Assumption of St. Mary #2

[PAboy57]

Do you all really think that Jesus would allow His mother to be consumed by the earth???

Mary as a young girl gave everything she had to the Lord and He accepted that and chose her as the mother of His Son.

I would have a problem if she wasn’t taken up to Heaven.

 

[SemperReformada]

Do you all really think that Jesus would allow His mother to be consumed by the earth???

Mary as a young girl gave everything she had to the Lord and He accepted that and chose her as the mother of His Son.

I would have a problem if she wasn’t taken up to Heaven.

First, I never said it (the assumption) didn’t happen. I only maintain that there is either no scriptural evidence for the doctrine or at best scant scriptural evidence.

Secondly, our ways are not God’s ways.

 

[SemperReformada]

Heres Fatima 1917 recorded…

Apocalypse 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.”

Are we to believe that the Masonic newspaper of Lisbon had Apocalypse 12:1 in mind when publishing this article shortly after the solar prodigy in 1917? Were the anti-clericals considering the possibility that Our Lady’s appearance constituted the woman clothed with the sun and the “sign of Heaven” described in the Bible? Of course not; not even Catholics at that time had connected Fatima with the woman clothed with the sun, let alone the anti-clericals who didn’t even believe in Sacred Scripture or probably didn’t even know about the prophecy in Apoc. 12:1! This headline, therefore, is an unknowing confirmation, by a public and anti-Catholic source, that Our Lady of Fatima and her miracle on Oct. 13 were indeed the sign prophesied in Apocalypse 12:1!

It’s almost as if one were to ask God the question: Lord, how will we know when the great “sign of heaven,” which you predicted in Apocalypse 12:1, will occur? And the Lord responded: just read the headline in the Masonic newspaper, for when this sign will occur it will be reported even in it.

This stunning fact not only serves to confirm that Our Lady of Fatima is the woman clothed with the sun of Apoc. 12:1, but also further confirms the authenticity of the Catholic Faith and Sacred Scripture.

Therefore, to finally round out our point about Fatima and its relevance to what has happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II, we can say: since Fatima was the sign prophesied in Apoc. 12:1, this means that we are in the Apocalyptic era, the last days of the world.

And so it would seem. You could go on and on about all this. Popes visiting Fatima and direct referrences to 12:1 or Revalations. Its all out here.

Mary is a Blessing, that not all receive. I understand this today. I accept this today. If you choose to really gain a better perspective of Mary. Read St Louis de Montforts “Secret of Mary”. Its a fast read, its on-line and you could read now if you chose, for free.

God Bless. GT

I’ll have to do some reading to see what you are talking about as you bring up quite a few issues in your posts that I am not familiar with.

 

[absitinvidia]

To be fair, the woman isn’t identified either.

Perhaps it is Mary but if I remember correctly it was awhile before any of the church fathers identified the woman in Rev. 12 as being Mary. Maybe I am wrong on this and I am sure one of the Catholic posters will correct me if I am.

Okay…read Rev 12:1-18, and then Rev 19:11-16 She is identified by her Son.

Rev12…The woman gives birth to a male child who will rule all nations with an iron rod, and the devil sets himself in opposition to them and to Christians.

Rev19…the Word of God will rule the nations with an iron rod, and the name on his cloak and thigh is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Tradition tends to identify Mary by her Son, as in “Mary the mother of Jesus” or “mother of God.”

Just because it might have taken a while for the Fathers to recognize who the woman is does not change who she is. Maybe they never gave it thought before one of them stood up and said, “Hey! Do you know what this means?!”

 

[Jimmy_B]

Okay…read Rev 12:1-18, and then Rev 19:11-16 She is identified by her Son.

Rev12…The woman gives birth to a male child who will rule all nations with an iron rod, and the devil sets himself in opposition to them and to Christians.

Rev19…the Word of God will rule the nations with an iron rod, and the name on his cloak and thigh is King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Tradition tends to identify Mary by her Son, as in “Mary the mother of Jesus” or “mother of God.”

. Maybe they never gave it thought before one of them stood up and said, “Hey! Do you know what this means?!”

• “Just because it might have taken a while for the Fathers to recognize who the woman is does not change who she is…”*

 

[Good_Fella]

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.

We have implicit evidence of Christian belief in the Assumption of Mary in extant extracts of writings of the early Church Fathers. Although there are no explicit teachings on record until the sixth century, it does appear that the early Christians must have believed in this supernatural event. Observe what these ECFs of the East and West had to say about our Blessed Mother by the early third century. The Church Fathers of the later centuries did not conjure up this doctrine, but rather affirmed it in more explicit terms in accord with the Apostolic Tradition of the one universal Church.

“He was born of Mary the fair ewe.”
Melito de Sardo, Easter Homily (A.D. 177)

“The former (Eve) was seduced to disobey God, but the latter (Mary) was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V: 19, 1 (A.D. 180)

“Bust she is once virgin and mother – pure as a virgin – loving as a mother. And calling her children to her, she nourishes them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood.”
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6 (A.D. 202)

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that his tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.”
Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D.235)

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.”
Origen, Homily 1 (A.D. 244)

PAX :harp:

www.justinangel.stblogs.com/a-wild-assumption/

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’ve posted these words by the Saints before, but I find them so amazing, that they are worth repeating.

Mary alone found grace with God for herself and for every individual person. No patriarch or prophet or any other holy person of the Old Law could manage to find this grace.

It was Mary who gave existence and life to the author of all grace, and because of this she is called the “Mother of Grace”.

God the Father, from whom, as from its essential source, every perfect gift and every grace come down to us , gave her every grace when he gave her his Son. Thus, as St Bernard says, the will of God is manifested to her in Jesus and with Jesus.

God chose her to be the treasurer, the administrator and the dispenser of all his graces, so that all his graces and gifts pass through her hands. Such is the power that she has received from him that, according to St Bernardine, she gives the graces of the eternal Father, the virtues of Jesus Christ, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit to whom she wills, as and when she wills, and as much as she wills.

Saint Louis de Montfort,

Because of Marys humility and obediance let us not underestimate her place in Gods Heart or in Heaven.

It comes to this, then. We must discover a simple means to obtain from God the grace needed to become holy. My contention is that you must first discover Mary if you would obtain this grace from God. What God saw in Mary, we need to constantly search and strive for.

I can’t even wrap my mind around all this woman accomplished in such an ancient time like BC I’m not even sure we can put our faith in the same sentence with Marys. I strive to be that humble and unassuming.

And this isn’t to take anything away from God, thats a whole other level of consciousness. I can’t grasp Mary, So I can’t even pretend to understand God. Believe ne this is in the spirit of reverence for God/Christ.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’ll have to do some reading to see what you are talking about as you bring up quite a few issues in your posts that I am not familiar with.

My friend, its certainly not my intention for you to feel anything but at home here. And I’m sure its safe for me to say, others feel the same. Theres much respect for Mary here. You wouldn’t have to look far to see that.

And I fully understand, I was very hard-headed about Our Lady and I was born into this Faith. So I get it.,believe me.

But I started Praying the Rosary way before I began to research the Blessed Mother. Because of the difference I felt in my life, I began to try to understand what was happening by research.

 

[Good_Fella]

To be fair, the woman isn’t identified either.

Perhaps it is Mary but if I remember correctly it was awhile before any of the church fathers identified the woman in Rev. 12 as being Mary. Maybe I am wrong on this and I am sure one of the Catholic posters will correct me if I am.

When John originally wrote the Apocalypse, there were no chapter breaks - not until the middle ages. So 11:19 and 12:1 are running contextually coherently with one another. The ark that the evangelist envisions in Heaven is the Ark of the New Covenant, the Woman who is clothed with the sun. Luke clearly typifies Mary as the ark of the covenant in his Infancy Narrative about Mary’s visit to her cousin Elizabeth by alluding to 2 Samuel 6. The first Christians in Palestine had already traditionally perceived Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant by the time the evangelist penned his gospel, which means that this doctrine originated with the Apostles.

“His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.”
Hippolytus

 

[ERose]

To be fair, the woman isn’t identified either.

Perhaps it is Mary but if I remember correctly it was awhile before any of the church fathers identified the woman in Rev. 12 as being Mary. Maybe I am wrong on this and I am sure one of the Catholic posters will correct me if I am.

Who else gave birth to Jesus? Or in your opinion is there going to be another messiah?

 

[SemperReformada]

My friend, its certainly not my intention for you to feel anything but at home here. And I’m sure its safe for me to say, others feel the same. Theres much respect for Mary here. You wouldn’t have to look far to see that.

And I fully understand, I was very hard-headed about Our Lady and I was born into this Faith. So I get it.,believe me.

But I started Praying the Rosary way before I began to research the Blessed Mother. Because of the difference I felt in my life, I began to try to understand what was happening by research.

Don’t worry. You did not make me feel uncomfortable but you did bring up some issues that I had not heard of before.

Thanks for your response.

 

[SemperReformada]

Who else gave birth to Jesus? Or in your opinion is there going to be another messiah?

Okay the woman in Rev. 12 is Mary.

It still appears to me to be a leap to conclude that she was bodily assumed into Heaven.

 

[SemperReformada]

We have implicit evidence of Christian belief in the Assumption of Mary in extant extracts of writings of the early Church Fathers. Although there are no explicit teachings on record until the sixth century, it does appear that the early Christians must have believed in this supernatural event. Observe what these ECFs of the East and West had to say about our Blessed Mother by the early third century. The Church Fathers of the later centuries did not conjure up this doctrine, but rather affirmed it in more explicit terms in accord with the Apostolic Tradition of the one universal Church.

“He was born of Mary the fair ewe.”
Melito de Sardo, Easter Homily (A.D. 177)

“The former (Eve) was seduced to disobey God, but the latter (Mary) was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V: 19, 1 (A.D. 180)

“Bust she is once virgin and mother – pure as a virgin – loving as a mother. And calling her children to her, she nourishes them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood.”
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6 (A.D. 202)

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that his tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.”
Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D.235)

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.”
Origen, Homily 1 (A.D. 244)

PAX :harp:

www.justinangel.stblogs.com/a-wild-assumption/

GoodFella,

Thanks for your post.

I’m not sure if I even see implicit evidence of the assumption in the above quotes. On the other thread dealing w/ the assumption a Catholic poster had made the point that if Mary was sinless she would not have been made to decay in the grave.

Is that what you are getting at?

 

[absitinvidia]

Okay the woman in Rev. 12 is Mary.

It still appears to me to be a leap to conclude that she was bodily assumed into Heaven.

Okay, now we’re starting to be on the same page.

So, now let’s look at the Gospel of John 20:24-29
Jesus has to prove to Thomas that it really is him, in the flesh. Then at the end of Mark and Luke, Jesus is taken up to heaven. That’s body, blood, soul and divinity. All taken up to heaven.

Now look at Psalm 132:8
“Arise, Lord, come to your resting place, you and your majestic ark.” Remember that Rev 11:19 is part of the same narrative as Rev 12. And Mary is the ark. Jesus was taken up bodily, it follows that when he brought his ark to himself it would be bodily.

And again, John, who wrote Revelation, makes a distinction when he says souls in one place. Why would he not say Mary’s soul if that’s what he meant?

 

[SemperReformada]

When John originally wrote the Apocalypse, there were no chapter breaks - not until the middle ages. So 11:19 and 12:1 are running contextually coherently with one another. The ark that the evangelist envisions in Heaven is the Ark of the New Covenant, the Woman who is clothed with the sun. Luke clearly typifies Mary as the ark of the covenant in his Infancy Narrative about Mary’s visit to her cousin Elizabeth by alluding to 2 Samuel 6. The first Christians in Palestine had already traditionally perceived Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant by the time the evangelist penned his gospel, which means that this doctrine originated with the Apostles.

“His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.”
Hippolytus

I’ve read a good deal on this typology and do find it quite interesting. But given that typology has no rules and the highly symbolic nature of the book of Revelations it just seems to me to be quite a leap to go from Mary’s soul being in heaven to believing scripture implies that her body was assumed into heaven.

Thanks for your post.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I’ve read a good deal on this typology and do find it quite interesting. But given and the highly symbolic nature of the book of Revelations it just seems to me to be quite a leap to go from Mary’s soul being in heaven to believing scripture implies that her body was assumed into heaven.

Thanks for your post.

Hello SemperReformada,

What did you mean, when you wrote that "typology has no rules"? Understanding the use of metaphors’, parables, allegories and typology and so on, in the Bible, help’s us to understand the Bible. For example, typology, is one of the ways that we prove that Christ was the Messiah. Typology, is one of the reasons that the Old Testament was included with the New Testament, to make the Bible… right? Please explain yourself. Thank you.

 

[Good_Fella]

GoodFella,

Thanks for your post.

I’m not sure if I even see implicit evidence of the assumption in the above quotes. On the other thread dealing w/ the assumption a Catholic poster had made the point that if Mary was sinless she would not have been made to decay in the grave.

Is that what you are getting at?

Yes. The dogma of the Assumption rests on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The early Church Fathers regarded Mary as a pure and undefiled (sacred) type of ark of the covenant and the anti-type of Eve. They would have been inconsistent in their beliefs if they hadn’t believed Mary was spared the corruption of the tomb.

PAX :heaven:

 

[Jimmy_B]

Yes. The dogma of the Assumption rests on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The early Church Fathers regarded Mary as a pure and undefiled (sacred) type of ark of the covenant and the anti-type of Eve. They would have been inconsistent in their beliefs if they hadn’t believed Mary was spared the corruption of the tomb.

PAX :heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

I’ve read a good deal on this typology and do find it quite interesting. But given that typology has no rules and the highly symbolic nature of the book of Revelations it just seems to me to be quite a leap to go from Mary’s soul being in heaven to believing scripture implies that her body was assumed into heaven.

Thanks for your post.

My pleasure. :tiphat:

Typology is a literary device used by the authors of the Sacred Texts by the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is the Church founded by Christ which is invested with the authority of governing how this medium is to be interpreted and applied in accord with her traditional beliefs under the guidance of the Paraclete.

Mary is a composite being of body and soul, but when she is typified as the Ark of the New Covenant it is her corporeal constitution which is primarily referred to. She physically held the divine Word become flesh and our eternal High Priest in the tabernacle of her body and in the sanctuary of her womb. For this reason the infant and early Church could not possibly have believed Mary’s holy body underwent the profanity of corruption. The ancient Jews who were the first to become Christians in fulfillment of their Judaic heritage were sensibly aware of the fact that the ark of the Old Covenant - a physical object - was the most sacred religious vessel in their tradition. It was regarded so pure that no common person should touch it. The sacred must make no contact with the profane.

PAX :heaven:

 

[Jimmy_B]

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?

---