S
stompalot
Guest
yes thankyou, exactly y i am so confused and am repeating myself. can u please try to explain it from a non-catholic viewpoint?
- Status
P
PatienceAndLove
Guest
Stomp-
Are you telling us this based on your own research, or by what has been taught to you from your denomination and parents?
I can promise you that the members of CAF have done research outside of what we were taught to better understand WHY Catholics believe what we believe.
I am sorry that you do not have a teacher who can give you the answers you desire, but YOU are going to have to go out, get a copy of the Catechism, get books by Catholic authors (we really need to get a sticky thread of books for reverts and curious Protestants), read and PRAY!!!
S
stompalot
Guest
that is so biased. JC founded “christians”. and where i am lost is point 2, i want to know WHY “The Catholic Church teaches the Assumption is true dogma”
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, of course not! She was still on earth at the time!
Yes, Revelation is an Acopalyptic text, and has meaning for the present as well as the future. I am curious. Who is the Woman who gives birth?
S
stompalot
Guest
thanks and i hear you. i dont think that Mary couldnt have assumed, i just dont think it wise for us to assume that she did, seeing as the only reason why we believe so is because we think god may have wanted that to happen.Greetings to you in Christ Stomp…
I only have time to respond very quickly, so please forgive me.
First and foremost, you had an issue with me saying the Bible says the “all generations will call her blessed”, that the bible says Sara greeted Mary as the mother of her lord, etc. The the Angel said “Hail Mary full of grace, the lord is with you” All of these are direct quotes from the first chapter in Luke. If you were not aware of it, then you have learned something new today
That being said, If the bible says people were assumed in the past, why is it such a leap for someone to be assumed later. Mary is considered by the bible the most blessed women, full of grace, and the mother of our lord. If a man can be assumed do to his faith and obedience prior to this, why not Mary?
What is wrong with Mary being assumed?
If it is because it is not in the bible, you have to remember. Mary Died AFTER the books were written. You implied that because it wasn’t compiled until 300 years later (which is true) that someone would have added it. So, let me ask you this, would you have the nerve to add to Paul’s writings? Or to Peter’s? Maybe modify a gospel to account?
Of course not, so why would you expect the the Councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo to do the very thing you would say is heresy?
I reiterate.
If previous people were assumed, and you have no issue with that, then why do you have an issue with the possibility that Mary could have been assumed?
Ignore what the Catholic Church teaches, Is it not at least possible she was assumed? Does her assumption change anything about the message of Christ?
May you be blessed in Christ
S
stompalot
Guest
thanks but i dont believe “dumb” stuff. if you are so smart then y cant you just explain it?The Original Post asked this:
<< hmmmm, where do catholics get this idea from? i mean, as far as i am concerned, the Bible never mentions this. and, isnt that the only source of christian knowledge? >>
This article answers this question and more:
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Too bad it is too scholarly for the original poster, but that’s the answer to “Where do Catholics get this idea from” in livid detail. Print it out, it comes to about 25 pages if you set margins at (0.5) all around.
The original poster would probably be the kind of person that would find Webster’s dumb stuff on the Assumption online and believe it. My article cuts that nonsense right off.One can still debate whether Revelation 11-12 refers to Mary, or the “Ark of the Covenant” is Mary, but those are side biblical issues to the main question asked: “Where do Catholics get the Assumption from?”
Catholic Answers tract is great too, with a bit less detail. The original poster can now get educated a little on the history of the Church, and come back and ask more sophisticated questions.
Phil P
S
stompalot
Guest
hmmm, i think that is stetching the truth a little (no offense)
S
stompalot
Guest
my bad, it says slightlly different in my translation but it is the same thing, oops sory
G
guanophore
Guest
This is true. John took Mary to live with him in his home in Ephesus. This city, in the East, had traditions best preserved in the Eastern, not the Latin traditions. The Eastern Church uses different language to refer to Mary, in this case, “dormition” is used rather than assumption. However, the belief that Mary was taken into heaven by her son upon her passing is the same in both the Eastern and Latin churches.
P
PatienceAndLove
Guest
???
G
guanophore
Guest
This is a good point. One of the reasons the gnostic positions were so popular is because, like protestant traditions of today, they did contain much truth.2 pope’s who declared the Gnostic document heretical does’nt count?
Hmmm, what was a Gnostic heresy in the fifth century becomes “orthodox” in 7th century?
J
Jon_S
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
If you really believe this, then you have a lot to learn about your family history. I suggest you begin with the Eastern Orthodox. You can find an Eastern forum right here on CAF. Go over there, and ask them if they have anything to do with Catholics, then ask them if they believe Mary was taken up into heaven!
G
guanophore
Guest
If you really believe this, then you have a lot to learn about your family history. I suggest you begin with the Eastern Orthodox. You can find an Eastern forum right here on CAF. Go over there, and ask them if they have anything to do with Catholics, then ask them if they believe Mary was taken up into heaven!
I think the issue here is not about the assumption of Jesus’ mother, but more about the source of truth. If you believe that scripture is the only source of christian knowledge,then you will never be able to accept a great many apostolic teachings.
G
guanophore
Guest
If you really believe this, then you have a lot to learn about your family history. I suggest you begin with the Eastern Orthodox. You can find an Eastern forum right here on CAF. Go over there, and ask them if they have anything to do with Catholics, then ask them if they believe Mary was taken up into heaven!
I think the issue here is not about the assumption of Jesus’ mother, but more about the source of truth. If you believe that scripture is the only source of christian knowledge,then you will never be able to accept a great many apostolic teachings.
You are right, she apparently is not well catechized. I am sorry aout that. However, there are many Bible verses that support the assumption, just as they support the Trinity (a word you will not find there either).
P
PhilVaz
Guest
stomp << that is so biased. JC founded “christians”. and where i am lost is point 2, i want to know WHY “The Catholic Church teaches the Assumption is true dogma” >>
JC founded a single Church on the Rock of Peter and gave that Church authority to define doctrine. This single Church initially called themselves “Christians” (Acts 11:26; 1 Peter 4:16; etc) and are referred to collectively as “churches” or “the whole church” in Acts (15:41; 16:5; 5:11; 9:31; 14:27; 20:28; etc), but that group of Christians is the same group as what St. Ignatius of Antioch called in 107 AD “the Catholic Church” who are united to their bishop, and those bishops united to the Pope in Rome. It is the same group of Christians, same Church, same succession of bishops, same primacy of Rome, from the first century to the 21st century.
But that calls for another couple of threads to explain that. Protestant Christians did not exist until 1500 years later, while the visible Catholic Church goes back to Jesus and the apostles.
As for “WHY” the Assumption I have explained that in that 25-page article from Juniper Carol. But I’ll agree it is a little much to wade through. Basically, the papal encyclical by Pius XII in 1950 defining the dogma explains the “WHY.” Pius XII gives many reasons: some biblical, some historical, some theological.
The biblical: this thread has already discussed most of those. The new “Ark of the Covenant” and Revelation 12 is part of that.
The historical: from at least the 4th or 5th century AD we have Christian people believing the doctrine of the Assumption, this is about the same time the Catholic Church defined the doctrine of the Trinity and the Person of Christ, and began putting the entire Bible together as a full collection (what is called the “canon of the Bible”): the OT books with the 27 books of the NT.
Catholics (and Orthodox) believe doctrine is to be found both in Scripture and tradition (the passed on or handed down faith of the apostles, cf. 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor 11:2; etc). It should be noted the Eastern Orthodox believe the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary as well, even though they disagree with us about the authority of the Pope.
The theological: basically Jesus would do no less for Mary, his own Mother, what God did for Enoch and Elijah, assume her body to heaven. The Assumption follows from the divine maternity (Mother of God or Theotokos), the perpetual virginity, and the complete sinlessness (Immaculate Conception) of Mary. Since she was sinless, her body would not see corruption, so she would be assumed to heaven, body and soul. Mary is a type or symbol of the whole Church which eventually will also be assumed (resurrected and glorified) body and soul.
In so many words, that’s why. You can read the Pius XII encyclical online. It’s a little heavy reading however.
Phil P
JC founded a single Church on the Rock of Peter and gave that Church authority to define doctrine. This single Church initially called themselves “Christians” (Acts 11:26; 1 Peter 4:16; etc) and are referred to collectively as “churches” or “the whole church” in Acts (15:41; 16:5; 5:11; 9:31; 14:27; 20:28; etc), but that group of Christians is the same group as what St. Ignatius of Antioch called in 107 AD “the Catholic Church” who are united to their bishop, and those bishops united to the Pope in Rome. It is the same group of Christians, same Church, same succession of bishops, same primacy of Rome, from the first century to the 21st century.
But that calls for another couple of threads to explain that. Protestant Christians did not exist until 1500 years later, while the visible Catholic Church goes back to Jesus and the apostles.
As for “WHY” the Assumption I have explained that in that 25-page article from Juniper Carol. But I’ll agree it is a little much to wade through. Basically, the papal encyclical by Pius XII in 1950 defining the dogma explains the “WHY.” Pius XII gives many reasons: some biblical, some historical, some theological.
The biblical: this thread has already discussed most of those. The new “Ark of the Covenant” and Revelation 12 is part of that.
The historical: from at least the 4th or 5th century AD we have Christian people believing the doctrine of the Assumption, this is about the same time the Catholic Church defined the doctrine of the Trinity and the Person of Christ, and began putting the entire Bible together as a full collection (what is called the “canon of the Bible”): the OT books with the 27 books of the NT.
Catholics (and Orthodox) believe doctrine is to be found both in Scripture and tradition (the passed on or handed down faith of the apostles, cf. 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor 11:2; etc). It should be noted the Eastern Orthodox believe the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary as well, even though they disagree with us about the authority of the Pope.
The theological: basically Jesus would do no less for Mary, his own Mother, what God did for Enoch and Elijah, assume her body to heaven. The Assumption follows from the divine maternity (Mother of God or Theotokos), the perpetual virginity, and the complete sinlessness (Immaculate Conception) of Mary. Since she was sinless, her body would not see corruption, so she would be assumed to heaven, body and soul. Mary is a type or symbol of the whole Church which eventually will also be assumed (resurrected and glorified) body and soul.
In so many words, that’s why. You can read the Pius XII encyclical online. It’s a little heavy reading however.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
<< thanks but i dont believe “dumb” stuff. if you are so smart then y cant you just explain it? >>
You might, if you got to that “level” of anti-Catholicism. But we’ll stop you from going there real quick. See above for my answer as to “WHY” the Assumption.
Your teachers should know this stuff. Basically it is in the Catechism also, see the sections on the Marian doctrines.
Phil P
You might, if you got to that “level” of anti-Catholicism. But we’ll stop you from going there real quick. See above for my answer as to “WHY” the Assumption.
Your teachers should know this stuff. Basically it is in the Catechism also, see the sections on the Marian doctrines.
Phil P
G
guanophore
Guest
This is a good point, stompalot. Jesus taught a Catholic faith, and His apostles were Catholic, and there was only one faith, one baptism, one body, one Lord of all.
G
Goth_Catholic
Guest
"And the angel came unto her and said “Hail thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongest women.” Luke 1:28
"And she spake out with a loud voice and said “Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” Luke 1:42
“And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Luke 1:43
“For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden for behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” Luke 1:48
“And there came a woman clothed in sun, with the moon at her feet and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.” Rev. 12:1
Food for thought
“And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” John 21: 25
"And she spake out with a loud voice and said “Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” Luke 1:42
“And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Luke 1:43
“For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden for behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” Luke 1:48
“And there came a woman clothed in sun, with the moon at her feet and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.” Rev. 12:1
Food for thought
“And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” John 21: 25
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
<<sorry guys for being a little “upfront”, but i am a Protestant attending a catholic school. i hear that catholics teach that “mary assended body and soul to heaven before she died”.>>
Not true on two counts:
Not true on two counts:
- The Virgin Mary did die, as the Office promulgated by Pope Pius XII in 1950 says, as well as the liturgical texts of the Eastern Churches (both those in union with Rome and not).
- She did not ascend, but was taken up into heaven, or assumed. Only Christ ascended by His own power.
- Status