Defending the Assumption

[GraceSofia]

As I have said before, It hasn’t been condemned.

Yes, it has been. It certainly has not been approved, and promoting it in a thread on Marian Apologetics is not appropriate, IMO.

Pope John XXIII, ordered The Poem of the Man God put on the index, on Dec. 16, 1960. The Index is now abolished, but Cardinal Ratzinger in a letter of Jan 31, 1985 wrote:…“The Index of forbidden books keeps all of its moral authority and therefore the distribution and recommendation of the work is considered improper when its condemnation was not made lightly but with the most serious motivation of neutralizing the harm which such publication could inflict on the more unwary faithful.”

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryd8.htm

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.

Medjugorje is not approved, and I believe it is a banned topic on the forum.

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.”

The statement was allegedly spoken by Pope Pius XII in a private meeting.

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.

You are defending Maria Valtorta, not Our Lady. And placing yourself in opposition to the likes of Pope Benedict.

On the other side, there is the case of Maria Valtorta, author of The Poem of the Man-God. Her personal life raises serious questions. In the words of Fr. Benedict Groeschel, who happens to be a trained psychologist: “Miss Valtorta was a very devout and intelligent person. She spent the last ten years of her life in complete catatonic schizophrenia, unable to speak to anyone. This disease came on her gradually. It’s important to realize that the progress of a disease like that may take many years before the acute symptoms occur. Although this book is interesting to read and has a certain poetic beauty to it, Cardinal Ratzinger referred to it as ‘a lump of theological absurdities.’”

Ratzinger and Groeschel are nobody’s fools. I’m aware of the unjust scarlet letter associated with mental illness. Still, we are irresponsible to ourselves if we discount these facts. Likewise, we do well to note, says Groeschel, that The Poem of the Man-God was on the list of “forbidden books and has never been given papal approval, contrary to popular belief.” A challenge, therefore, should be issued to the “uncritical ease” with which this book and others like it have made deep inroads into Catholic living

.
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806fea3.asp

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger writing of the poem in a letter to Cardinal Siri, Archbishop of Genoa, on January 31, 1985 said the following:

“A decision against distributing and recommending a work which has not been lightly condemned may be reversed but only after profound changes that neutralize the harm which such publications could bring forth among the ordinary faithful.”

“[The Poem of the Man God has already been] examined scientifically and placed in a well known category of mental sicknesses……………The facts added to the second edition do not change the nature of the work, which evidences being a mountain of childishness, of fantasies and of historical and exegetical falsehoods, diluted in a subtly sensual atmosphere, through the presence of a group of women in the company of Jesus. On the whole, it is a heap of pseudo-religiosity. Therefore, also for the second edition, the judgment of the Church to condemn it retains its validity.”
A Still Small Voice: A Practical Guide on Reported Revelations by Fr Benedict Groeschel, Page 58

books.google.com/books?id=A1NrfO … 4#PPA58,M1

 

[Darran]

Yes, it has been. It certainly has not been approved, and promoting it in a thread on Marian Apologetics is not appropriate, IMO.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryd8.htm

Medjugorje is not approved, and I believe it is a banned topic on the forum.

The statement was allegedly spoken by Pope Pius XII in a private meeting.

You are defending Maria Valtorta, not Our Lady. And placing yourself in opposition to the likes of Pope Benedict.
.
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806fea3.asp

books.google.com/books?id=A1NrfO … 4#PPA58,M1

It hasn’t been approved, but it is silent as with Medjugorje. I don’t have a problem with Pope Benedict, there is nothing to say that he hasn’t changed his mind since being cardinal, but he was not Pope at the time. If he held a contrary opinion to Pope Pius XII, then you will have found something terrifying about one of them, which is nothing to do with me.

Three Servite priests were present with Pope Pius, it is not so much private and was well documented in the l’Osservatore Romano. There is no basis to doubt authenticity on this aspect. Infact I am defending both Our Lady and Valtorta, to quote the message to Ivankovic “If a person wants to know Jesus he should read Maria Valtorta. That book is the truth”.

If it is a banned subject, I cannot apologise. I have only spoken by sources outside myself and within the Church, any opposition was already in place. I gave a link to the message to Maria about the assumption and didn’t say anything else, because nothing else needs to be said about it. They are true writings of a witness, for those who can read it and understand it with simple faith, it is there to read.

valtorta.org/church_approval_history_reviews_and_critiques.html

“If Maria Valtorta was mentally ill, was it her illness that allowed her to accurately transcribe in 1945 what planets and stars were in the night sky on specific days 2,000 years ago (verified by a Harvard educated Theoretical Physicist - link loads slowly) without the assistance of modern complex astronomical computer algorithms? Was her illness that gave her knowledge of first century Palestinian geography, towns and villages (nine of which were unknown before her death) that were not available in any published atlases or journals during her lifetime? Was it her illness that enabled her to write 647 chapters (15,000 pages) in random order in glue bound binder notebooks (with no corrections), at the conclusion (when Jesus purportedly gives the chapter sequence) unfolds from a well-shuffled deck of cards into a perfectly seamless flowing chronology (that only materialized when her work was typed and could be sequenced to the key), in which Jesus traverses the land of Palestine from one end to another in five cycles (some 4,000 miles), ministering in 343 named locations in proper order (that have been route mapped) without error? All this while paralyzed from the waist down for 28 years in a bed? The Harvard Educated Physicist concluded: "These impossibly exact details “tax the credulity of even the immovable atheist more than the alternative that Jesus showed it to her. In the words of Sherlock Holmes, when you eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however merely improbable, must be true” (Professor Lonnie Lee VanZandt).”

Source: mariavaltortawebring.com/Pages/004_Correspondence.htm

 

[Darran]

It’s not my intention to go off topic on these works, I just thought my link might hold insights that I couldn’t give, although the webpage is rather hard to read, it could be worth it.

Sorry for the double post, I couldn’t work out how to edit my last one.

 

[razredge]

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

She was revered in the same way the apostles and early saints were revered, she definitely was not granted the demi-god status too many Catholics grant her.

Certainly, St Paul & the writers of the other epistles make no indication that Mary was of great theological significance.

And we do have a purported location of Mary’s tomb:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary%27s_Tomb

The lack of relics can easily be explained by the fact that relic collecting was largely a feature of the later church and the legend/myth that developed of the Assumption of Mary predates this period.

 

[Viola_Incognita]

She was revered in the same way the apostles and early saints were revered, she definitely was not granted the demi-god status too many Catholics grant her.

Certainly, St Paul & the writers of the other epistles make no indication that Mary was of great theological significance.

And we do have a purported location of Mary’s tomb:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary%27s_Tomb

The lack of relics can easily be explained by the fact that relic collecting was largely a feature of the later church and the legend/myth that developed of the Assumption of Mary predates this period.

I’m sorry that you’re gotten the impression that many Catholics view Mary as a demi-god. When you’ve got such a great Mother, it’s sometimes hard not to go overboard. We love our Mother!

St. Paul and the early writers were busy dealing with conflicts. Mary, as the Mother of the Christ, was not an area of conflict, thus they didn’t need to talk about her. They were busy building the Church.

I guess you missed this part of the wikipedia article:

“The Sacred Tradition of Eastern Christianity teaches that the Virgin Mary died a natural death (the Dormition of the Theotokos, the falling asleep) like any human being; that her soul was received by Christ upon death; and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her repose, at which time she was taken up, soul and body, into heaven in anticipation of the general resurrection.”

When they call it the Tomb of Mary, they don’t mean that her body decomposed there.

The Catholic Church has defined the Assumption of Mary as an infallible dogma of the Church. Mary was conceived without sin. She was a living tabernacle. Would God let the corruption of death touch the perfect vessel which contained and brought Him into the world? As Catholics, we hold that He did not.

 

[razredge]

I’m sorry that you’re gotten the impression that many Catholics view Mary as a demi-god. When you’ve got such a great Mother, it’s sometimes hard not to go overboard. We love our Mother!

Yes, sure but all too often I find Marian devotion straying into bordeline idolatory and that the hyperdulia/latria distinction is mainly a semantic one rather than a practical one.

St. Paul and the early writers were busy dealing with conflicts. Mary, as the Mother of the Christ, was not an area of conflict, thus they didn’t need to talk about her. They were busy building the Church.

Or, they didn’t mention Marian devotion because no one practiced it.

The Catholic Church has defined the Assumption of Mary as an infallible dogma of the Church. Mary was conceived without sin. She was a living tabernacle. Would God let the corruption of death touch the perfect vessel which contained and brought Him into the world? As Catholics, we hold that He did not.

Yes, and how does it know this with epistemic certainty? Frankly, it doesn’t, yet merely asserts that it does. Claims produced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

With the ‘corruption of death’ thing, that relates to Genesis and whether you beleive death existed before the Fall etc.

But, if Mary died before she was assumed into heaven (as we are allowed to hold) then that renders your point invalid as she had died despite having not being conceived with or performing a sin her entire life (since you believe that death is the punishment for sin)

 

[Viola_Incognita]

Yes, sure but all too often I find Marian devotion straying into bordeline idolatory and that the hyperdulia/latria distinction is mainly a semantic one rather than a practical one.

Sometimes it can seem that way, especially in that banned topic of unapproved private revelations. I’ve seen that myself in my own family. For a while there I was not liking the Blessed Mother so much. But I later realized that that image of the Blessed Mother wasn’t the real Blessed Mother. Nor was it what the Church teaches about Mary or Marion Devotion. For what the Church actually teaches on Marian devotion see Marialis Cultus.

As to your other points, here are a few quotes about the Assumption from Catholicism for Dummies by Rev. John Trigilio and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti:

“Although it’s not explicit in Sacred Scripture, the Assumption of Mary means that Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven by her divine Son. Even though it wasn’t solemnly defined until 1950 by Pope Pius XII, it’s been believed (and never doubted) by Catholic Christians since the time of the apostles.” (Page 55.)

“Because divine revelation consists of both the written Word of God (the Bible) and the unwritten Word of God (Sacred Tradition), then matters where the Bible is silent or ambiguous can usually be determined by what was taught via Sacred Tradition. The Bible is silent on Mary’s death, but Sacred Tradition says that she was taken up (by God) into Heaven.” (Page 265.)

“Also, the Immaculate Conception preserved Mary from original sin, so Mary would’ve also been free from the consequences of sin as well – namely, physical death, the separation of body and soul. That being the case, the Eastern Church uses the term dormition (falling asleep) rather than her death before the Assumption. But because she voluntarily joined with her son’s suffering on the cross, Pope John Paul II said that the logical conclusion is that she also willingly followed him through her own death as well.” (Page 266.)

 

[Tomster]

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

We know it because Dr. Luther said so and that is enough.

 

[JonNC]

We know it because Dr. Luther said so and that is enough.

It is often interesting how, with some, it is the most distressing for them when Dr. Luther agrees with Rome.

Jon

 

[Tomster]

It is often interesting how, with some, it is the most distressing for them when Dr. Luther agrees with Rome.

Jon

There you go again, Jon, misinterpretting a " " for distress.

 

[Tomster]

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

Jon, in all honesty, can’t you see how ridiculous Luther’s statement is?

1. Luther has no doubt Mary is in heaven.
2. He doesn’t know how it happened, though.
3. The Holy Spirit didn’t clue him in on it either.
4. He [Luther] just knows . . . . although he cannot make an article of faith in it.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, in all honesty, can’t you see how ridiculous Luther’s statement is?

1. Luther has no doubt Mary is in heaven.
2. He doesn’t know how it happened, though.
3. The Holy Spirit didn’t clue him in on it either.
4. He [Luther] just knows . . . . although he cannot make an article of faith in it.

The Spirit hasn’t clued anyone in on how it happened, again quite frankly. I have no doubt she is in Heaven. That isn’t ridiculous, to believe that Christ would care for His mother in this way. If you think that taking something like this on faith is ridiculous, you are welcome to do so, but if Luther’s words can help convince the OP’s friends to reconsider their position on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, then I shall accept “ridiculous”.

Jon

 

[Tomster]

The Spirit hasn’t clued anyone in on how it happened, again quite frankly. I have no doubt she is in Heaven. That isn’t ridiculous, to believe that Christ would care for His mother in this way. If you think that taking something like this on faith is ridiculous, you are welcome to do so, but if Luther’s words can help convince the OP’s friends to reconsider their position on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, then I shall accept “ridiculous”.

Jon

Examine your first sentence, Jon. The Holy Spirit has infallibly informed the true Church that our Blessed Mother is in heaven. This I believe because the true Church has infallibly said so! Taking Dr. Luther’s word on anything is ridiculous.

 

[JonNC]

Examine your first sentence, Jon. The Holy Spirit has infallibly informed the true Church that our Blessed Mother is in heaven. This I believe because the true Church has infallibly said so! Taking Dr. Luther’s word on anything is ridiculous.

When and how, my friend, did this happen? When and how did the Spirit inform?

Jon

 

[Tomster]

When and how, my friend, did this happen? When and how did the Spirit inform?

Jon

I will not print out the whole infallible statement. Google the Encyclical for yourself. Read and believe!

 

[JonNC]

I will not print out the whole infallible statement. Google the Encyclical for yourself. Read and believe!

“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”

On November 1, 1950, by Pope Pius XII. This explains the when, but not the how. But never mind that. Regarding Luther, he believed in the Assumption of the Blessed Mother long before and without benefit of an ex cathedra statement, before the CC had accepted it as dogma. IOW, on faith. Again, if you are willing to consider that , well and fine, but regarding the OP, it may be one thing for his friends to consider that comes from our side of the Tiber. And I think that if it helps, and they come to a general understanding and agreement on the belief, as I have, then perhaps, just perhaps, the Spirit is working through his words. And that was the original intent of my posting it.

Jon

 

[razredge]

Examine your first sentence, Jon. The Holy Spirit has infallibly informed the true Church that our Blessed Mother is in heaven. This I believe because the true Church has infallibly said so! Taking Dr. Luther’s word on anything is ridiculous.

Yes, exactly - it is circular reasoning at its most ridiculous

As to your other points, here are a few quotes about the Assumption from Catholicism for Dummies by Rev. John Trigilio and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti:

“Because divine revelation consists of both the written Word of God (the Bible) and the unwritten Word of God (Sacred Tradition), then matters where the Bible is silent or ambiguous can usually be determined by what was taught via Sacred Tradition. The Bible is silent on Mary’s death, but Sacred Tradition says that she was taken up (by God) into Heaven.” (Page 265.)

Sacred Tradition is all well and good as long as you can show that the tradition dates back to the time of the events in question and is well attested, otherwise it is just as likely to be a pious fiction or legendary tradition

“Also, the Immaculate Conception preserved Mary from original sin, so Mary would’ve also been free from the consequences of sin as well – namely, physical death, the separation of body and soul. That being the case, the Eastern Church uses the term dormition (falling asleep) rather than her death before the Assumption. But because she voluntarily joined with her son’s suffering on the cross, Pope John Paul II said that the logical conclusion is that she also willingly followed him through her own death as well.” (Page 266.)

The fact that she could have been assumed after death, renders this reasoning invalid.

 

[joshrp]

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.

Jesus doesn’t complain when someone does something nice to His mother. Why does this bother so many people? Are we mother haters or something?

 

[JonNC]

Yes, exactly - it is circular reasoning at its most ridiculous

Sacred Tradition is all well and good as long as you can show that the tradition dates back to the time of the events in question and is well attested, otherwise it is just as likely to be a pious fiction or legendary tradition

The difference is that, in Luther’s time, there was no ex cathedra statement on the Assumption. No Catholic was required to believe it. Luther believed it without such a dogmatic statement. ISTM that no Catholic prior to 1950 can be held anathema for not believing in the Assumption, based on the 1950 dogmatic declaration. That would be ridiculous.

Jon

 

[razredge]

The difference is that, in Luther’s time, there was no ex cathedra statement on the Assumption. No Catholic was required to believe it. Luther believed it without such a dogmatic statement. ISTM that no Catholic prior to 1950 can be held anathema for not believing in the Assumption, based on the 1950 dogmatic declaration. That would be ridiculous.

Jon

Well, Luther probably believed it for the same reasons given today - which I don’t find convincing.

What really bugs me is that the Assumption is a Holy Day of Obligation while far,far more important events like Good Friday or Holy Thursday aren’t. It really does reek of Marianism and I sadly have to agree with many of the Protestants who see the Catholic Church as being rife with idolatory.