Assumption of st. Mary

[JonNC]

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

For a non-Catholic, it is not a matter of "should", but a matter of "may".  Scripture does not confirm it, nor does it deny it.  Believe it if you wish, as it doesn't harm the faith, and reject it if you choose, on the same grounds.     
Catholics teach the Assumption based on Tradition.  that's fine, as the Tradition does not contradict  And therefore, to claim that Catholics "should not" lacks the same foundation as Catholics saying one must.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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?

Hi Joe,
To state that she could not have denies her free will. There is no evidence that she did, however. I would contend that the fullness of grace she was blessed with - whether that was at her birth, or simply prior to His conception - was never rejected by her.

Jon

 

[Jimmy_B]

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?

This is an interesting question, especially for Born Again Christians and all those who believe in Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). They believe that once a person is “saved” that heaven cannot be taken from them and some believe that if someone is “saved” that they are unable to sin.

So…Was Mary saved? If it is not possible that Mary, the mother of God, the person who stayed with Him His entire life… the perfect disciple was assumed, then how was it possible that others were?

And, if Mary, the mother of God was a “sinner”, as some here have claimed , then is it possible, in their opinion, especially the OSAS crowd that she sinned and fell from grace and didn’t go to heaven? I don’t believe it is possible.

Finally, to be honest with you, I’ve always found it difficult to understand so-called Christians who say that they love Christ but always bad-mouth His mother and seem to feel an indignation towards her. I don’t get it. Didn’t St. John have a vision of St. Mary in heaven (Revelation 12) prior to Christ’s second coming? If so, isn’t that biblical evidence that she was already in heaven and based on the fact that other prophets were assumed that she too, was assumed?

"and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted (and you yourself a sword will pierce) so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” (Luke 2:34,35)

Your thoughts?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Hi Joe,
To state that she could not have denies her free will. There is no evidence that she did, however. I would contend that the fullness of grace she was blessed with - whether that was at her birth, or simply prior to His conception - was never rejected by her.

Jon

I like that Jon… “was never rejected by her”

 

[JonNC]

I like that Jon… “was never rejected by her”

Thanks, Jimmy.

ISTM that as a sola scriptura Christian, that Luther’s stance on marian beliefs make sense. The scriptures do not dispute the Assumption, but nor do they confirm it. Without confrimation, it shouldn’t be an article of faith, but without a sciptural dispute, it ought not be condemned. If Catholics believe in the Assumption, and Orthodox believe in Dormition, and the reformers believed in something similar, it seems there is room for variance in belief on the matter.

Jon

 

[Jimmy_B]

For a non-Catholic, it is not a matter of “should”, but a matter of “may”. Scripture does not confirm it, nor does it deny it. Believe it if you wish, as it doesn’t harm the faith, and reject it if you choose, on the same grounds.
Catholics teach the Assumption based on Tradition. that’s fine, as the Tradition does not contradict And therefore, to claim that Catholics “should not” lacks the same foundation as Catholics saying one must.

Jon

Well put, especially if we are talking about non-Catholic Christians here. However, you know that as a Catholic that I believe in the infallibility of the Pope and the Catholic Church on the matters of faith and morals. Therefore, as a Catholic I must accept the Assumption of Mary, which I have no problem with, a doctrine that was dogmatically and infallibly defined by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. A belief that was defined in 1950 but was, according to Christian history and Christian tradition, a belief that was present in the Church long before it was infallibly defined and long before any non-Catholic Christian denomination. So the questions is, when did Protestants first reject the Assumption of Mary, in 1950?
Your thoughts?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Thanks, Jimmy.

ISTM that as a sola scriptura Christian, that Luther’s stance on marian beliefs make sense. The scriptures do not dispute the Assumption, but nor do they confirm it. Without confrimation, it shouldn’t be an article of faith, but without a sciptural dispute, it ought not be condemned. If Catholics believe in the Assumption, and Orthodox believe in Dormition, and the reformers believed in something similar, it seems there is room for variance in belief on the matter.

Jon

You bring up a good point. If there are people who believe that the assumption of Mary didn’t occur because “it’s not in the Bible”, then how can they believe that Mary ever committed a single sin, if no sin was ever attributed to her, in the Bible? Is that belief rooted in Protestant tradition? Or, are there some Protestants who believe that Mary never sinned?

 

[JonNC]

Well put, especially if we are talking about non-Catholic Christians here. However, you know that as a Catholic that I believe in the infallibility of the Pope and the Catholic Church on the matters of faith and morals. Therefore, as a Catholic I must accept the Assumption of Mary, which I have no problem with, a doctrine that was dogmatically and infallibly defined by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. A belief that was defined in 1950 but was, according to Christian history and Christian tradition, a belief that was present in the Church long before it was infallibly defined and long before any non-Catholic Christian denomination. So the questions is, when did Protestants first reject the Assumption of Mary, in 1950?
Your thoughts?

Lutherans rejected the infallible declaration, on a number of grounds. My main one is that it came without benefit of a truly ecumenical council. I’m still free to believe the Assumption, or Dormition, if I choose. I, personally, see no reason not to accept the idea that, regardless of the events, the Blessed Virgin is in Heaven with her Son, praying for the Church Militant. But I do not condemn those who don’t.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

You bring up a good point. If there are people who believe that the assumption of Mary didn’t occur because “it’s not in the Bible”, then how can they believe that Mary ever committed a single sin, if no sin was ever attributed to her, in the Bible? Is that belief rooted in Protestant tradition? Or, are there some Protestants who believe that Mary never sinned?

Whether one uses the phrase “full of grace”, or “highly favored”, speaking only for me, there is an implication that, while a daughter of Adam, the Blessed Virgin was truly protected from sin (not of her own doing, but by Grace), and scripture, again doesn’t dispute that. Without a scriptural dispute, I see no reason not to accept the historic teaching of the undivided Church.

But that’s me.
Jon

 

[BrianH]

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?

Hello Jimmy
The first person historically to write about the fate of Mary that I can find is an ardent defender of her Perpetual Virginity among other things by the name of Ephiphanius . He, even as a Bishop ie a leader in the Church, wrote that no one knows her end. He said she could have died and been buried, martyred or remained alive.
Then several apocryphal accounts list conflicting details concerning the city and manner of what occured.
So no I do not believe it.

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe,
To state that she could not have denies her free will. There is no evidence that she did, however. I would contend that the fullness of grace she was blessed with - whether that was at her birth, or simply prior to His conception - was never rejected by her.

Jon

Jon, when you say that Mary never rejected the fullness of grace do you mean to suggest that she was free of the stain of sin, which of course would make the next question unnecessary?

If not then are you suggesting that it’s not out of the realm of possibility, (due to Mary’s free will) - that she could have lost her inheritance in Heaven, with her son and spouse, the Holy spirit, just as is the possibility with every sinner endowed with free will?

Either our blessed mother Mary was a sinner during her earthly sojourn, endowed with free will, like the rest of us, or she was not a sinner endowed with free will. The first statement is tantamount to saying that Jesus’ mother was a product (just like the rest of us) - of the curse. In other words, the sin of Adam and Eve which has injured the whole human race, thereby introducing death and Satan’s grip on mankind (“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men”) - due to said sin, also had a grip on the mother of God, and that is the case if she was a sinner, just as it has a grip on all of us.

Or, the sin of Adam and Eve which again, has injured the whole human race, thereby introducing death and Satan’s grip on mankind due to said sin, never had a grip on the mother of God. To me common sense seems to be in favor of God’s divine protection of the mother of His Divine Son and spouse of the HS, even though Jesus’ mother was endowed with free will. What are your thoughts Jon? I just cannot see the anti-Christ having any sway over the mother of Jesus the Christ, the Son of God.

 

[joe370]

Lutherans rejected the infallible declaration, on a number of grounds. My main one is that it came without benefit of a truly ecumenical council. I’m still free to believe the Assumption, or Dormition, if I choose. I, personally, see no reason not to accept the idea that, regardless of the events, the Blessed Virgin is in Heaven with her Son, praying for the Church Militant. But I do not condemn those who don’t.

Jon

Jon do you believe that the ecumenical councils (the one’s the Lutheran church embraces) - were infallible declarations? If so, how do you really know, with certainty??? You said: “I have doubts that any one part of the Church Militant is free from error,” so how can you be sure that the church militant overseeing these councils were free from error? I think I already know what you are going to say. LOL…We know each other pretty well by now. A chess match between you and I would no doubt always end in a stalemate. LOL…

 

[JonNC]

Jon, when you say that Mary never rejected the fullness of grace do you mean to suggest that she was free of the stain of sin, which of course would make the next question unnecessary?

If not then are you suggesting that it’s not out of the realm of possibility, (due to Mary’s free will) - that she could have lost her inheritance in Heaven, with her son and spouse, the Holy spirit, just as is the possibility with every sinner endowed with free will?

Either our blessed mother Mary was a sinner during her earthly sojourn, endowed with free will, like the rest of us, or she was not a sinner endowed with free will. The first statement is tantamount to saying that Jesus’ mother was a product (just like the rest of us) - of the curse. In other words, the sin of Adam and Eve which has injured the whole human race, thereby introducing death and Satan’s grip on mankind (“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men”) - due to said sin, also had a grip on the mother of God, and that is the case if she was a sinner, just as it has a grip on all of us.

Or, the sin of Adam and Eve which again, has injured the whole human race, thereby introducing death and Satan’s grip on mankind due to said sin, never had a grip on the mother of God. To me common sense seems to be in favor of God’s divine protection of the mother of His Divine Son and spouse of the HS, even though Jesus’ mother was endowed with free will. What are your thoughts Jon? I just cannot see the anti-Christ having any sway over the mother of Jesus the Christ, the Son of God.

Joe,
Admittedly, I haven’t put a great deal of thought into it. My thought is simply that she was protected by Grace, that by free will she could have rejected that grace at anytime, but there is no evidence she did. If you take from her free will, then she is not human like us. One the beautiful things about her is her humanity, and the example she set as perhaps the greatest, most devoted follower of her Son. How wonderful it would be if my faith were like hers.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon do you believe that the ecumenical councils (the one’s the Lutheran church embraces) - were infallible declarations? If so, how do you really know, with certainty??? You said: “I have doubts that any one part of the Church Militant is free from error,” so how can you be sure that the church militant overseeing these councils were free from error? I think I already know what you are going to say. LOL…We know each other pretty well by now. A chess match between you and I would no doubt always end in a stalemate. LOL…

Authoritative would be the word I’d choose.

Check.

Jon

 

[Jimmy_B]

Jon… A chess match between you and I would no doubt always end in a stalemate. LOL…

I’m fairly good a chess but I somehow think that Jon would be a tough opponent…

I also believe that he would be a gracious winner or loser…:thankyou:

 

[joe370]

Hey Jimmy you said…

This is an interesting question, especially for Born Again Christians and all those who believe in Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). They believe that once a person is “saved” that heaven cannot be taken from them and some believe that if someone is “saved” that they are unable to sin.

That once saved always saved stuff is so silly and very unbiblical. Some really believe that once saved they are unable to sin? That’s new to me.

So…Was Mary saved? If it is not possible that Mary, the mother of God, the person who stayed with Him His entire life… the perfect disciple was assumed, then how was it possible that others were?

The CC teaches that Mary was assumed body and soul and this is what is rejected by most non-Catholics, but, if she was free of the stain of sin then the curse would not apply to her and the teaching of the CC makes perfect sense, in my humble opinion.

And, if Mary, the mother of God was a “sinner”, as some here have claimed , then is it possible, in their opinion, especially the OSAS crowd that she sinned and fell from grace and didn’t go to heaven? I don’t believe it is possible.

 

[JonNC]

I’m fairly good a chess but I somehow think that Jon would be a tough opponent…

I also believe that he would be a gracious winner or loser…:thankyou:

shaw:

Thanks, guys.

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

Being with the Man God day in and day out, I do not see where Mary would even get any inspiration to sin…and really, inspiration in this context to sin comes from the flesh.

She could not pass sinful flesh on to Christ as His inheritance.

Yes, Elijah was taken up into heaven with a fiery chariot…why can’t Mary who was with God?

And yes, it is imperative we atleast accept the belief that Mary was taken and glorified in heaven upon her passing from this earth, because it also reflects as well all the spiritual insights church doctors and theologicals have discerned for 2,000 years. So it is only timely upon the 2 milleniums to declare Mary the Immaculate Conception, how she named herself at Lourdes, which in turn gave rise to the definitive dogma that likewise she was assumed body and soul into heaven…with no purgatory, no transition because she was sinless.

 

[joe370]

Authoritative would be the word I’d choose.

Check.

LOL…LOL…

Jon, you said:

Lutherans rejected the infallible declaration, on a number of grounds. My main one is that it came without benefit of a truly ecumenical council.

Jon, if the infallible (error free declaration) - came with the benefit of a truly (authoritative) - ecumenical council would you consider the doctrine to be error free, like for example, the Trinitarian doctrine? If so then why? You said: “I have doubts that any one part of the Church Militant is free from error,” so how can you be sure that the church militant overseeing these councils were free from error? Sorry for sounding like a broken record. LOL…

 

[JonNC]

Hey Joe and Jimmy,
I posted this Luther quote before:
“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.”

Under the Dogmatic declaration of the Assumption, is this statement sufficiently in keeping with the teaching, completely heretical, or somewhere in between?

Jon