Defending the Assumption

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pax1972
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pax1972

Guest
Hello. I’m posting this in the hope that some of you might be able to help me in my efforts to explain, defend, and, if it’s God’s will, assist in the conversion of my parents.

I converted to Catholicism from the protestant tradition and am the only person in my family to have done so. My parents, who are faithful Baptists, have always been supportive of me, attend Mass with my family and me when they visit, and have always indicated that they find Mass to be deeply meaningful.

Lately, they’ve begun to develop more interest in our faith and I have begun to send them books and c.d.'s explaining the Eucharist, confession, etc…, all of which I feel comfortable defending and discussing with them.

One area where I expect more difficulty is in explaining, fully, our devotion to and reverence for the Blessed Virgin. Although, comfortable explaining parts of it, one question I sort of anticipate and don’t have a good answer for is this:

Part of the evidence for the Assumption presented here on Catholic Answers is actually the LACK of evidence. The fact that there are no relics of the Blessed Virgin, no tomb, etc… is put forth as evidence that there was no tomb and no body from which to collect relics. I can accept this to a point, however, could one who is, perhaps, struggling to believe or in outright denial not posit that the lack of a known tomb/relics indicates that early Christians did not revere Mary in the way we now do and, therefore, did not think it necessary to mark the location of her tomb and/or collect and pass down her relics?

Thanks in advance for your help with this. I want to be as prepared as I can possibly be to answer questions adequately and convincingly.
 
Not just the lack of evidence. From Immaculate Conception and Assumption:The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: “[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called “paradise,” where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.
…
Over the centuries, the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Assumption. The speculative grounds considered include Mary’s freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ.

The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, “Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might.” If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark—who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ.

Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell “in a body under debt of sin” (Wis. 1:4 NAB).

But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].

In his August 15, 2004, homily given at Lourdes, Pope John Paul II quoted John 14:3 as one of the scriptural bases for understanding the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. In this verse, Jesus tells his disciples at the Last Supper, “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will receive you to myself; that where I am, you may be there also.” According to Catholic theology, Mary is the pledge of the fulfillment of Christ’s promise.
 
Pax1972 said:
Hello. I’m posting this in the hope that some of you might be able to help me in my efforts to explain, defend, and, if it’s God’s will, assist in the conversion of my parents.

I converted to Catholicism from the protestant tradition and am the only person in my family to have done so. My parents, who are faithful Baptists, have always been supportive of me, attend Mass with my family and me when they visit, and have always indicated that they find Mass to be deeply meaningful.

Lately, they’ve begun to develop more interest in our faith and I have begun to send them books and c.d.'s explaining the Eucharist, confession, etc…, all of which I feel comfortable defending and discussing with them.

One area where I expect more difficulty is in explaining, fully, our devotion to and reverence for the Blessed Virgin. Although, comfortable explaining parts of it, one question I sort of anticipate and don’t have a good answer for is this:

Part of the evidence for the Assumption presented here on Catholic Answers is actually the LACK of evidence. The fact that there are no relics of the Blessed Virgin, no tomb, etc… is put forth as evidence that there was no tomb and no body from which to collect relics. I can accept this to a point, however, could one who is, perhaps, struggling to believe or in outright denial not posit that the lack of a known tomb/relics indicates that early Christians did not revere Mary in the way we now do and, therefore, did not think it necessary to mark the location of her tomb and/or collect and pass down her relics?

Thanks in advance for your help with this. I want to be as prepared as I can possibly be to answer questions adequately and convincingly.
Click to expand...
Rev 11:19-12:1,5,13,17 shows Mary as the Ark of the Covenant and the Queen Mother of the Living (i.e. the New Ev e)

certainly the Ark of the Covenant and the New Eve would not be subject to bodily decay

the idea of Mary as the New Eve–the Mother of JEsus, our Life— is also found in Justin, Irenaeus, in the 100s
 
Thank you, all! That’s some good stuff, Erich! I’ll take a look at the other suggested texts and let you know if I have further questions. I love learning about our faith.

Peace
 
“One reason why it is difficult to assess where Mary’s last days were is because she left no remains. The early Church prized the relics of early Christians, as can be seen by reading The Martyrdom of Polycarp. However, no one claimed to have Mary’s remains, which would have been prized above all others. There is no historical reference to the relics of Mary, the corruption of Mary, or the place where her body lies. A skeptic who denies Christ’s Resurrection should be asked to find evidence of the remains of Christ, and the same challenge can be extended to whoever denies Mary’s Assumption.”

-excerpt from ThisRock
 
Nita said:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

The above is a link to the official document defining the Assumption. I think you will find it very informative. Perhaps running a copy and giving it to your parents would be helpful to them.
Go to Paragraph 14 to start with some of the history of the belief in Mary’s Assumption.
Go to Paragraph 26 to start with some of the Scripture passages.
Click to expand...
This was very helpful, indeed. Thanks for directing me to it!

Peace
 
patricius79 said:
Rev 11:19-12:1,5,13,17 shows Mary as the Ark of the Covenant and the Queen Mother of the Living (i.e. the New Ev e)

certainly the Ark of the Covenant and the New Eve would not be subject to bodily decay

the idea of Mary as the New Eve–the Mother of JEsus, our Life— is also found in Justin, Irenaeus, in the 100s
Click to expand...
not only that. When Rev describes Mary, it does not describe her ambiguously as it does the other Saints. Revelation makes clear that Mary is in heaven as queen and that she has a body. She is wearing a robe and a crown. How, pray tell, does a person whose body remains on earth, wear a robe and a crown? They don’t. Mary is BODILY in heaven, and the only way that is possible is through the assumption.

Furthermore, once we understand Mary as the immaculate conception, the proof is in the pudding. If she is the IC, then she was assumed. Period. End of story. Book is closed.
 
Pax1972 said:
Hello. I’m posting this in the hope that some of you might be able to help me in my efforts to explain, defend, and, if it’s God’s will, assist in the conversion of my parents.

I converted to Catholicism from the protestant tradition and am the only person in my family to have done so. My parents, who are faithful Baptists, have always been supportive of me, attend Mass with my family and me when they visit, and have always indicated that they find Mass to be deeply meaningful.

Lately, they’ve begun to develop more interest in our faith and I have begun to send them books and c.d.'s explaining the Eucharist, confession, etc…, all of which I feel comfortable defending and discussing with them.

One area where I expect more difficulty is in explaining, fully, our devotion to and reverence for the Blessed Virgin. Although, comfortable explaining parts of it, one question I sort of anticipate and don’t have a good answer for is this:

Part of the evidence for the Assumption presented here on Catholic Answers is actually the LACK of evidence. The fact that there are no relics of the Blessed Virgin, no tomb, etc… is put forth as evidence that there was no tomb and no body from which to collect relics. I can accept this to a point, however, could one who is, perhaps, struggling to believe or in outright denial not posit that the lack of a known tomb/relics indicates that early Christians did not revere Mary in the way we now do and, therefore, did not think it necessary to mark the location of her tomb and/or collect and pass down her relics?

Thanks in advance for your help with this. I want to be as prepared as I can possibly be to answer questions adequately and convincingly.
Click to expand...
The Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus would be a good place to start…since that document contains the actual solemn judgment on the Assumption of Our Lady.

– Nicole
 
promethius said:
not only that. When Rev describes Mary, it does not describe her ambiguously as it does the other Saints. Revelation makes clear that Mary is in heaven as queen and that she has a body. She is wearing a robe and a crown. How, pray tell, does a person whose body remains on earth, wear a robe and a crown? They don’t. Mary is BODILY in heaven, and the only way that is possible is through the assumption.
.
Click to expand...
I agree with that.
 
Pax1972 said:
Hello. I’m posting this in the hope that some of you might be able to help me in my efforts to explain, defend, and, if it’s God’s will, assist in the conversion of my parents.

I converted to Catholicism from the protestant tradition and am the only person in my family to have done so. My parents, who are faithful Baptists, have always been supportive of me, attend Mass with my family and me when they visit, and have always indicated that they find Mass to be deeply meaningful.

Lately, they’ve begun to develop more interest in our faith and I have begun to send them books and c.d.'s explaining the Eucharist, confession, etc…, all of which I feel comfortable defending and discussing with them.

One area where I expect more difficulty is in explaining, fully, our devotion to and reverence for the Blessed Virgin. Although, comfortable explaining parts of it, one question I sort of anticipate and don’t have a good answer for is this:

Part of the evidence for the Assumption presented here on Catholic Answers is actually the LACK of evidence. The fact that there are no relics of the Blessed Virgin, no tomb, etc… is put forth as evidence that there was no tomb and no body from which to collect relics. I can accept this to a point, however, could one who is, perhaps, struggling to believe or in outright denial not posit that the lack of a known tomb/relics indicates that early Christians did not revere Mary in the way we now do and, therefore, did not think it necessary to mark the location of her tomb and/or collect and pass down her relics?

Thanks in advance for your help with this. I want to be as prepared as I can possibly be to answer questions adequately and convincingly.
Click to expand...
May I offer what may be a starting point for them, a bridge as it were, Luther’s comment regarding the Assumption:
“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”.

You’re welcome to use it or not as you wish, depending on if you think it might help.

Jon
 
Thanks, Church Militant. Your blog post was insightful!

JonNC, I like that quote from Luther. Could you cite the source reference?

Peace
 
Pax1972 said:
Thanks, Church Militant. Your blog post was insightful!

JonNC, I like that quote from Luther. Could you cite the source reference?

Peace
Click to expand...
If I’m not mistaken, it is from a sermon on the Feast of the Assumption, but Google the first line and lots of links pop up.

Happy I could help,
Jon
 
I don’t believe it either (didn’t go to the Feast of the Assumption yesterday).

What really annoys me is how the Feast of the Assumption is a holy day of obligation but Holy Thursday and Good Friday are not! Despite they being vastly more important than the Assumption.

Sometimes I think the Protestants are right to criticise Catholics for their Marianism - it does tend to get out of hand
 
On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII solemnly defined (meaning infallibly) the dogma of the Assumption in the Apostolic Constitution: MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

…44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. …

…47. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul…
 
Pax1972 said:
One area where I expect more difficulty is in explaining, fully, our devotion to and reverence for the Blessed Virgin. Although, comfortable explaining parts of it, one question I sort of anticipate and don’t have a good answer for is this:

Part of the evidence for the Assumption presented here on Catholic Answers is actually the LACK of evidence. The fact that there are no relics of the Blessed Virgin, no tomb, etc… is put forth as evidence that there was no tomb and no body from which to collect relics. I can accept this to a point, however, could one who is, perhaps, struggling to believe or in outright denial not posit that the lack of a known tomb/relics indicates that early Christians did not revere Mary in the way we now do and, therefore, did not think it necessary to mark the location of her tomb and/or collect and pass down her relics?
Click to expand...
I don’t think we can say the early Christians did not revere Mary. There are paintings of her dating to the middle of the 2nd century in the Roman Priscilla catacombs and there was a church dedicated to her way back in the 4th century in Syria.

She was revered from the beginning, and the attempts to make her just an ordinary person come really just in the last 2 or 3 hundred years. It is quite a modern (Protestant) thing. Someone has already suggested looking at what the early Protestants thought of Mary, and it is a good idea, I think. Here are some pages that I hope will be useful:

Luther on Mary

Mary in the Early Church
 
Darran said:
valtorta.org/assumption_of_mary_defaultpage.asp
Click to expand...
Oh, please. Do you think that giving links to works that have been condemned by the Vatican, including by the Pope, are going to be helpful in talking about the The Assumption to Protestants?

To the OP, please read this article by Fr. Mitch Pacwa, a Catholic priest in good standing, regarding the work linked above: IS “THE POEM OF THE MAN-GOD” SIMPLY A BAD NOVEL?
At worst, “Poem’s” impact is more serious. Though many people claim that
“Poem” helps their faith or their return to reading Scripture, they are
still being disobedient to the Church’s decisions regarding the reading of
“Poem.” How can such disregard for Church authority and wisdom be a help
in renewing the Church in these difficult times?

When Catholics insist on reading “Poem,” despite Church condemnation, I
make these requests: First, read three hours of Scripture for every one
hour spent in the “Poem.” The Church guarantees that the Bible is God’s
Word, inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Church has judged the “Poem” to be
a poorly done human work. Second, read solid Catholic theology books in
addition to Scripture. G.K. Chesterton, Frank Sheed, Archbishop Sheen’s
“Life of Christ” and many other works are excellent starts. Third,
maintain a strong prayer life, drawing closer to Christ Jesus, Our Lord,
at Mass and at eucharistic adoration, and to our Blessed Mother Mary,
especially in the Rosary.

If sheep insist on bad pasturage, at least let them take antidotes.
Click to expand...
 
As I have said before, It hasn’t been condemned. There is no real official word on these works as of yet, partly because of it’s mention in the messages given to the visionaries at Medjugorje. It will be addressed when it is addressed. If the current pope didn’t see these visions for what they were whilst he was a cardinal, Pius XlI as pope did. Saying: “Publish this work as it is. There is no need to give an opinion about its origin, whether it be extraordinary or not. Who reads it, will understand.”

Regardless if protestants could understand it or not, truth is truth and I am inclined to defend it. I believe Our Lady more than I believe skeptics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poem_of_the_Man_God
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top