Did Mary Choose to be Assumed into Heaven?

[diarmait]

Verbum,

Thanks for the link.

Do you think Mary recognized that she had "completed the course of her earthly life?"

Thanks.

 

[Born2win]

I have a question for you. Prior to the Reformation, Christians have 73 Books in the OT. Consider that Paul wrote all Scripture in 2 Tim 3:16.

Protestants have 66 OT text. If they claim 2 Tim 3:16 is inspired then why did Protestant 7 Books from the OT? I don’t think they truly believe all Scripture is inspired since they remove the 7 OT text during the Reformation…Then how can you claim it is inspired when you remove the 7 Books of the OT during the Reformation?

The word “scripture” means works that have been written. Do you honestly believe that ALL scripture is what Paul was referring to in 2 Tim. 3:16?

You cannot honestly say that “The Satanic Verses” were inspired. Or “The DaVinci Code”. Or even Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”.

So, you can’t really use that argument unless you are prepared to explain in detail that those 7 books are completely inspired.

Those 7 books have elements which are contrary to other portions of Canonized scripture which is known to be inspired… that is why they have been left out. They are classified with “Hamlet” as not fully inspired.

The other position you could take is that ALL writing is in some way inspired by God, because it was written by those who were seeking God… but then you are nothing more than a theosophist.

Wes

 

[Mannyfit75]

The word “scripture” means works that have been written. Do you honestly believe that ALL scripture is what Paul was referring to in 2 Tim. 3:16?

You cannot honestly say that “The Satanic Verses” were inspired. Or “The DaVinci Code”. Or even Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”.

I don’t consider those inspired. The 73 Books of the OT were used by Early Christians. The canon of Scripture we see in the Bible was canonized by the Synod in Rome in 382 A.D., Synod of Hippo 392 A.D, and Synod of Carthage, which listed the Septuagint / Deuteurocanonical Books, which the Protestant Bible does not have.

So, you can’t really use that argument unless you are prepared to explain in detail that those 7 books are completely inspired.

Those 7 books have elements which are contrary to other portions of Canonized scripture which is known to be inspired… that is why they have been left out. They are classified with “Hamlet” as not fully inspired.

Are they? 2/3 of the NT comes from those Books.

Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 - behold, a “virgin” shall conceive. Hebrew - behold, a “young woman” shall conceive. In the original Hebrew / Tanakh translation the word used is woman. In the Greek Septuagint, it is written, a virgin conceived"

Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 - make “His paths straight.” Hebrew - make “level in the desert a highway.”

More proof text.

scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

The other position you could take is that ALL writing is in some way inspired by God, because it was written by those who were seeking God… but then you are nothing more than a theosophist.

Wes

Here is another look at the Septuagint in the NT. It is analysis by a Protestant.

geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Christian acceptance of the deuterocanonical books was logical because the deuterocanonicals were also included in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the New are from the Septuagint. Yet the apostles nowhere told their converts to avoid seven books of it. Like the Jews all over the world who used the Septuagint, the early Christians accepted the books they found in it. They knew that the apostles would not mislead them and endanger their souls by putting false scriptures in their hands—especially without warning them against them.

But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament “Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life” (Heb. 11:35).

There are a couple of examples of women receiving back their dead by resurrection in the Protestant Old Testament. You can find Elijah raising the son of the widow of Zarepheth in 1 Kings 17, and you can find his successor Elisha raising the son of the Shunammite woman in 2 Kings 4, but one thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.

The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution, “It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine’s flesh. . . . **ut the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying, 'The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us . . . ’ After the first brother had died . . . they brought forward the second for their sport. . . . he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, ‘You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life’” (2 Macc. 7:1, 5-9).

One by one the sons die, proclaiming that they will be vindicated in the resurrection.

“The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord. She encouraged each of them . . . [saying], ‘I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you. Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws,’” telling the last one, “Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God’s mercy I may get you back again with your brothers” (2 Macc. 7:20-23, 29). This is but one example of the New Testaments’ references to the deuterocanonicals.

The early Christians were thus fully justified in recognizing these books as Scripture, for the apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated.**

 

[Verbum]

Hi diairmait,

Do you think Mary recognized that she had “completed the course of her earthly life?”

We know absolutely nothing about Mary that is not in the gospels.

Did Mary lead the life of a mystic, with frequent contacts with God… with her Son? (The Gospels don’t even tell us that he went to her after his resurrection) She would perhaps then have known the day of her death… if death there has been.

My view is that Mary led a very ordinary life with the apostle John. She died very simply and resurrected like her son.

Robert

 

[jburgherr]

I just called 911.

Think of this way - Virgin Mary was very obedient to God. Whatever He asked, she would say “Be it done unto me according to Thy Word”.

This is the answer. She described herself as the “handmaid of the Lord”. She was the very essence of humility. She lived a life of “Thy will be done!”

Mater Maria, ora pro nobis!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

My question began with whether Adam and Eve had faith. I figured that if they walked and talked with God, they may have had the beatific vision.

The BV is impossible on earth - it presupposes perfect confirmation in grace. Since they fell, it folows that they cannot have been confirmed in grace: otherwise, it would be possible for the Blessed in Heaven to fall.​

However, St. Thomas argues that if they had the beatific vision, they would not/could not have turned away from God in sin. So they had faith, as well as hope in final happiness.

So I wondered how Adam and Eve were to attain final happiness if death was not part of their experience. St. Thomas did mention something about Adam and Eve eventually having a spiritualized body which would allow them to experience final happiness in body and soul (had the original sin not occurred).

I was stuck here until I remembered that Mary was conceived w/o the stain of original sin, and that she attained final happiness when she was assumed body and soul into heaven.

My question now is whether Mary determined that she was ready for her body to be “spiritualized” and to be assumed into heaven. Did she reach a certain level of holiness or spirituality which would allow her to be assumed? What was the catalyst for the Assumption? Similarly, what would have been the catalyst for Adam and Eve to quit this world, become spiritualized in body, and attain final happiness?

Any help would be appreciated.

There is no way of knowing the answer to this - there are too many unknowns.​

As for A & E - look at Genesis 5: Adam died. ##

 

[HailMary]

Q: Did Mary Choose to be Assumed into Heaven?

No.

Goodnight.

 

[guanophore]

I was stuck here until I remembered that Mary was conceived w/o the stain of original sin, and that she attained final happiness when she was assumed body and soul into heaven.

My question now is whether Mary determined that she was ready for her body to be “spiritualized” and to be assumed into heaven. Did she reach a certain level of holiness or spirituality which would allow her to be assumed? What was the catalyst for the Assumption? Similarly, what would have been the catalyst for Adam and Eve to quit this world, become spiritualized in body, and attain final happiness?

Any help would be appreciated.

I am sure, if Mary had a choice, she would “jump” to her son’s side! But the Church teaches that she went through the “dormition” or falling asleep. She is a creature, therefore, could not be raised under her own power, but was assumed there by her Son. I don’t know about Adam and Eve. Maybe they were among those to whom Christ preached after His death?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Jesus was crucified. Since Mary must in all things be conformed to her Son, Mary was crucified.​

T - or F ?

That’s a problem with using analogies to arrive at accounts of what happened: not only can one not do so, as doing so is fallacious; but, the use of analogies can lead to false conclusions. That is why facts are so important - they help to control the conclusions that reason leads us to. For example, the BVM was not crucified - therefore, the drawing of analogies between her & her Son is limited by the facts. ##

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

This looks Mary-related only if the rest of the Psalm is ignored. The Psalms are not made up of verses slung together any old how - they are constructed on a plan; just as aeroplanes are not the results of a whirlwind throwing metal & wire together.​

People don’t treat political speeches as heaps of disconnected passages which can make coherent sense if their context is ignored - why do they do this to the Bible ? The verse refers to the transference of the Ark to Jerusalem - it has no bearing on the BVM. It can be applied to her in an “improper” sense; but that has no value as a proof. Value for piety, yes - proof in theological debate, no. Signum Magnum (1967) uses it - but Paul VI did not profess to be expounding the Revelation; he was writing a homiletic text.

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

He seems to have been recalling a (temporary) ecstasy he had experienced - which is not a (permanent) assumption into Heaven.​

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

Being raised from the dead =/=, nor imply, AiH.​

The episode may be an early legend - it fits awkwardly into its context, which is the death of Jesus. Either way, this passage does not support the BVM’s AiH. ##

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

The tradition of interpretation which sees the woman as the BVM is ambiguous at best; there is no good reason to see Mary here, a number of bad ones, & several good reasons to think Israel or the Church or another community is intended. If this woman is the BVM - what individual person is Babylon the Great ? Mary the individual can only be intended if the details about the woman fit Mary - was Mary given wings to flee from a dragon ? The dragon is a symbolic picture of satan - & as the dragon is a symbol, the woman must also be. And if Mary is that woman, of what is Mary a symbol ? The Marian interpretation confuses symbolism, with the vehicle of the symbolism. That’s like confusing a head of state with the car in which he goes to an international conference. Cars are vehicles for politicians - but are not themselves politicians.​

Which is not to deny that the woman & the BVM are related. To underline only details that favour the Marian interpretation wrongs the rest of the text ##

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

((continue))

That is no reason. They may have been dispersed, or destroyed, or their place forgotten. How many of the martyrs under Nero are remembered individually ? Were they assumed into Heaven ? No - they were crucified, or used as torches at night, or torn apart. Many saints are unburied because they were drowned. The absence of a grave is a very poor argument The cult of martyrs is earlier than that of the BVM - & we mustn’t assume that the early generations had the same priorities as we do: their devotional bent might not be ours.​

The BVM is not a martyr - that is no argument against the dispersal of her remains.

I’m not arguing against the Assumption, but against some of the arguments for it. ##

 

[Mannyfit75]

Michael,

sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

“[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones…” Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4 (inter A.D. 575-593).

“As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.” Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634).

“It was fitting …that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory …should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.” Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption (ante A.D. 650).

“You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life.” Germanus of Constantinople, Sermon I (PG 98,346), (ante A.D. 733).

“St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.” John of Damascene, PG (96:1) (A.D. 747-751).

“It was fitting that the she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped when giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father, It was fitting that God’s Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God.” John of Damascene, Dormition of Mary (PG 96,741), (ante A.D. 749).

“Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten Thy Son our Lord incarnate from herself.” Gregorian Sacramentary, Veneranda (ante A.D. 795).

“[A]n effable mystery all the more worthy of praise as the Virgin’s Assumption is something unique among men.” Gallican Sacramentary, from Munificentis simus Deus (8th Century).

“God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you virgin in childbirth, thus he kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.” Byzantine Liturgy, from Munificentis simus Deus (8th Century).

“[T]he virgin is up to now immortal, as He who lived, translated her into the place of reception.” Timotheus of Jerusalem (8th Century).

I also like to add, in the Book of Revelation 12, the woman appeared in heaven. This woman is Mary. So yes she appeared in heaven. How did she get there? She assumed.

 

[charlye]

What Biblical support is there for refusing to accept anything unless it has Biblical support???
A discussion on whether or not one believes in the Assumption is the subject for another thread.

My answer would be that since all Scripture is God-breathed
(2 Tim 3:16) it would be foolish to believe that anything pertaining to our salvation and spiritual growth could not be found therein. Therefore, placing one’s faith in uninspired assumptions and theories conjured up by fallible mortal man winds up negating the word of God.

Charlye

 

[HailMary]

My answer would be that since all Scripture is God-breathed
(2 Tim 3:16) it would be foolish to believe that anything pertaining to our salvation and spiritual growth could not be found therein. Therefore, placing one’s faith in uninspired assumptions and theories conjured up by fallible mortal man winds up negating the word of God.

Charlye

What is the Word of God?

 

[StMarkEofE]

What Biblical support is there for Mary’s Assumption?

Stands to reason that IF Mary WASNT assumed into heaven bodily, and since she was the chief of all Saints here on earth, wouldnt it be appropriate that relics of her would be so protected (being the Mother of God) and these relics would be the most sought after of ALL the saints would have to exist somewhere and if they existed would not someone know the place in which these relics reside?

 

[Mannyfit75]

My answer would be that since all Scripture is God-breathed
(2 Tim 3:16) it would be foolish to believe that anything pertaining to our salvation and spiritual growth could not be found therein. Therefore, placing one’s faith in uninspired assumptions and theories conjured up by fallible mortal man winds up negating the word of God.

Charlye

Yes but it was the Church who added the 27 Books of the NT.

Second Paul said, this 1 Timothy 3:15

“If I am not to delay, But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

The Pillar of Bulwark is the Catholic Church. Jesus founded it upon Peter.

He also gave authority to the Church. “You are Peter, and Upon this Rock I will build My Church…Whatever you bind on earth shall be bind in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven.”

The Assumption of Mary is an ancient Christian belief. The Orthodox has similiar belief but they call it the Dormition of Mary, or falling Asleep of the Theotokos (Greek for Mother of God).

How can these be against the Bible? The Catholic Church upheld defending the divinity of Christianity from the heresy of Arianism, Nectorianism, Gnosticism, and others. She also give us the doctrine of the Trinity, which many Christians held to this day. It was the Church who came up with the Trinity doctrine.

charyle, you are mislead. You need to go back to the Catholic Church. Protestant churches lack the real presence of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church firmly believed that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. Jesus in John 6 said I am the bread of life, whoever eats my flesh shall have eternal life. You can received the real presence of the Lord.

The Protestant churches lack the real presence. There is no God in their churches. No real presence. There is a spiritual presence but not as real as the Catholic Church.

Come home to the Catholic Church, the Church that Jesus build 2,000 yrs ago.

 

[guanophore]

My answer would be that since all Scripture is God-breathed
(2 Tim 3:16) it would be foolish to believe that anything pertaining to our salvation and spiritual growth could not be found therein. Therefore, placing one’s faith in uninspired assumptions and theories conjured up by fallible mortal man winds up negating the word of God.

Charlye

Sounds like you are a "sola scriptura’! If Jesus invited you to go to heaven with Him today, would you hesitate?

 

[charlye]

Sounds like you are a "sola scriptura’! If Jesus invited you to go to heaven with Him today, would you hesitate?

Of course not!

Charlye

 

[Tom]

My question began with whether Adam and Eve had faith. I figured that if they walked and talked with God, they may have had the beatific vision.

Many walked and talked with God, we know the Apostles did. They had no beatific vision, in fact many didn’t even recognize Him as God.

My question now is whether Mary determined that she was ready for her body to be “spiritualized” and to be assumed into heaven.

No, Mary was a mortal human, she obeyed God, she did not “choose" to be assumed.

Did she reach a certain level of holiness or spirituality which would allow her to be assumed?

No, she did not “earn” enough brownie points to be assumed. It was the will of God that she be assumed. Remember she was assumed, not by her power, rather by Gods’ power unlike Jesus who assended on His own power.

What was the catalyst for the Assumption?

God was the “catalyst”.

 

[lumendelumine]

@charlye:
There are a million threads about whether the BVM was assumed to Heaven or not in the “non-Catholic religions” and “Apologetics” forums of CA. Please go there if you want to discuss it and refrain in the future from derailing this thread.

As to the O.P.:
As concerns the death of Adam, we must not forget that death after the Fall meant eternal separation from God. The righteous dead went to the Limbo Patrum, the limbo of the Fathers, where they lived in natural happiness, without the Beatific Vision. Only when Christ descended into Hell, preached to the souls there and opened up the gates of Heaven to them, could they enjoy the B. V.

AFAIK it is not a settled matter if Adam and Eve would have ever died bodily without the Fall. But they would certainly never have been separated from God, but would have enjoyed the BV instead. The same goes for the BVM. In Eastern Christian art at least, Mary is shown in icons of the Dormition as being separated from her soul, though the Assumption is not denied. So she may have died, been entombed and then been resurrected (in an incorruptible body) and assumed to Heaven.

Just my 5 c…

 

[DLC]

I do not find any evidence in the Bible that Mary chose to be assumed into heaven. She died just as we all do. What made Mary special was that God chose her to be the mother of Jesus. Other than a few passage in the Gospels there is very little else said about her in the bible. If she was as special as the Catholic church says, why does the Bible not say so?