Assumption of St. Mary #2

[Rightlydivide]

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.

Not all of the sayings of Jesus are in the Gospels. The first chapter of Acts also contains words from Jesus. Luke was not an eyewitness and used sources for ALL his sayings.
Of course there are things Jesus said that were not recorded. This is completely different. This is four or five hundred years of silence.
Huge difference.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Not all of the sayings of Jesus are in the Gospels. The first chapter of Acts also contains words from Jesus. Luke was not an eyewitness and used sources for ALL his sayings.
Of course there are things Jesus said that were not recorded. This is completely different. This is four or five hundred years of silence.
Huge difference.

Argument from silence is not an argument.

If Mary wasn’t assumed into heaven, then where are her bones? Where are her remains?

 

[Jimmy_B]

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

 

[Jimmy_B]

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.

“…This is a saying of Jesus that is not found in the Gospels. Yet we accept that Jesus said it because Paul says so…”
**
Excellent point! There are many similar examples in Scripture.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Argument from silence is not an argument.

If Mary wasn’t assumed into heaven, then where are her bones? Where are her remains?

No one knows her end. Thats what the historian said. So no one knows where she is buried. Similiar to the greatest figure in the OT, Moses, no one knows where he is buried either as scripture states.
Please remember that while some people think the Martyrdom of Polycarp (circa 190 AD) supports relics, all it really states is they were respectfull of his remains and placed them in some form of proper place. There is no indication in the first two hundred years that people at this time attempted to remove bones from the corpse of people. That occured later in Christian history. If people have some of the remains of the bodies of Peter and Paul; it occured because of people’s actions hundreds of years later
So its not just the fact that no one talked about it, because they did not know about it, for five hundred years its also that volumes were written about her. But this incredible proof for the validity of Christianity, this miracle second only to the resurrection is apparently unknown to everyone.
I do hope someone will deal with the dates and historicity of the documents and people involved in the earliest listed references to the assumption. When they do, I believe they will see that this was unknown for five hundred years. I do not believe that such an incredible event would have remained under wraps.

 

[Rightlydivide]

“…This is a saying of Jesus that is not found in the Gospels. Yet we accept that Jesus said it because Paul says so…”
**
Excellent point! There are many similar examples in Scripture.

We accept it because Luke who wrote Luke and Acts wrote it. We would not know what Paul said in this regard with the Gospel writer Luke’s second book. (which also has other quotes of Jesus)

 

[absitinvidia]

We accept it because Luke who wrote Luke and Acts wrote it. We would not know what Paul said in this regard with the Gospel writer Luke’s second book. (which also has other quotes of Jesus)

Okay, so we accept it because the author of Luke and Acts says Paul said it. It’s pretty much the same. My point is that, this is a saying of Jesus we accept as his simply because someone said he said it. It’s not a retelling of one of the gospels (biographies) or a part of one of them, nor is it quoting a line from a speech or sermon, nor is it Jesus speaking to Paul (as the author of Acts recounts). It’s an independent saying. And as catchy as it is, you’d figure that it would be somewhere in the gospels, like in the account of Jesus telling the rich young man to sell everything he owns and give the proceeds to the poor, or stuck in there with the saying about how it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God

A witnesses’ disciple records something a third party said, and we accept it. It’s Scripture now, and we accept it as truth, but that sort of testimony wouldn’t even be admitted in a modern court.

All I’m saying is that even within Scripture, there are things that simply must be accepted on faith. And given the prevalence of references to a woman scattered throughout the Bible which have to do with her glorification, it’s really not that hard to accept it. It would be harder for me to accept that it did not happen after reading up on the subject.

But there is one account which says that Mary was buried, and when her tomb was opened later her body was not there. I’ll have to look it up.

So far, though, the only arguments I have heard or read which say Mary was NOT assumed argue, as has been pointed out, from silence. You’re saying that the tree that fell in the woods did NOT make a sound simply because there was no one around to hear it. That’s not proof at all. That’s just conjecture. The argument that says she WAS assumed at least has something to go on, however tenuous. In other words, there is more evidence saying she was assumed than saying she was not. And the lack of body parts or relics from her is also a strong indicator in a religion that values them highly. If there were any one saint the Church would love to have relics from, it’s the Mother of God herself.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Okay, so we accept it because the author of Luke and Acts says Paul said it. It’s pretty much the same. My point is that, this is a saying of Jesus we accept as his simply because someone said he said it. It’s not a retelling of one of the gospels (biographies) or a part of one of them, nor is it quoting a line from a speech or sermon, nor is it Jesus speaking to Paul (as the author of Acts recounts). It’s an independent saying. And as catchy as it is, you’d figure that it would be somewhere in the gospels, like in the account of Jesus telling the rich young man to sell everything he owns and give the proceeds to the poor, or stuck in there with the saying about how it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God

A witnesses’ disciple records something a third party said, and we accept it. It’s Scripture now, and we accept it as truth, but that sort of testimony wouldn’t even be admitted in a modern court.

All I’m saying is that even within Scripture, there are things that simply must be accepted on faith. And given the prevalence of references to a woman scattered throughout the Bible which have to do with her glorification, it’s really not that hard to accept it. It would be harder for me to accept that it did not happen after reading up on the subject.

But there is one account which says that Mary was buried, and when her tomb was opened later her body was not there. I’ll have to look it up.

So far, though, the only arguments I have heard or read which say Mary was NOT assumed argue, as has been pointed out, from silence. You’re saying that the tree that fell in the woods did NOT make a sound simply because there was no one around to hear it. That’s not proof at all. That’s just conjecture. The argument that says she WAS assumed at least has something to go on, however tenuous. In other words, there is more evidence saying she was assumed than saying she was not. And the lack of body parts or relics from her is also a strong indicator in a religion that values them highly. If there were any one saint the Church would love to have relics from, it’s the Mother of God herself.

No we accept that he said it because the same source of the Gospel of Luke said he said it. This topic is not even related to Mary right now but trying to seperate something Luke writes in the last part of his book from the first part of his book when he also quotes Jesus.
Why Paul saying something versus the other parts of the Gospel (sources also largely unknown and Paul could have even been part of that as well based upon what he heard) is important is lost on me. Luke is using almost all secondary sources except possibly his source for the sayings themselves.
Anyway, there is absolutely not more proof she was assumed. As a non-Catholic your Marian dogmas dealing with the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Viriginity have 2nd century supports. Lots and lots of people write about that. Often contradictory but certainly they write about it. No one mentions the Assumption.
When they finally do, they specifically deny that a tradition exists. That is not an argument from silence. That is a direct statement that a tradition does not exist.
On a side note, there is no evidence that early Christians removed bones and other body parts until after 200 AD. The earliest mention in Martyrdom of Polycarp indicates the bones were placed in a grave or something similiar after he was burned. That is what people do and does not support people taking parts of his bones for some other use.

 

[ERose]

No we accept that he said it because the same source of the Gospel of Luke said he said it. This topic is not even related to Mary right now but trying to seperate something Luke writes in the last part of his book from the first part of his book when he also quotes Jesus.
Why Paul saying something versus the other parts of the Gospel (sources also largely unknown and Paul could have even been part of that as well based upon what he heard) is important is lost on me. Luke is using almost all secondary sources except possibly his source for the sayings themselves.
Anyway, there is absolutely not more proof she was assumed. As a non-Catholic your Marian dogmas dealing with the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Viriginity have 2nd century supports. Lots and lots of people write about that. Often contradictory but certainly they write about it. No one mentions the Assumption.
When they finally do, they specifically deny that a tradition exists. That is not an argument from silence. That is a direct statement that a tradition does not exist.
On a side note, there is no evidence that early Christians removed bones and other body parts until after 200 AD. The earliest mention in Martyrdom of Polycarp indicates the bones were placed in a grave or something similiar after he was burned. That is what people do and does not support people taking parts of his bones for some other use.

 

[absitinvidia]

My point is that if we accept something such as this one saying of Jesus, based on Luke saying Paul saying Jesus said it, then we are already accepting something that does not come from a direct source. Luke was not himself an eyewitness.

I bring this up because many people look to the Bible first for written proof, accepting only what is written there as proof. Here we have an example of proof that a modern judge would dismiss as hearsay. And we accept it.

We also belong to a religion that teaches that God the Son was born of a virgin. Joseph thought Mary had been with a man other than him, and it took a visit from an angel to convince him otherwise and to hang in there.

We don’t question that she was a virgin because this is written. But it is also written that others were assumed, such as Elijah and Enoch. And Moses, who died and was buried, appears later with Elijah and Jesus at the Transgifuration. Jesus had a body, Elijah had a body, and Moses must have also because Peter wanted to put up tents for each of them. The Gospel of Matthew says that when Jesus died, the bodies of saints came out of their graves and appeared to people in Jerusalem.

Elijah, Enoch, and Moses were singled out, but the saints were nameless. Why would these three men and these nameless saints see the fulfillment of the promise of bodily resurrection and glorification made by the Lord, before the last day, but not the Virgin about whom prophecies were made from the beginning of time, who bore God the Son in her womb and reared him, the very one who was come to fulfill the covenant and made the promise, and the Virgin who said that the Lord has looked on her lowliness and from now on all ages will all her blessed?

Look at Romans 8. Those God foreknew he predestined. God knows us all before we are formed in the womb, Mary included. And Mary was predestined to be conformed to Christ; she was even the first of his followers. Not only that, but she is not only the woman prophesied in Genesis, she is the virgin prophesied in Isaiah. Those God predestined he also called. Mary didn’t just get a “call” she got a visit from St. Gabriel the Archangel. Those God called he also justified. God went a step beyond what is done for us so Christ could be born of her, by keeping her free from the stain of original sin at her Immaculate Conception. She was justified, sanctified, and made receptive to grace, but it was before she was born. I know, that is a whole other conversation.

Anyway…those God justified he also glorified. If Moses, Elijah, and Enoch, as well as the nameless saints were glorified, why not Mary? Romans 8 also says that if we are children of God, then we are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, “if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.” Mary not only witnessed Christ suffering, she suffered with him, as prophesied by Simeon in Luke 2. She was the only person to be there with him from manger to tomb and after.

Why would a woman who God was this involved with (I mean, God was her Divine Spouse, ya know?), just suddenly drop her and treat her as ordinary? She was anything but ordinary; she was graced by God in unique ways; she is the Mother of God…and yet the most special woman in history all because of God’s Plan of Salvation, who was set apart from the rest of mankind, is suddenly treated by him as just another woman?

God is not fickle. But of course, you may believe what you want.

Oh, and the book I’m referring to is not the Martyrdom of Polycarp. Here’s a passage quoted on the New Advent website, which is BTW all that I have read of this book:

"St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

'St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven. '"

I know, the year 451 at earliest, and not a direct source. But it’s all I can think of.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Where is the Catholic tradition, now shared by non-Catholic Christians, of celebrating Christmas found in the Bible?

 

[Rightlydivide]

My point is that if we accept something such as this one saying of Jesus, based on Luke saying Paul saying Jesus said it, then we are already accepting something that does not come from a direct source. Luke was not himself an eyewitness.

I bring this up because many people look to the Bible first for written proof, accepting only what is written there as proof. Here we have an example of proof that a modern judge would dismiss as hearsay. And we accept it.

We also belong to a religion that teaches that God the Son was born of a virgin. Joseph thought Mary had been with a man other than him, and it took a visit from an angel to convince him otherwise and to hang in there.

We don’t question that she was a virgin because this is written. But it is also written that others were assumed, such as Elijah and Enoch. And Moses, who died and was buried, appears later with Elijah and Jesus at the Transgifuration. Jesus had a body, Elijah had a body, and Moses must have also because Peter wanted to put up tents for each of them. The Gospel of Matthew says that when Jesus died, the bodies of saints came out of their graves and appeared to people in Jerusalem.

Elijah, Enoch, and Moses were singled out, but the saints were nameless. Why would these three men and these nameless saints see the fulfillment of the promise of bodily resurrection and glorification made by the Lord, before the last day, but not the Virgin about whom prophecies were made from the beginning of time, who bore God the Son in her womb and reared him, the very one who was come to fulfill the covenant and made the promise, and the Virgin who said that the Lord has looked on her lowliness and from now on all ages will all her blessed?

Look at Romans 8. Those God foreknew he predestined. God knows us all before we are formed in the womb, Mary included. And Mary was predestined to be conformed to Christ; she was even the first of his followers. Not only that, but she is not only the woman prophesied in Genesis, she is the virgin prophesied in Isaiah. Those God predestined he also called. Mary didn’t just get a “call” she got a visit from St. Gabriel the Archangel. Those God called he also justified. God went a step beyond what is done for us so Christ could be born of her, by keeping her free from the stain of original sin at her Immaculate Conception. She was justified, sanctified, and made receptive to grace, but it was before she was born. I know, that is a whole other conversation.

Anyway…those God justified he also glorified. If Moses, Elijah, and Enoch, as well as the nameless saints were glorified, why not Mary? Romans 8 also says that if we are children of God, then we are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, “if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.” Mary not only witnessed Christ suffering, she suffered with him, as prophesied by Simeon in Luke 2. She was the only person to be there with him from manger to tomb and after.

Why would a woman who God was this involved with (I mean, God was her Divine Spouse, ya know?), just suddenly drop her and treat her as ordinary? She was anything but ordinary; she was graced by God in unique ways; she is the Mother of God…and yet the most special woman in history all because of God’s Plan of Salvation, who was set apart from the rest of mankind, is suddenly treated by him as just another woman?

God is not fickle. But of course, you may believe what you want.

Oh, and the book I’m referring to is not the Martyrdom of Polycarp. Here’s a passage quoted on the New Advent website, which is BTW all that I have read of this book:

"St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

'St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven. '"

I know, the year 451 at earliest, and not a direct source. But it’s all I can think of.

I know you were not referencing the Martyrdom of Polycarp…
I was addressing the issue of the practices of the early Christians

 

[Rightlydivide]

Where is the Catholic tradition, now shared by non-Catholic Christians, of celebrating Christmas found in the Bible?

Most fundamentalists do not celebrate Christmas. At least the ones I know

 

[absitinvidia]

I know you were not referencing the Martyrdom of Polycarp…
I was addressing the issue of the practices of the early Christians

Okay, but no thoughts on the rest?

And as far as relics go, they include more than just bones. Check out 2 Kings 2:14. The Church would probably call Elijah’s mantle a second class relic, which Elisha kept. Or 2 Kings 13:21, where a dead man is resurrected when thrown onto Elisha’s bones. (first class relic)

I don’t know whether the Church would have had a practice of collecting the bones, but they certainly knew about relics, whether or not they collected them. And they would definitely collect them today given a chance.

Truthfully, they may have been terrified of touching them back then. Or they may have been terrified of desecrating the body of Mary. They may have been terrified of possibly blemishing someone they knew Christ would want to take to himself without blemish. I know I would.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Most fundamentalists do not celebrate Christmas. At least the ones I know

Why not?

This proves an earlier point , that the further your denomination is from the early Church (Catholic) and from the early Christians (Catholics), the further, or more disconnected you are from Christ, His Sacraments and from Christianity. I’ve heard and read that some Fundamentalist Christians, don’t even believe that Baptism is necessary, even though it is clearly traditionally and Biblically based. This is a perfect example of why rejecting Christian history and Christian traditions, in favor of a “Bible-alone” approach is not Christian. I’m sure glad, as a kid that I didn’t grow-up in a “Fundamentalist’s” home. And, some people here, wonder why the importance of Christ’s birth, celebrated on Christmas day, has become so secular today. I fear that there are many who will “Bible -alone” themselves right out of Christianity. I have read stories here at CAF, where people were raised Catholic, or non-Catholic Christian and are now Agnostic or Atheist today and I blame much of that on this “Bible-alone” nonsense, and the errant, non-Catholic, Protestant belief that allows for the personal interpretation of that Catholic book…the Bible. One needs the Catholic Church to understand the Catholic book. The Assumption of Mary and the rejection of that belief, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Your thoughts?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Okay, but no thoughts on the rest?

And as far as relics go, they include more than just bones. Check out 2 Kings 2:14. The Church would probably call Elijah’s mantle a second class relic, which Elisha kept. Or 2 Kings 13:21, where a dead man is resurrected when thrown onto Elisha’s bones. (first class relic)

I don’t know whether the Church would have had a practice of collecting the bones, but they certainly knew about relics, whether or not they collected them. And they would definitely collect them today given a chance.

Truthfully, they may have been terrified of touching them back then. Or they may have been terrified of desecrating the body of Mary. They may have been terrified of possibly blemishing someone they knew Christ would want to take to himself without blemish. I know I would.

I really do not have comments. I have made many statements that did not get addressed. I feel like many of the statements in your post are not directly dealing with what I posted. Your argument differs from mine and as such someone else interested in that line of reasoning would be more motivated than I.
Take care

 

[Rightlydivide]

=Jimmy B;7052552]Why not?

Precisely the reason you were making.

This proves an earlier point , that the further your denomination is from the early Church (Catholic) and from the early Christians (Catholics), the further, or more disconnected you are from Christ, His Sacraments and from Christianity.

I do not believe that we are disconnected from Christ.

I’ve heard and read that some Fundamentalist Christians, don’t even believe that Baptism is necessary, even though it is clearly traditionally and Biblically based.

Yes, some do.

This is a perfect example of why rejecting Christian history and Christian traditions, in favor of a “Bible-alone” approach is not Christian.

We believe we are Christians. You of course are entiled to your view.

I’m sure glad, as a kid that I didn’t grow-up in a “Fundamentalist’s” home.

We believe that our homes are good places to grow up.

And, some people here, wonder why the importance of Christ’s birth, celebrated on Christmas day, has become so secular today. I fear that there are many who will “Bible -alone” themselves right out of Christianity.

Like I said earlier, we believe we are Christians.

I have read stories here at CAF, where people were raised Catholic, or non-Catholic Christian and are now Agnostic or Atheist today and I blame much of that on this “Bible-alone” nonsense, and the errant, non-Catholic, Protestant belief that allows for the personal interpretation of that Catholic book…the Bible.

We do not believe our views are nonsense.

One needs the Catholic Church to understand the Catholic book. The Assumption of Mary and the rejection of that belief, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Your thoughts?

I do not believe the Catholic Church is needed for us to understand scripture.
and those are my thoughts.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Precisely the reason you were making…
and those are my thoughts.

Did you get to celebrate Christmas as a child?

 

[JonNC]

=Alexander Roman;7049648]
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!

Hi Alex,
This ecumenical thing must have something to it for a Catholic to say this!!!

Seriously, it is possible to read much (and too little) into Fr. Martin’s mariology.
He did say: “There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.”
Lutherans are a diverse bunch regarding mariology since, as Luther says here, we make it no article of faith, but consider it adiaphora.
I think most Lutherans would, however agree with the sentiments expressed here. For us, scripture neither confirms nor disputes the assumption as Catholics believe it, or Dormition as the Orthodox define it. So, suffice it to say that the Holy Theotokos lives in Christ.

Jon

 

[Rightlydivide]

Did you get to celebrate Christmas as a child?

I was not a Christian growing up. I participated in the secular components of most holidays most years. Some years not so much.
I personally do not get worked up by holidays either way. Paul tells us to not judge one another based on whether or not we observe certain days and I personally believe that is the applicable lesson to learn.