Assumption of st. Mary

[Jimmy_B]

That there are no protestant documents in the 3rd century proves to me there was no Roman Catholic church then either. Many historians even catholic ,believe that when Rome asserted herself over the other patriarchs ,it solidified division. It is if they had all been only “europeans”, then all of a sudden germans said they were german and french said they were french etc. and all of a sudden you have DIVISION.I believe before Constantine ,you had mostly persecution,and the church was universal,growing in leeps and bounds ,Without any central organization, except a chief cornerstone 12 strong foundations(Rev.) and the guiding by Jesus himself ,holder of the keys (Revelation) via the Holy Spirit ,His Vicar on earth.Indeed ,some unifying had to occur ,but at the cost of freedom (even in tradition-think Easter). Even when the East broke off,Rome still operated under the delusion of “unity” -of “one garment”…The bible is a Catholic book ??? I understand your position. My position is that it is God’s Holy Word. Indeed , where is “Holy Roman Catholic” in the bible ? Thankfully you do not see Lutheranism or Calvinism or Orthodoxy in there either. Alleluia ,we are not worldly (need of a king-earthly ruler), nor do we boast that we are of Peter or of Paul.

You are correct the Bible is God’s inspired Holy Word, preserved, protected, organized, translated, copied and recopied, approved by Catholic Popes and the Catholic Church and passed down to us. The Bible was approved during ecumenical councils, which you would agree fall under “Christian tradition”, would you not? Without “central organization” and without the Catholic Church there would be no Christianity today, no Bible and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The Church came before the Bible and one can glean from Acts and the Catholic Epistles and Paul’s letters that there was “central organization” and there was also some division and clarification and correction by the Church needed, very early on in Christianity… first century.

Your thoughts?

 

[Josh316]

Sir, with all due respect, Protestantism is not even the topic, and to continually turn to it is like a Muslim who cannot defend Islam without bashing Christianity.

I asked if there was anything in scripture or 1st to 2nd century AD Christian history that spoke of the Ascension of the Virgin Mary. The closest thing you could cite for me was an apocryphal document wrongfully attributed to the apostle John and dating from 300-400+ AD. Do you know any earlier evidence than this? I’m willing to listen.

Would you like to know why Jimmy responds to you the way he does? It’s because it wouldn’t matter if he provided hundreds of documents written on sheep skin or pictures of writings made 2,000 years ago, you would still disagree. The reason he goes of topic to talk to you about who brought the world the bible (Catholic Church) is because he’s trying to prove a point. For example, the Church can prove through apostolic succession and hundreds of writings that Peter was the first pope and these writings go back to very early Christianity and even the bible, but when presented with these facts you still disagree because it’s “not” in scripture. (it is in Catholic interpretation) So why provide proof for something that you’ve chosen to not believe no matter what the evidence?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Would you like to know why Jimmy responds to you the way he does? It’s because it wouldn’t matter if he provided hundreds of documents written on sheep skin or pictures of writings made 2,000 years ago, you would still disagree. For example, the Church can prove through apostolic succession and hundreds of writings that Peter was the first pope and these writings go back to very early Christianity and even the bible, but when presented with these facts you still disagree because it’s “not” in scripture. (it is in Catholic interpretation) So why provide proof for something that you’ve chosen to not believe no matter what the evidence?

Thank you Josh, at first I thought that all of the Catholics here had taken the night off.

“The reason he goes of topic to talk to you about who brought the world the bible (Catholic Church) is because he’s trying to prove a point.”
**
That’s it exactly, thank you!

 

[lutherlic]

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)

It matters because of authority and infallibility.

All Christian denominations claim to have authority and a type of “infallibility” when it comes to their particular beliefs.

The Bible is much larger and more complicated than the belief in the Assumption of Mary and yet, non-Catholic Christians believe that the Catholic Church got the Bible right and the Assumtion of Mary wrong and then pick and chose a handful of other issue to argue about… just enough to still be Christian but not Catholic…

This is caused by the errant, non-Catholic Christian belief allowing for Personal Interpretation of the Bible and the inherent nature of Protestant churches to protest Rome (the Catholic Church).

Now, there is today, more than 36,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations and sub-sects who all disagree with each other over something .

Am I wrong?

Excellent comments Jimmy!

This one point is not completely correct. It is true that (Catholic) Pope St. Damasus I officially canonized the Holy Bible in 382, later confirmed by the (Catholic) Council of Carthage in 397, the (Catholic) Council of Hippo in 393 and the (Catholic) Council of Carthage in 419. (I am throwing “Catholic” in there excessively in support of your points.)

However, 1,000 years later Martin Luther - acting on his own (non-existent) authority decided to effectively remove 7 Old Testament books and portions of others (Esther and Daniel). In their editing zeal, he and his followers removed much more but later changed their mind (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John). There was a lot of careful study of the God’s word to decide what stays and what goes.

Somehow all of Protestantism accepted this man’s changes to the Holy Bible which they generally believe can not be changed by anyone. Of course Protestants are unlikely to make further edits. Their modern approach is to reinterpret the meaning - widely and in completely inconsistent ways from each other.

 

[Todd520]

Yes, so, why should I believe the assumption happened?

because the Pope is infallible

 

[rinnie]

Sir, you didn’t really answer the question - why should I believe in the Assumption of the Virgin Mary?

Well lets see. How about that the Blessed Mother was full of grace. The greek word in Lukes gospel would surely indicate that Mary had already been filled with God’s saving Grace.

So being that she was filled with grace she did not suffer from original sin. You would have to prove that she was not full of grace. That would indeed contradict scripture.

So according to scripture she was already full of Grace even before Jesus was conceived in her womb. So the Immaculate Conception will serve as a basis for the understanding of Mary’s assumption.

Now lets go to biblical themes. Enoch was taken up to heaven without seeing death. (Heb 11:5). Elijah was whisked into heaven by the chariots of fire at the end of his life (2 Kg 2:11).

So if God could assume these righteous men of the O.T, it would not be wrong to believe that Jesus could assume his own Mother.

Mary is presented as the First Christian disciple. In the N.T. she is the first to receive Gods word and accept it at the annunciation. (Lk 1:38, 45)

She descibes herself as a servant of the Lord. She remains faithful to her son even to the cross, where she fulfills Simeons prophecy. A sword will pierce through your own soul also.

Not to mention in the book of revelations 12:1 which presents a WOMAN clothed with the sun appearing in heaven as a sign. Now in the apocalyptic vision the woman gives birth to a male child, You would have to agree that is Jesus. So the woman giving birth is Mary.

This passage in itself is proof to support Mary’s assumption into heaven. By which she is clothed in God’s glory and began her heavenly reign.

Now if it was not the Blessed Mother who would you claim this woman is? And if it is not the Blessed Mother why does scripture claim she is the woman that was the Mother of Christ.

So you either accept the scripture in Rev. as being the Mother Of God or you have to give support that it can not be the Mother of Christ.

Now many Church Fathers spoke of Jesus himself coming back to earth to take his Mother and bring her to her heavenly home. Many paintings of the Assumption portray Mary in this way rising in splendor on a cloud to heaven, received by the angels with trumpets and celebrations and reunited joyfully with her beloved son.

Her moment between heaven and earth can still be found on one of the main doors of St Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

In this painting she is portrayed as falling and letting go of the trials of this life and sufferings and allowing herself to fall asleep in Christ. In is in that falling and letting go that she passes from this world to the next with her beloved Son. May we all be lucky enough to leave this world that way.

Now you would have to prove that none of this is biblical teachings. It shows the Blessed Mother in heaven in Rev. In Ps 2:8-9 it says ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage and the ends of the earth your possission. You show break them with a rod of iron.

You must agree that is Christ so you must agree that it is Mary who is reigning in heaven along side her Royal Son. That is why she is the Queen Mother, just as it is shown in the O.T in 1 Kg 2:19-20.) The same as we Catholics believe today these same words, Make your request my mother, for I will not refuse you. Just as Solomon affirms his commitment ot the Queen Mothers intercessory role as advocate in the Kingdom, we believe in the Blessed Mothers intercessory role as advocate to the Royal and perfect Kingdom along side her son In heaven.

 

[Todd520]

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

I see it as a catholic article of faith that can’t be proven.

The whole catholic story of Mary never sat true with me

• Mary was the result of immaculate conception between God and her mother
• Mary led a completely sinless life
• Mary was a perpetual virgin
  - Mary was raised to heaven body an soul

From the Catholic point of view, why would Mary need a body? (sounds more like LDS theology)

 

[lax16]

I see it as a catholic article of faith that can’t be proven.

The whole catholic story of Mary never sat true with me

• Mary was the result of immaculate conception between God and her mother
• Mary led a completely sinless life
• Mary was a perpetual virgin
  - Mary was raised to heaven body an soul

From the Catholic point of view, why would Mary need a body? (sounds more like LDS theology)

Mary was a human being so she would have a human body. She lived, ate, drank, worked, felt human emotions (worried when Jesus was lost), and (most importantly) gave birth to Jesus Christ. How could a “person without a body” give birth to a human?

Also, she was the daughter of human parents and the human wife of Joseph. She was at the foot of the Cross. She was/is a mother.

How is this like LDS theology?

 

[Todd520]

I see it as a catholic article of faith that can’t be proven.

The whole catholic story of Mary never sat true with me

• Mary was the result of immaculate conception between God and her mother
• Mary led a completely sinless life
• Mary was a perpetual virgin
  - Mary was raised to heaven body an soul

From the Catholic point of view, why would Mary need a body in heaven? (sounds more like LDS theology)

edited for clarity

 

[rinnie]

edited for clarity

Who ever claimed the Blessed Mother needed anything except God? I do not believe that Catholic teaching is that the Blessed Mother needed a body, I only believe the Catholic faith teaching that she was human and was raised into heaven body and soul the same as her Son?

Now just wondering, Why did Jesus go to heaven body and soul also then? Do you not agree as scripture states he went up through the clouds?

 

[rinnie]

Mary was a human being so she would have a human body. She lived, ate, drank, worked, felt human emotions (worried when Jesus was lost), and (most importantly) gave birth to Jesus Christ. How could a “person without a body” give birth to a human?

Also, she was the daughter of human parents and the human wife of Joseph. She was at the foot of the Cross. She was/is a mother.

How is this like LDS theology?

I would like to hear the answer to this also? Does scripture not say on the last day every grave will be open and the dead will walk again? And then we will have a new heaven and new earth. My guess would be that in order to WALK again a body would be needed

 

[lax16]

I see it as a catholic article of faith that can’t be proven.

The whole catholic story of Mary never sat true with me

• Mary was the result of immaculate conception between God and her mother
• Mary led a completely sinless life
• Mary was a perpetual virgin
  - Mary was raised to heaven body an soul

From the Catholic point of view, why would Mary need a body in heaven? (sounds more like LDS theology)

It seems like God thinks it is a good idea!
from:
fisheaters.com/mary.html

2 Kings 2:1-12
“And it came to pass, when the Lord would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind…And fifty men of the sons of the prophets went, and stood to view afar off: and they two stood by Jordan…And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven…And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more…”

Hebrews 11:5
“By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”

And predicted of Mary in Psalm 132:7-8:

“We will go into his tabernacles: we will worship at his footstool. Arise, O LORD, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy strength.”
If God would assume Elijah into Heaven, wouldn’t Jesus do the same for His own mother? Wouldn’t God do the same for the New Eve, the Ark of His Covenant, His most perfect creature, the woman who not only touched God, but carried Him in her own body, nursed Him, raised Him up from childhood, prompted His first miracle at Cana, stood at the foot of the Cross, etc.? The Catholic Church is the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom! Christ is the King, His Mother is the Queen, and we are their subjects.

And if Our Lady isn’t in Heaven and crowned, how did John see her there as he wrote in the Book of Revelation? And, please, note the use of words here: Mary was assumed into Heaven 2 she was taken up under GOD’S power; she did not ascend into Heaven under her own power as our Lord did! As always, the beauty of Mary’s story is due to the grace of God!

 

[Todd520]

Who ever claimed the Blessed Mother needed anything except God? I do not believe that Catholic teaching is that the Blessed Mother needed a body, I only believe the Catholic faith teaching that she was human and was raised into heaven body and soul the same as her Son?

Now just wondering, Why did Jesus go to heaven body and soul also then? Do you not agree as scripture states he went up through the clouds?

I’m expressing suprise, since these boards often deride the LDS view that the divine nature is more than pure spirit.

I believe in the scripture, and Mary’s assention is not clearly in Holy Scripture.
None of this takes away from her role as the mother of God.

 

[rinnie]

I’m expressing suprise, since these boards often deride the LDS view that the divine nature is more than pure spirit.

I believe in the scripture, and Mary’s assention is not clearly in Holy Scripture.
None of this takes away from her role as the mother of God.

While I agree that it is not perfectly clear in scripture, I think we can agree on this fact. We are RC and in order to be RC you have ST and SS.

So what may not be written in scripture, which scripture itself tells you not all is written, does not mean it has to be written to be true. The Blessed Mothers falling asleep in Christ and being raised into heaven has always been a teaching and belief of the CC.

It did not have to be written until years later, and only because it was only years later that it was questioned. It was always believed from the day that she fell asleep in Christ and was raised to join him. The Apostles have always believed this. And it has always been taught.

And while our faiths are worlds apart, it is nice to see there are things we do have in common.

 

[freedomwriter]

There is a passage in Matthew where Jesus comes to be baptized and John protests that Jesus should baptize him instead. But Jesus insists in order to fulfill the law of Moses. Mary’s offering in the temple was for the same reason— to fulfill the law of ritual purification from the flow of blood, but this does not mean that she had sin any more than Jesus did. Or do you think that a woman becomes sinful because she has given birth?

Also by your interpretation of Romans 3:10 the Gospel writer Luke must be mistaken when he writes in Chapter 1 that both Zechariah and Elizabeth were “just in the eyes of God, blamelessly following all the commandments of the Lord.” (my emphasis)

Did you read Lev 12:6-8 Bringing a sacrifice was for a sin offering. If Mary was sinless then why go to the temple and offer a sacrifice.

As for Luke 1 They were believers in God but that does not mean that they had no sin in theirs lives. We are all born with original sin. As believers in Christ we are all justified in His eyes.

 

[KathleenGee]

Scripture says Christ did indeed build His church on Peter…

People are mixing up Christ as the fulfillment of the Sinai Covenant to the fact that He is the living cornerstone of the Church vs. the clay tablets of the 10 commandments…that were broken by Moses symbolizing…the Law broken…before the Jews even entered the Promised Land.

It is Jesus Who gives us Life through the Holy Spirit…and the Word of God is incarnated through the Church. It is the Holy Spirit who works through the Holy Father in regards to infallibility…the pope is not dazing out into the sky somewhere and then gets some idea and subsequently demands we do what he says.

Infallibilty is drawing on the universal faith of all Catholics in the Holy Spirit. When an infallible doctrine is made in terms of faith and morals, we experience universally all over the world that what has been defined is true.

Mary is a creature who represents the perfect Christian. She is the short ladder to Jesus Christ, who knew Him more intimately than anyone else. She was greatly venerated in her time…why would she not…is it to say Rose Kennedy deserves more attention than Mary, the Mother of Christ??? All generations shall call her blessed…Cleopatra has certainly been remembered but she is not considered blessed.

Mary, instead, links us directly to God when we consider her.

The Church carries tradition…there are legends passed down, that are later proven false. Mary has always been venerated and considered special. Tradition has it that some thing remarkable and shocking happened at her passing – but no details.

 

[rinnie]

Did you read Lev 12:6-8 Bringing a sacrifice was for a sin offering. If Mary was sinless then why go to the temple and offer a sacrifice.

As for Luke 1 They were believers in God but that does not mean that they had no sin in theirs lives. We are all born with original sin. As believers in Christ we are all justified in His eyes.

I disagree with this. Jesus was not born into original sin because his Mother did not have original sin. If Mary had original sin then it would have been handed down to her child as we hand it down to ours from Adam and Eve.

Mary was saved from original sin at the moment of her conception by God. So that she was made perfect from God to bear a son, That is why when the angel appeared BEFORE she was pregnant with Jesus, and said Hail Mary Full of Grace!

Also I do not see where scripture states that if we believe in Christ we are justified in his eyes. If this were true the devil would also be justified in Christ.

 

[joe370]

My understanding has been that Mary was chosen by the Father to give birth to Jesus, but other than that she was just a human being, with the same sin nature and everyone else (except Jesus of course). Protestants generally believe that she had children after Jesus and that she died, as any other person.

Lisake or any non-Catholic at this thread, I have a simple question:

Do you believe that Mary, the blessed mother of God, could have, in her lifetime, fallen from grace and lost her heavenly inheritance, (just as could be the case with any of us) - if in fact, she, as most protestants believe, was a sinner?

If yes please state why; if no please state why?

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by freedomwriter View Post
Did you read Lev 12:6-8 Bringing a sacrifice was for a sin offering. If Mary was sinless then why go to the temple and offer a sacrifice.

• Luke 2 - "When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”, and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

Similar question:

Why was it necessary for the baby Jesus, according to the law of Moses, to be consecrated to the Lord given the fact that He was/is the Lord? Well, for the same reason Joseph and Mary brought a sacrifice. Mary, in keeping with the traditional laws of the nation Israel, had her son, Jesus, who was/is God, consecrated to the Lord, and, in keeping with the law of Moses, offered a sacrifice in keeping with what was said in the Law of the Lord.

What do you think she should have done? Perhaps, at this early stage, announce that she is the mother of God, free of all sin? She would have been stoned! She probably wasn’t even aware of it at this juncture. I don’t think that that would have went over real well; you know what I mean.

 

[joe370]

Todd, you said:

I believe in the scripture, and Mary’s assention is not clearly in Holy Scripture. None of this takes away from her role as the mother of God.

Todd, the Trinity (or sola scriptura) - is not clearly expressed in Holy Scripture. Todd, why are you OK with the teaching of the Trinity (or SS) - even though, nowhere in the bible, does the bible tell us that the father and the holy spirit are one or that the** son and the HS are one?** 1 John 5:7 of the KJV states: “For there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one” - * and this of course is an interpolation and is found nowhere in the original Greek. This is what it actually says: “For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”

You tell me why you believe in the Trinitarian doctrine, defined by the CC in the 4th century, far removed from the days of the apostles, and I will tell you why I believe in Mary’s assumption? Seems fair… If, as a new LDS member, you reject the Trinitarian doctrine, based on the teaching authority of the LDS then please explain to me why I should believe what the 19th century founder (Joseph Smith) - of the LDS has to say? Wouldn’t you rather belong to the church founded by Jesus Christ in the 1st century, on Pentecost in Jerusalem, forever guided by the spirit of truth into all truth, as opposed to the church founded by JS in the 19th century???