Body and soul?

[Nathan_Wagar]

Hey guys I am posting many of these questions as separate threads now, because I think I simply had too many questions at once.

When people refer to Mary being in heaven “body and soul” based off of Revelations 11 and 12, I am not following the inference. It seems more like people are saying she is there bodily because she was assumed, rather than saying that she was assumed because she is pictured there bodily. Basically, what is to prevent one from reading that passage and simply seeing it as referring to her soul in heaven, with her body awaiting the resurrection? I am aware of the other arguements for her assumption, but leaving those out, I am curious how we come to the conclusion that these passages refer to her body and soul in heaven. Scott Hahn alludes to such in his book about Mary, so I doubt he is the only one who has made this suggestion.

I am familiar with the ideas that her assumption flow naturally from her lack of original sin, etc. But *just focusing on the above passages *in scripture, how do we arrive at the conclusion that she is body and soul in heaven as opposed to John just seeing her spirit? This is not to debate whether Mary was assumed, but only to deepen my understanding of the church’s interpretation of the text.

 

[DavidFilmer]

When people refer to Mary being in heaven “body and soul” based off of Revelations 11 and 12…

The Catholic understanding of the Assumption is not based on the Book of Revelations, but on the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII, MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS, which teaches rather clearly on this point:

1. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

(complete text at vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html)

Isn’t it nice to have a Church who teaches as “one with authority” so we don’t need to wonder about shades of meaning in Biblical passages?

 

[ricko]

Hi Nathan and welcome. I’ll put in my two cents for Mary being sinless here real quick. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, she is the second Eve. The first Eve was created sinless as Mary with the Immaculate Conception. You are right about baptism, it would have washed away all sin but she had to be sinless from birth as Eve was.

The assumption is not really in scripture which should blow the top of your Dads’ head off.
But the Church has accepted this teaching as dogma since it has been believed since the early Church. Here is just one link of many on the subject. And for your Dad, she is NOT the first person to be assumed into heaven.
catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

 

[MarcoPolo]

But *just focusing on the above passages *in scripture, how do we arrive at the conclusion that she is body and soul in heaven as opposed to John just seeing her spirit?

Are these parameters not unreasonable?? Although you can reference the moon under her “feet” I suppose, and on her “head” a crown of 12 stars.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

True, but if I remember correctly it refers to the martyrs in heaven in revelations as well, seeming to talk about their “bodies,” but we know that they are still waiting for the resurrection of the body at the end, so I would imagine that Revelations 12 may just be describing her spiritually.

Again, I am fully and wholeheartedly Catholic. My dad says I reek of romanism (our joke). I do not question our church on her views and dogmas and I and my wife are quite orthodox.

I am also a layman, not an expert, I wondered if maybe something in the original greek or maybe a church view of the reading pointed towards that passage as the woman in heaven being body and soul as opposed to her spirirt only. I do not divorce scripture from scripture, but Scott Hahn made a reference to the fact that although one does not find explicit refernces to the assumption, the woman in Revelations 12 is there, body in soul, in heaven. So if you saw her as representing Mary, that would help argue your case to others.

The thing is, seeing the woman as Mary seems to be a fairly new reading of the text, since most early fathers that I can see referred to the woman as standing for the church. I was unable to find any references whatsoever to early interpretation to the woman in a marian fashion, even though it would seem to be obvious initially. Even as a protestant kid I always thought of it as Mary; and Revelations, although being my favorite book, meant absolutely no sense to me. My argument then and now though against the church being the only interpretation is " how can the church be the mother of its own savior?" So the literal meaning of it being Mary seemed obvious to me. I was so glad when I started getting involved with the catholic faith that I wasn’t the only one who thought that. Looking back at our beliefs of the time, I think it tended more to a dispensationalist view of Revelations, so Mary was pretty high on the “don’t care” list.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Hey guys I am posting many of these questions as separate threads now, because I think I simply had too many questions at once.

When people refer to Mary being in heaven “body and soul” based off of Revelations 11 and 12, I am not following the inference. It seems more like people are saying she is there bodily because she was assumed, rather than saying that she was assumed because she is pictured there bodily. Basically, what is to prevent one from reading that passage and simply seeing it as referring to her soul in heaven, with her body awaiting the resurrection? I am aware of the other arguements for her assumption, but leaving those out, I am curious how we come to the conclusion that these passages refer to her body and soul in heaven. Scott Hahn alludes to such in his book about Mary, so I doubt he is the only one who has made this suggestion.

I am familiar with the ideas that her assumption flow naturally from her lack of original sin, etc. But *just focusing on the above passages *in scripture, how do we arrive at the conclusion that she is body and soul in heaven as opposed to John just seeing her spirit? This is not to debate whether Mary was assumed, but only to deepen my understanding of the church’s interpretation of the text.

What your trying to do is understand a Divinely revealed Truth using only half of Divine Revelation. You are trying to interpret the Scripture passage without using all the tools provided by God to interpret it.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Yes, but simple passages can still hold kernels of truth. Like I said, there must have been a reason Scott Hahn said “body and soul.” And if that can be determined based on that one text, your argument for the assumption to non-catholics is that much stronger. I am of the opinion that that particular passage, the fact that no church claimed to have her relics, and the necesity of it due to her lack of original sin are the strongest arguments. What hurts my case when I explain it to non-catholics the most is not the fact that the Pope made it a dogma in 1950, it’s that there is no very early mention of it by the fathers.