Assumption of the Blessed Virgin - Help!

[jollybird]

Writings of men all the same. There are brilliant theological writings on many things.

There is also no actual - and by actual I mean Scriptural - evidence for the Immaculate Conception, except a greeting by an Archangel, so saying that one dogma flows from another means little.

I am not denying these dogmas, but wondering whether it does not fraustrate that we have only the word of men to go on for these dogmas… (men that because they have had hands laid upon them have inspiration which is true… despite many holy man having been responsible for heresy). How is it that one is defined from the other.

S

I don’t know why your posting has struck me so but I truly hope you will find enough of an answer to be comfortable.

The Bible was written by men, inspired by God. Not all inspired writings were put into the Bible. It took awhile to get all the books together and decide which would be included but that does not mean there are no other writings that were not inspired. I believe what the Magesterium teaches is 100% inspired by God but the words are written by the hand of man.

RE:Scriptural proof - this is what Protestantism ( a heresy) looks for. Too much of our Catholic faith comes from Tradition so when Luther decided he had problems with the church, he got rid of most Tradition and several of he books of the Bible which countered what he claimed. Luther had some legitimate gripes about church politics and practices but where he went wrong was to leave the church and try to fix it on his own. Unlike St. Catherine of Sienna who had problems with some of the happenings of the church but instead of leaving the church as a heretic, she confronted the pope and fought hard within the church to straighten things out.

 

[Little_One0307]

Morning,

This is taken from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogmas by Dr. Ludwig Ott. What I love about it is that it gives Scriptural and Early Fathers sources with most of the doctrines, I have as yet to read the rest of the book. Fortunately for us, it gives plenty for the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. So, bear with me because this is a long post.

Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven. [De Fide]

1. Proof from Scripture and Tradition

** Direct and express scriptural proofs are not to be had.** The possibility of the bodily assumption before the second coming of Christ is not excluded by 1 Cor. 15:23, as the objective Redemption was completed with the sacrificial death of Christ, and the beginning of the final era foretold by the prophets commenced. Its probability is suggested by Matthew 27:52-53: “And the graces were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, and coming out of the tombs after His Ressurection came into the holy city and appeared to many.” According to the more probably explanation, which was already expounded by the Fathers, the awakening of the “saints” was a final resurrections and transfiguration. If, however, the justified of the Old Covenant were called to the perfection of salvation immediately after the conclusion of the redemptive work of Christ, then it is possible and probably that the Mother of the Lord was called to it also.

From the fullness of grace spoken of in Luke 1:28, Scholastic theology derives the doctrine of the bodily assumption and glorifcation of Mary. Since she was full of grace she remained preserved from the three-fold curse of sin [Gen 3:16-19], as well as from her return to dust [cf S. Thomas, Expos. salut.ang.]. In the woman of the Apocalypse clothed with the sun [12:1]m which in its literal sense, must be taken to mean the Church, Scholastic theology sees also the transfigured mother of Christ. The Fathers too refer passages such as Ps. 131:8 in a typical sense to the mystery of the bodily assumption: “Arise O Lord, into they resting place; thou and the ark which thou hast sanctified, the ark of the Covenant made from incorruptible wood a type of the incorruptible body of Mary.” Apoc. [Rev] 11:19 “And the temple of God was opened in Heaven and the ark of His Covenant was seen in His temple.” Cant. of Cant 8:5 “Who is this that cometh up from the desert, flowing with delights, leaning upon her beloved?” Modern theology usually cited Gen 3:15 in support of the doctrine. Since by the seed of woman it understands Christ, and by the woman, Mary, it is aruged that as Mary had an intimate share in Christ’s battle against Satan and in His victory over Satan and sin, she must also have particpated intimately in His victory over death. It is true that the literal reference of the text is to Eve and not Mary, but already since the end of the second century [St. Justin} Tradition has seen in Mary the new Eve.

[k bear with me, man my hands are tired but I decided to post this as this is probably the closeest thing to explicit Scripture you will get on this doctine.]

The speculative grounds on which the Fathers base the incorruptibility and transfiguration of the body of Mary, ARE ALSO BASED ON REVELATION: These are:

1. Freedom from sin: As the dissolution of the body is a punishment consequent on sin, and as Mary, the immaculately conceived and sinless one, was exempt from the general curse of sin, it was fitting that her body should be excepted from the general law of dissolution and immediately assumed ino the glory of Heaven, in accordance with God’s original plan for mankind.
2. Motherhood of God: As the body of Christ originated from the body of Mary it was fitting that Mary’s body, should share the lot of the body of Christ. As a physico-spiritual relationship the Motherhood of Mary demands a likeness to her Divine Son in body and soul.
3. Perpertual virginity. As Mary’s body was preserved unimpaired in viriganl integrity, it was fitting that it should not be subject to destruction after death.
4. Participation in the work of Christ. As Mary, in her capacity of Mother of the Redeemer, took a most intimate share in the redemptive work of her Son it was fitting that, on the completion of her earthly life, she should attain to the full fruit of the Redemption, which consists in the glorification of soul and body. The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the 5th and 6th centuries. Even though these are apocrypahl they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus is St. Gregory of Tours.

---

Hopefully this helps. I have another section that is the Historical Development of the Doctrine. If you are interested please state in the thread and I will post it as well.

God Bless.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Well there’s really no response to that. The argument for believing in the Assumption is essentially “because we are told to believe” and we are not given a shred of evidence to support this belief except the fact a load of Church fathers have believed it to be so… where *they * believed it to be so is anybody’s guess…

but then I suppose when we cannot rationally explain why we believe something as Catholics, and why the Church fathers believed also, we have no explanation except the Holy Ghost must have told them so.

And I don’t have a problem with that, but I feel uncomfortable believing for no other reason than being told to believe.

If you believe that the Magisterum has infalabiility as promosed by Christ when said the Holy Sprit will guide us in ALL TRUTH, what other reason do you need? But food for the thought cannot hurt.

Who was the woman in Rev 12?

Was not Elijah, Moses and Enoch assumed into heaven? And did they bore original sin ontop of their own? Mary, being FULL OF GRACE, stainless and without sin, being the Mother of God, the first Christian in history and the ever perfect Christian… I’d ask you what reasons do you have for questioning her Assumption? I’d say the cards are stacked against you when you realize who it is we’re talking about.

Where is her burial site?

Here’s something to chew on for awhile, one of the punishments of original sin is death. Mary was without sin and original sin and kept from sin, did punishment of death fall on her? It would’ve been undeserving for she did not sharing in the crime of Adam and Eve, so where does that leave us? And before you say “yeah, but Christ died and he was without sin” read John 10:17-18.

Enjoy

 

[kepha1]

This should help:

Benedict XVI’s Homily on the Assumption AUG. 25, 2007

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

In his great work “De Civitate Dei,” St Augustine says once that the whole of human history, the history of the world, is a struggle between two loves: love of God to the point of losing oneself, of total self-giving, and love of oneself to the point of despising God, of hating others. This same interpretation of history as a struggle between two loves, between love and selfishness, also appears in the reading from the Book of Revelation that we have just heard.

Here, these two loves appear in two great figures. First of all, there is the immensely strong, red dragon with a striking and disturbing manifestation of power without grace, without love, of absolute selfishness, terror and violence.

At the time when St John wrote the Book of Revelation, this dragon represented for him the power of the anti-Christian Roman Emperors, from Nero to Domitian. This power seemed boundless; the military, political and propagandist power of the Roman Empire was such that before it, faith, the Church, appeared as a defenceless woman with no chance of survival and even less of victory.

Who could stand up to this omnipresent force that seemed capable of achieving everything? Yet, we know that in the end it was the defenceless woman who won and not egoism or hatred; the love of God triumphed and the Roman Empire was opened to the Christian faith…

**Benedict XVI’s Homily on the Assumption **

 

[kepha1]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PeterGStanley]

If you believe that the Magisterum has infalabiility as promosed by Christ when said the Holy Sprit will guide us in ALL TRUTH, what other reason do you need? But food for the thought cannot hurt.

Who was the woman in Rev 12?

Was not Elijah, Moses and Enoch assumed into heaven? And did they bore original sin ontop of their own? Mary, being FULL OF GRACE, stainless and without sin, being the Mother of God, the first Christian in history and the ever perfect Christian… I’d ask you what reasons do you have for questioning her Assumption? I’d say the cards are stacked against you when you realize who it is we’re talking about.

Where is her burial site?

Here’s something to chew on for awhile, one of the punishments of original sin is death. Mary was without sin and original sin and kept from sin, did punishment of death fall on her? It would’ve been undeserving for she did not sharing in the crime of Adam and Eve, so where does that leave us? And before you say “yeah, but Christ died and he was without sin” read John 10:17-18.

Enjoy

Was it not the tree of life that gave eternal life to Adam and Eve and after sinning they were cut off from the garden of Eden - thus because of their sin they no longer had access to eternal life ( tree of life) as well as everyone else after that.Jesus was raised from the dead - there was no tree of life to eat from.

Also Jesus did say “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.” (Mark 9:1)

Could he of been speaking of Mary?

 

[Church_Militant]

Can somebody help me with this
Thank-you thank-you thank-you.

I have thought on this and the following article was the result.
Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption

 

[leewis]

The Blessed Virgin and the Church dogmas concerning her are, for me, a high point of my Catholic faith. For me, Mary is a really wonderful example of everything that we celebrate in Christianity, and gives us an incredible example of pure, devotional, sinless love.

One of the dogmas that means the most to me is the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, and I am noticing a certain lack of Biblical evidence supporting it (and moreover it seems that this particular belief derives some of its force from an apocryphal writing De Obitu S. Dominae.)

I love the Catholic faith and I trust what she teaches, and with this particular dogma I realise that I would find it incredibly difficult to justify (without recourse to “ex cathedra”).

Can somebody help me with this
Thank-you thank-you thank-you.

ASSUMPTION OF THE BLESSED MARY.

Those who believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Mary no explanation is necessary.
Those who do not believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Mary no explanation is possible
Leewis
Remember, Mary was Immaculate, Uncontaminated

 

[Mathetes2010]

One of the dogmas that means the most to me is the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, and I am noticing a certain lack of Biblical evidence supporting it (and moreover it seems that this particular belief derives some of its force from an apocryphal writing De Obitu S. Dominae.)

I love the Catholic faith and I trust what she teaches, and with this particular dogma I realise that I would find it incredibly difficult to justify (without recourse to “ex cathedra”).

Dogmas are usually defined by the Magisterium because a particular Christian teaching is being contested or debated due to it’s unclear nature. An example of this would be the definition provided by the Church on God’s existence as a Triune Diety. An unbiased reading of Scripture (without first knowing some basic Christian concepts) would not necessarily bring someone to this conclusion about God. Even the New Testament does not explicitly speak of a Triune God. We derive this conclusion from logical deductions based on various passages of Scripture. To go even further, if we depend on the biblical data alone to establish doctrine, we couldn’t derive prayer to the Holy Spirit as a legitimate practice. No where will you find a command to pray to the Holy Spirit or an example of someone praying to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. For those that feel that Scripture is the sole authority independent of Tradition and the Church for deriving doctrine this is truly an odd situation. You would expect that if the Holy Spirit is God, it would clearly be spelled out in the Bible and you would have examples of believers praying directly to Him. I bring these points up because the doctrines concerning God are the most important and impact all of the other doctrines of Christianity. With that said, why would we expect the dogma of Mary’s Assumption to be clearer in Scripture than the dogma of the Trinity?

The reality is that the concept of God existing as Father, Son and Spirit was always believed by the Church although not expressed using the more defined and technical terms used for the first time in the latter part of the second century. For anyone that has studied the development of the Trinitarian doctrine would know, the exact nature and relation of Persons was not clear among the early Church Fathers until the Church defined the Trinity.

I believe that the dogma of Mary’s Assumption is contained in Scripture implicitly not explicitly. I believe this can be derived using logical principles established by Scripture, by typology, and by Tradition. With this last point concerning Tradition, the Church’s belief is expressed via the channels of catacomb frescos, coin engravings, and other sacred art in addition to the early Christian writings. Lastly, the charism of Papal Infallibility clears all doubts for me. Please let me know if you would like for me to expand on any of these points.

 

[Ndehi]

Cardinal Ratzinger is quoted as saying that "“Dogma is by definition nothing other than an interpretation of Scripture.” See link below. So the question should be how does the Dogma re+on the assumption interprate scripture.

ericsammons.com/blog/2010/04/27/dogma-is-by-definition-nothing-other-than-an-interpretation-of-scripture/

 

[misskay56]

I believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin with faith. Just as Mary was born without sin, she did not have to face death. The bible reference in the Old Testament that you are looking for can be found in Genesis 3:15 when the Blessed Virgin is referred to as the “Woman”. The connection to this in the New Testament can be found in John 2: 1-10. Jesus is making a connection to the same woman mentioned in Genesis. The Blessed Mother is also referred to in Revelation 11:19-12:6, and again Rev. 12:1-17. Hope this helps.

 

[PJM]

=Tannhauser;7947608]The Blessed Virgin and the Church dogmas concerning her are, for me, a high point of my Catholic faith. For me, Mary is a really wonderful example of everything that we celebrate in Christianity, and gives us an incredible example of pure, devotional, sinless love.

One of the dogmas that means the most to me is the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, and I am noticing a certain lack of Biblical evidence supporting it (and moreover it seems that this particular belief derives some of its force from an apocryphal writing De Obitu S. Dominae.)

I love the Catholic faith and I trust what she teaches, and with this particular dogma I realise that I would find it incredibly difficult to justify (without recourse to “ex cathedra”).

Can somebody help me with this
Thank-you thank-you thank-you.

Let’s began by understandin that we ARE discusiing our Catholic Faith… the Church is empowered; even commanded by Christ Himself to Teach it, and share it FULLY.

So let’s find a foundation for the Churches authority before proceding further.

In reading the Bible to get the proper teaching requires use of the entire book, or a entire chapter, and not rely as so many want to do on an few [perhaps] isolated words.

Mt. 16:19 " I [Jesus /God] will give you [Peter alone / MY Catholic Church] the keys of the kingdom of heaven,[ALL ACCESS TO HEAVEN MUST FLOW FROM YOU] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [Binding and loosing have two meanings: 1. forgiveness of sin THRIUGH ME, and unlimited power and authority of Governance with MY GODLY Poer and Aurhority].

**John 14:16-17 ** Jesus Promises to send the HS FOREVER to guide and guard Christ Church. John 17:15-19 Jesus COMMITS His very-person to stay and guide and guard Her Teachings [on Faith and Morals ONLY].

**John 20:20-21 **"When he [Jesus] had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."

Friends this MEANS with MY Power and Authority as GOD. So clearly The HS guides what the CC Teaches on ALL matters of Faith-beliefs and Morals; and Christ Himself gives HIMSELF as warranty of these truths.

NEXT we must keep in mind that God can do ANY GOOD THING, and ANYTHING He God Will’s.

Third: Consider ALL THAT GOD has done for us in relation to the little we have done for Him.

Forth: NOW Consider ALL that MARY DID FOR GOD. She offered up her virginity [a gift God did NOT accept…kinda like Abraham offering up Issiac], Mary endured leaving Eveyone and everything behind and moved to land of many gods and evils, Mary lost Jesus in the Temple, Mary GAVE JESUS TO US [just as Jesus was later to Give Mary to us as OUR Mother too] at the wedding feast in Cana. MARY was there for the ENTIRE Passion of her Son and compined her agaonies and sufferings with those of her Son for US! Mary Burried her Son and bore us NO guilt for our sahre of what WE DID TO JESUS. MARY agreed to become our Mother and Intercessor par-excellance.

MARY asked for nothing; not one thing from God other than the GRACE to do His Divine Will in Evert THOUGHT, Word and DEED. Not ONLY did God grant this but IN ADDITION as proofs of His Love for Mary; Matained her Vow of Virginity; and as God had done to teo lesser souls; AUUSUMED HER INTO HEAVEN; so that in immation of Her Son; She would nor see Bodily Coruption.

God did it for Enoch [Gen.5: 24] “Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him” AND the Prophet [2nd. Kings 2: 9-11] “When they had crossed, Eli’jah said to Eli’sha, “Ask what I shall do for you, before I am taken from you.” And Eli’sha said, “I pray you, let me inherit a double share of your spirit.” And he said, “You have asked a hard thing; yet, if you see me as I am being taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if you do not see me, it shall not be so.” And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Eli’jah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.”

***God did EXACTLY the same thing for these good and holy men; Why should we doubt that God would do the SAME FOR: His dauughter [God the Father], for His Bride [God the Holy Spirit, for His MOTHER [God the Son / Jesus!:[/COLOR]*shrug:

God Bless you,
Pat**

 

[Duddi]

Read excerpts from 3 books below:

1. The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume III by William Jurgens - read the last Fathers regarding what eyewitnesses say regarding Our Lady’s Assumption.
2. Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary by Bl Anne Emmerich - this is a private revelation & you’re not bound to believe it. But because of Bl Anne Emmerich, many places in Jerusalem were unearthed because of what she wrote. The archeologists dug up the sites and followed her descriptions perfectly to the hilt. And this sprung up many places which we didn’t know exist before…3 stories from the ground, we found churches, houses described perfectly in her visions. Bl Anne Emmerich was a German nun, who carried the stigmata, the signs of Our Lord’s passion. She is a mystic and visionary. She was given the gift to “see” the past…and she described the Assumption perfectly in the book. The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord was also authored by her, through dictation, which was used as a basis of the movie, The Passion of the Christ. Read how Peter looked at the heavens when Our Lady was assumed. Also read that St Thomas the doubter, was “again” late at the death of Our Lady. And because of this, some of the apostles & believers went back to the tomb after only just burying her (maybe a day), then found that the body was not there, but the cloth was shaped as like it had a body inside it. It didn’t lay flat on the tomb, but puffed up.
3. Hail Holy Queen by Scott Hahn as well as his EWTN interview by Mike Aquilina. Katolikos is not just a religion, it is also an interpretative tradition. If Mary is the New Eve, as Christ is the New Adam, as stated by St Paul, and Eve was not born with original sin, then Mary also wasn’t born with original sin.

Guys, we have to read & read a lot, knowing the ignorance in the Church, not only by non-Catholics but by ourselves as well… We have to be strong in our Faith and be able to account for the hope that is in us…