and he is the Word (John 1:1) And consider this in light of Rev 12:1.

Also, contrast Revelation 12:1, given above, with Revelation 6:9
“When he broke open the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered because of the witness they bore to the word of God.”

Notice in 6:9 that he specifies “souls” but in 12:1 it is the woman herself, not just her soul. Mary is the woman referred to in Genesis, and was referred to by Jesus at the wedding in Cana as"woman."

Also, consider Psalm 54, where the author writes first to the king and then to the woman referred to, “a princess arrayed in Ophir’s gold comes to stand at your right hand. Listen my daughter, and understand…I will make your name renowned through all generations; thus nations shall praise you forever.” in light of Luke 1:45-48, “‘Blessed are you who believed what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.’ And Mary said, ‘My sould proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior. For he has looked on his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.’”

 

[absitinvidia]

A thought occured to me just now regarding what is written vs. unwritten and what is believed.

Let’s say that there is a town with no modern media coverage (like newspapers), where the history of the town is passed down through word of mouth. And in this city there is a park with a bronze statue. One day, a man from out of town pulls his pickup truck up to the statue with witnesses looking on, loads it up, and takes off with it, never to be seen again. It becomes part of the oral tradition that this happened, and the people who live in that town generations later believe it because their oral tradition says it is history.

But several generations after the event, when no witnesses are still living to corroborate it, someone from the next town over questions the oral history of this first town, saying that never happened, something else did. Why? Because by this time the written word, which even the first town has begun to use in earnest to record things, has eclipsed oral tradition, and it is nowhere mentioned in the written word. And because the written word is now the means of disseminating information, they finally write it down.

But because the authors of the first written histories did not write it down, and because the person who did, did so so long after those original written accounts, it will be forever questioned.

But just because it is questioned doesn’t necessarily mean it never happened.

 

[absitinvidia]

Also, remember that in Acts, Paul gives a farewell speech at Miletus, in which he says, “keep in mind the words of the Lord Jesus who himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

This is a saying of Jesus that is not found in the Gospels. Yet we accept that Jesus said it because Paul says so, despite the fact that people who recorded entire speeches and sermons of Jesus’ don’t mention it.

In John 21:25 it says that not everything Jesus did was written down, and that there were so many that if they were written down, the author doubts the world could hold all those books.

So what I’m saying is that Scripture itself tells us that there are things not written in Scripture that still occured.

And the same goes for the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

Some things in the Christian religion have to be taken on faith, and in the end, this is one of them, where we must place our faith in the Magisterium of the Church and its guide the Holy Spirit.

 

[Rightlydivide]

A thought occured to me just now regarding what is written vs. unwritten and what is believed.

Let’s say that there is a town with no modern media coverage (like newspapers), where the history of the town is passed down through word of mouth. And in this city there is a park with a bronze statue. One day, a man from out of town pulls his pickup truck up to the statue with witnesses looking on, loads it up, and takes off with it, never to be seen again. It becomes part of the oral tradition that this happened, and the people who live in that town generations later believe it because their oral tradition says it is history.

But several generations after the event, when no witnesses are still living to corroborate it, someone from the next town over questions the oral history of this first town, saying that never happened, something else did. Why? Because by this time the written word, which even the first town has begun to use in earnest to record things, has eclipsed oral tradition, and it is nowhere mentioned in the written word. And because the written word is now the means of disseminating information, they finally write it down.

But because the authors of the first written histories did not write it down, and because the person who did, did so so long after those original written accounts, it will be forever questioned.

But just because it is questioned doesn’t necessarily mean it never happened.

The early church fathers wrote volumes and volumes on every subject to do with Christianity. There are volumes on Mary. Her sinlessness, perpetual virginity, etc. What they do not write about is her assumption. The first person who does said no one knows what happened to her. He wrote around the year 400 or so.
The apocryphal legends start around the 5th century and they are few and far between.