Honouring of Mary and her assumption to heaven by the HS

[Joshua27]

Yes.

It appears that you have misunderstood…

You obviously know very little about Catholicism…

It seems that you have an abherrant understanding of scripture…

The CC does not have the power to “control what is religous Truth”. The Truth has been revealed to the Church by God, and it is our duty to preserve that which was handed down to us.

All of these attacks are very easy to make based on an assumption that I was always “non-Catholic”, thus they’re very week. I find the “you don’t understand scripture” attack most interesting because I bet that most people who disagree with you (as it pertains to scripture) equally don’t understand as well, right?

He is also saying that the Church is justified in attacking those that depart from the standards that have been formed.

Now you’ve resorted to lying, huh? Distorting what I wrote? Come’on. This shows that you have difficulty with ‘Reading Comprehension’, which doesn’t help others believe that you understand the sciptures and better.

 

[Dennislp3]

Despite this turning into nothing but a bunch of people bickering and someone saying there is plenty of truth in the matter of her assumption…only a few seem to be looking to answer the question of it all and are much quicker to argue and call names…heck I do not even know where, in the pile of Catholic texts, that is states she was assumed…perhaps someone could post that and we could work from there…

Originally Posted by Ceil-1
If the holy matyrs, mystics and those who chose it knowing they wee assured persecution, suffeing and death for the Faith got it wrong and messed it up, IYO, how on earth do you expect us to trust the likes of malcontents and know-it-alls? Thanks, I’ll stick to those who walked the walk, and don’t just talk the talk.

Extrapolating is not the correct term for the Marian doctrine of the Assumption. It is much more than that, and that has been illustrated in abundance. You are refusing to see the situation as it is. I consider it denial, a coping mechanism. You cannot humble yourself sufficiently to accept it. On the contrary, you want to be the leader of it all.

Personally I am unnerved by the capacity and readiness for people to attack each other…Worse yet you are so readily calling names and things of the such…your damaging not only Catholicism but the Christian faith as a whole to anyone who sees this…In the post it is stated “You are refusing to see the situation as it is. I consider it denial, a coping mechanism. You cannot humble yourself sufficiently to accept it. On the contrary, you want to be the leader of it all.”

So I ask…where is your humility? where is your tact? By attacking someone like this who merely wishes to know an answer to a question you are making the case for her assumption WORSE…not to mention your pretty quick to claim you know all…especially after you claimed that’s what Protestants are.

How does a question about a specific topic turn into a Protestant vs Catholic contest?

Yes a Protestant might not believe in Catholicism and they might see each other as wrong in certain aspects…but what gives people the right to attack another for these beliefs? It is not our job to change the minds of others…nor is it our job to condemn each other. Our job is to merely present our sides and preferably leave it at that. Truth can hold up by itself.

 

[guanophore]

All of these attacks are very easy to make based on an assumption that I was always “non-Catholic”, thus they’re very week.

My observation that your information is incorrect is not an “attack”. It is simply noticing that you are posting misinformation.

My observations are not based on any assumption that you were always non-Catholic. On the contrary, I find that there are about an equal number of poorly catechized Catholics on here as there are people with no experience of Catholicsm. Some so called “former” Catholics become the most anti-Catholic.

I migrated into a Fundamentalist community that was exceedingly anti-Catholic. I knew very little about the faith into which I was baptized at the time.

It is not an “attack” to say that one is ignorant. On the contrary, a lack of knowledge is a very good place to begin any kind of study. CAF is here for that purpose.

I find the “you don’t understand scripture” attack most interesting because I bet that most people who disagree with you (as it pertains to scripture) equally don’t understand as well, right?

It is of no matter whether they agree with me or not. What matters is whether their understanding of what is written is consistent with the beliefs of those that wrote it. Yours don’t appear to be.

Now you’ve resorted to lying, huh? Distorting what I wrote? Come’on. This shows that you have difficulty with ‘Reading Comprehension’, which doesn’t help others believe that you understand the sciptures and better.

I was referencing your scenario on the FDA. Your story included how they “raided” the premises of someone who was operating outside of their purview.

Joshua27:

The FDA raids John’s home (with semi-automatic weapons), confiscates and/or destroys all of John’s plants and pots and then threatens John with a huge fine and Jail time if he continues to sell anymore.

You are drawing an analogy between the CC and the FDA in this scenario. In your story, the FDA finds itself authorized on a seek and destroy, or seek and control mission. At the end of your analogy, you state that the Church “controls” religion.

I don’t see this as a distortion of what you wrote at all. On the contrary, I think I am following your analogy quite well, which is why I said it was not a good one,

 

[guanophore]

Personally I am unnerved by the capacity and readiness for people to attack each other…

do you agree with Joshua that my observation that he is posting wrong information is a personal attack on his character?

 By attacking someone like this who merely wishes to know an answer to a question **you are making the case for her assumption WORSE**....not to mention your pretty quick to claim you know all....especially after you claimed that's what Protestants are.

I dont’ think he is here to ask any questions, but instead, is putting forth an erroneous idea of what Catholics believe, and is then attacking this imaginary position.

How does a question about a specific topic turn into a Protestant vs Catholic contest?

It is the nature of the forum. The reason we have different answers to the topic is because we are coming from opposite points of view.

 It is not our job to change the minds of others...nor is it our job to condemn each other. Our job is to merely present our sides and preferably leave it at that. Truth can hold up by itself.

I agree with this entirely. I dont’ think we really need to make a “case” for the assumption. It will certainly not do much good in this case, since it is based upon Sacred Tradition, which is rejected as a valid source of the Truth.

 

[Joshua27]

I was referencing your scenario on the FDA. Your story included how they “raided” the premises of someone who was operating outside of their purview.

You are drawing an analogy between the CC and the FDA in this scenario. In your story, the FDA finds itself authorized on a seek and destroy, or seek and control mission. At the end of your analogy, you state that the Church “controls” religion.

I don’t see this as a distortion of what you wrote at all. On the contrary, I think I am following your analogy quite well, which is why I said it was not a good one,

I stated the analogy at the end and showed its parallels. I even added that “or worst in the past” in relationship to controling religious truth.

You said:

He is also saying that the Church is justified in attacking those that depart from the standards that have been formed.

And such would’ve been a valid explanation if you left it at that, but you did not want to…you corrupted the validity of your statement when you added…

It is not appropriate to use violence to prevent chaos.

…suggesting that I said or believe that the Catholic Church believes that “violence is appropriate” for whatever reason. Many others understood the analogy of control…even you. But then you stained it by conveying a twist to my thought. Being 18k post in you know more than anyone that most people don’t really read previous posts, as they respond to recent ones. This is why such was bad form. If my words aren’t accurate, contend with their inaccuracy in light of your understanding of scripture and your tradition. Don’t promote lies.

More than anything, you make the first part of your own statement true in this fashion…that “Catholic CAF members are justified in attacking those that depart from the standards that have been formed” on this forum.

---

Now does anyone want to answer the specific thread question that asks for proof in the book of Revelation that Mary is assumed into heaven…because I said that the woman in Revelation first starts off as being described in heaven and then her description ends in the wilderness on earth, with no other verse describing the woman returning BACK to heaven in any way.

 

[Hesychios]

²Hesychios

I didn’t know that the assumption of Mary wasn’t part of the “original” Catholic Church.
Thank you also.

I don’t know if I can fully agree with the way you phrased this comment.

As far as I am concerned, the belief in the bodily resurrection of Saint Mary is Apostolic because it dates to the age of the Apostles.

I don’t think that it had as much theological importance in the early church, which had very few members, and although was scattered widely was connected through the Apostles who could and did keep in touch. They also quite seriously expected the Perousia to come quickly, and so this would not have been as remarkable to them (remembering that there were then many who had already seen Christ resurrected) as it would seem to us in the 21st century.

Later arguments about the human/divine nature of Christ pushed questions (and debates) about Mary into the forefront. I think that as a result of the controversy the church Fathers emphasized her Dormition (death and assumption) with a Feast, which probably dates from the 3rd century. By the Fifth century the Feast had spread to the west, one source stated that it was celebrated in the Irish Celtic church before it was celebrated in Rome (about 6th century).

This is really not a first class dogmatic issue, it only indirectly relates to Christology and is more supportive of the promised resurrection of the dead. I would call it a secondary level doctrine, which we Orthodox Catholics believe (and pray about) as part of the living Tradition of the church. A little intelligent skepticism over the details is not really a bad thing, but if we are going to insist on this we had better refer back to the original understanding of the church in all of it’s pertinant facts. In other words this was a death, burial and resurrection following Christ and prefiguring what we may all expect.

I think it is helpful here to remember the story related in scripture of Saint Thomas ‘the doubter’. There are just some things about which a person can doubt which are not sinful if one has trouble accepting them without first seeing them. We today didn’t see her assumed from the tomb, these days we take it on faith because the church teaches us about it, but even if we never realized this had happened in history it would not make our fundamental belief and understanding of the resurrection of Christ any different.

It appears to me that God permitted this event to be witnessed by the early church as a sign of the coming resurrection, to strengthen the early small community for the coming trails. For those who absolutely already believe in the coming resurrection, no such sign is necessary.

In the liturgy we sing our praises of this sign of the new hope for our fallen world. Saint Mary, the Holy Theotokos, is among the first fruits of the promise.

 

[guanophore]

I stated the analogy at the end and showed its parallels. I even added that “or worst in the past” in relationship to controling religious truth.

Here is the quote from your post. If you click on the little blue mark, it will take you back to the post. There is nothing there about “in the past”.

But then we extrapolate and reason that - because Mary was the Mother of Jesus - Mary must’ve been raptured/ascended as well (because all other “MOST important” figures of biblical history were) and we believe “she is also ‘MOST important’, so sure, why not?” And yet again, no faithful Catholic - who disagrees with this - will argue or question this “truth” (for it’s lack of foundational evidence) because they risk being labeled “not really Catholic” or maybe they’re challenged to leave the Church (if they don’t believe).

…whereby the CA completely controls what is religous truth.

It is a present tense allegation.

You said:

"guanophore:

He is also saying that the Church is justified in attacking those that depart from the standards that have been formed.

And such would’ve been a valid explanation if you left it at that,
So it is your position that the Catholic Church, by the authority she invested in herself, justified her attacks on those who departed from the standards she set for the faith?
Joshua27;6719457:

but you did not want to...you corrupted the validity of your statement when you added...

"guanophore:

It is not appropriate to use violence to prevent chaos.

…suggesting that I said or believe that the Catholic Church believes that “violence is appropriate” for whatever reason.

No, not for any reason, but those reflected in your analogy. In order to control the faith, and the faithful. I refer you to your quote above, in which you accuse the Catholic Church of coercion and control of the faith by threats.

Many others understood the analogy of control...even you. But then you stained it by conveying a twist to my thought.

How is it a 'stain"? Perhaps you are now trying to “unsay” what you said above?

Do you think there is some kind of “stain” involved in your perception that the Catholic Church coerces people?

Being 18k post in you know more than anyone that most people don’t really read previous posts, as they respond to recent ones.

Yes, I do know that. However, I went back to the begining of the thread to make sure I read all yours, then I followed the links back (using the blue square) to make sure I was following the train of thought.

This is why such was bad form. If my words aren’t accurate, contend with their inaccuracy in light of your understanding of scripture and your tradition. Don’t promote lies.

I am sorry, you lost me here. It is possible that I misunderstood your analogy, but I dont’ think so. I also don’t think you made any reference to “in the past” in your assertion that the Catholic Church controls people by force. Your language as included above is entirely present tense.

More than anything, you make the first part of your own statement true in this fashion…that “Catholic CAF members are justified in attacking those that depart from the standards that have been formed” on this forum.

I have not attacked you, Joshua. I have contended with what you wrote. I stated clearly that I did not think the analogy you used was appropriate or applicable, and explained why. I am not really in any position to “attack” you. For all I know, you are just role playing and firing for effect.

Now does anyone want to answer the specific thread question that asks for proof in the book of Revelation that Mary is assumed into heaven…because I said that the woman in Revelation first starts off as being described in heaven and then her description ends in the wilderness on earth, with no other verse describing the woman returning BACK to heaven in any way.

I don’t think you will get this from any well educated Catholic. Those who understand the Marian doctrines know that they are founded primarily in Sacred Tradition.

In Revelation, we see elements of the image of the Woman that are identical to Mary. She is the Ark of the Covenant, she has been assumed into heaven by her own Divine Son. She gave birth to the redeemer, she fled into the wilderness to escape the dragon. The devil makes war on the rest of her offspring (the disciples of her son). Since the day that Jesus gave Mary at the foot of the cross, she has been received by the Church as our spiritual mother. She is mother to all who follow the commandments of her son. she is the new Eve, the mother of all living.

There are also other aspects of that image. Rev. is apocalyptic literature, so the images are multivalent.

 

[guanophore]

…heck I do not even know where, in the pile of Catholic texts, that is states she was assumed…perhaps someone could post that and we could work from there…

here is a link to a CA tract with some references:

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Here is the vatican docurment"

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

Hope that helps.

 

[Dennislp3]

here is a link to a CA tract with some references:

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Here is the vatican docurment"

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

Hope that helps.

Thank you very much. I have never read it…as I am just starting to convert to Catholicism.

As to your questions about what I posted above the answer is no…I do not agree with erroneous information…I spose I was just merely making a point that it was REALLY irritating to see a bunch of name calling…that gets nothing done. I was mostly irked at the one I quoted and I explained why…

I am not perfect and I am not trying to control/babysit/be holier than thou…I just hate to see people talking about a serious matter and TO ME at least it feel like we certainly not showing any respect to any of it…which is why I pointed out that in some cases it made the argument worse…anyways…

 

[Joshua27]

:doh2:

If there isn’t a common foundation that all can reference back to, a foundation that all - even Church Authority - must be bound by, then anyone (in a position of Church Authority) can establish anything as truth, can’t they?

Here’s a real world example of what I mean:

---

The FDA has established a law that says “only a drug can cure or prevent a disease…and all drugs must be approved by the FDA before they can be sold and distributed”.

John discovers that leaves from the naturally growing “jerijugu” plant, when eaten, cures cancers. So John starts a garden and sells baby plants at $50 each. He wants the recognition of being the one who discovered the cure for cancer so he doesn’t charge much…and word gets around to the FDA.

The FDA raids John’s home (with semi-automatic weapons), confiscates and/or destroys all of John’s plants and pots and then threatens John with a huge fine and Jail time if he continues to sell anymore.

Why?

Because the naturally growing plant has been labeled by the FDA as a drug (since it successfully cures cancer), and if it is now a drug, John is illegally distributing drugs (without paying a licensing fee or receiving approval from the FDA).

You see, the FDA has made itself the foundation (legislator) of medical truth (deciding what the only means of curing or preventing diseases is) while also becoming the judge and enforcer of that truth, whereby the FDA completely controls what is medical truth.

---

If Church Authority isn’t bound by an unchanging foundation of truth (such as the scriptures) then the Church can establish any religous truth that it wants…and because “only the Church can accurately interpret scripture” and “the Church’s authority in religous matter is above sacred scripture” and “the human head of the Church Authority is infallible”, no laity can possibly protest against any “truth” (that doesn’t syncronize) for fear of excommunication (or worst in the past).

To be honest, many protestants would rather NOT be labeled protestants - and would actually like to reunify with the Universal Church - IFF the (lay) people had a right to correct leaders and say “ok, leaders…this truth you’re promoting doesn’t agree with the gospel or with what Christ and the prophets are recorded saying about this same issue”.

Whenever the scripture wanted the believer to know when an “ascension” occurred for an individual, the scripture told us…even in the gospels. The gospels detail that the firstfruits of the dead rose from their graves during the last moments of Christ’s life while one the cross. At the end of the gospels we’re told that Mary Magdaline (and “the other women”) and the disciples came to the tomb to see that Christ was resurrected…we know that Mother Mary was now in John’s charge so she was there too. Later in Acts, scripture details that Christ ascended to heaven in a cloud 40 days after his own resurrection.

But then we extrapolate and reason that - because Mary was the Mother of Jesus - Mary must’ve been raptured/ascended as well (because all other “MOST important” figures of biblical history were) and we believe “she is also ‘MOST important’, so sure, why not?” And yet again, no faithful Catholic - who disagrees with this - will argue or question this “truth” (for it’s lack of foundational evidence) because they risk being labeled “not really Catholic” or maybe they’re challenged to leave the Church (if they don’t believe).

…whereby the CA completely controls what is religous truth.

---

The answer to the thread question is - as someone has already said - there is no reference in the book of Revelation about Mary…even the “woman” (detailed in Rev.12) is described later on in the chapter as “fleeing into the wilderness for safety (from the dragon) AFTER the man-child is birthed and taken back to heaven, where she is nourished for a time on earth…the dragon then dispatches a flood and the Beast of the Sea to attack the woman and the remnant of her seed”.

I qualified that the potential of violence from the Church Authority was in the past while standing on my parallel as a conclusion of my post that Church Authority does however (like the FDA) control what is religous truth…but obviously you didn’t read the parenthesis.

…or now are you going to tell me that that’s not what I meant even though I wrote it?

---- back to the thread topic ----

Guanophore Said - Those who understand the Marian doctrines know that they are founded primarily in Sacred Tradition (which suggests that it is found “secondarily and/or otherwise” in Sacred Scripture).

So this confirms the answer to the thread question; “no, Mary is not described as being assumed to heaven from the book of Revelation”.

Even though there is imagery of a “woman” - which let’s say is Mary - descending from heaven to the wilderness, there is not imagery of the “woman” assuming or ascending to heaven. The last description of the “woman” is she’s given two (2) wings of an eagle to flee into the wilderness where she is protected and nourished from the face of the dragon…the dragon then sends a flood to swallow her but the earth swallows the flood [Rev. 12:14-16…end description].

 

[KathleenGee]

We as Catholics are also given the freedom to privately interpret Scripture for our personal life; orthodox study of Scripture is the correct study of Scripture in all its parts…in the Roman Catholic Church.

There is a part in Revelations about the sign that appeared in the sky, the woman being taken to the desert…the former pertains to the Church and of all the persons in the Church, Mary is Christian Par Excellence…so she as perfect represents all of us and our individual perfections.

I would recommend Esdra and Joshua get hold of St. Catherine’s ‘Dialogues’, and study first of all the walk in perfection. It is classical Catholic spirituality.

Perfection is union in God in LOVE. We go to God in journey. There are 3 stages: purgative—where we suffer by God’s hand to purify us of sin and attachments to creatures…purged of ourselves and our own idolatries. The second is illuminative, where there are parts of us that are now purified and solid and formed in God and His love, we get consolations of the Holy Spirit, we get prophetic inspirations in daily life that come true, we learn to suffer for the Lord’s intentions and not our own – we suffer because people do not love the Lord and sin against Him, and the third is union with God, where our will and His will are one, and we love and even find happiness in suffering.

We all must take the same walk, we cannot progress to a more pure state, and it becomes clear that the walk in perfection is 100% God’s work…He gives us experiences in daily life, people who annoy us, financial losses and also losses some times of our own children, wars, all to bring us closer to Him and to see how sin truly separates from Him.

We can only go to heaven through the bridge – the Crucified Lord, so people who say they go to heaven as Christians without the cross are not in the truth.

There are many kinds of tears…the base level, those where we lose things that have no value, to tears of contrition – the only thing that can appease God of our sins is a true and sincere contrition for true love for our Lord…to tears of just being in union with Him and experiencing His great love…

You see your life as a journey, how sin has warped it, how truly the wages of sin is death.

The more you study the walk in perfection, the more you will understand the Lord in a most intimate level…such a profound personal relationship with the Lord, mystical.

St. Catherine was an active mystic. She founded a religious house but was back out in public always making the truth of Our Lord known in the time of the Great Schism…(1300’s).

I went through her writings over the weekend…but the best way would be for people to actually get hold of her materials and read them.

Because the more you understand the deep mystical walk to union in the Lord – as a sinner – you will come in time to understand how Mary herself was assumed into heaven, body and soul…she was conceived by the Father, her total being said and proclaimed, “Yes!”

She said “yes:” to the Lord her entire life. She was no stranger to suffering. The greatest suffering to a mother always involves the suffering of her own child. To hear that her soul would be pierced by a sword, her son a cause of the downfall of many, and the rise of many, that her sweet, perfect little baby would die on a ‘tree’ — she was a temple virgin and awaited the Messiah and knew about the coming of the Messiah through Isaiah, she suffered most profoundly. We mothers know how hurt we are, how much we grieve and suffer to see an innocent suffer, be abused, and even murdered. We cry most deeply for the innocent.

So although Mary did not go through the kind of purgation we go through, she shared in our humanity with her suffering…for her Son all just and innocent, and through Him, for we sinners.

Mary is always the one who helps us get through all the bad that comes and goes in the history of the Catholic church, and Christianity in general, just as the Jews suffered, triumphed and lived out their history. So you see Catholics after Mass praying like that because they are suffering very much from family members who are either being bad or who are very sick and in need of healing. They stay after to pray for the Church and priests. But when they stay after, they are especially petitioning Our Mother to pray for us, to help us suffer like she did and not lose our faith, and they are praying to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, God’s valentine to us, to keep their love like He did when He was so abused but only returned love.

This Friday is the feast day of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. This Saturday, Our Lady’s day, is the feast day of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The only safe place in this desert of the world is Mary’s heart. She is our greatest friend and advocate at our death.

Do not ever underestimate the power of a woman!!!

 

[KathleenGee]

But I did make a typo on the first part…perfect Mary with us and our IMperfections…

 

[zz912]

Couple points to remember, John spoke in veiled imagery b/c Rome was persecuting Christians at the time.

Two, remember that the Scriptures were written without chapter and verse labels, which were put on later to aid in copying them and referencing them.

So let us look at Revelation 11:19 and 12:1, which were not separated by chapter and verse when written by John:

11:19 Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.
12:1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

John is not speaking about the Ark of the Old Covenant, but Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant.

 

[KathleenGee]

That image is also reflected in the tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Kathleen,
I don’t want to sound harshly critical of your post, that is not my intention.

I just wanted to point out some things where (apparently) you and I differ in perspective.

The first and foremost is this:

Mary is Christian Par Excellence…so she as perfect represents all of us and our individual [im]perfections. …

I sincerely believe that no human creature is perfect, none save Christ Himself, for only God is perfect and we creatures in our humility should acknowledge this. Even in our salvation we cannot attain to the perfection that can only be in God. In other words (if one can follow my meaning here) for us perfection is a goal, not a destination.

I feel quite certain that the Holy Theotokos would readily agree and also deny that she is perfect, not of any false modesty but because she should know that is so.

The second point I would make is that the ecstatic visions and writings of mystics are not the source for our belief in the assumption of Mary … and that the death, burial and assumption of Mary as a fact cannot be supported by them. At best we can take them as inspirational poetic musings, or perhaps pious fiction.

You can be sure I am not disputing the holy reputation of saint Catherine of Siena.

Again, I do not wish to offend.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hesychios,

You do not offend. I am still trying to understand Orthodoxy as well, and there is also the (name removed by moderator)ut of the Orthodox of those in communion with Rome…trying to separate one from an another.

So I can’t answer you. I am still learning.

The mystical writings of the Church were not used regarding the dogma of Mary’s assumption into heaven. But what I was intending to say is that Catholic spirituality in the classical sense, the purgation of sin…and this parallels some reflections that got no where on indulgences can give some light to understanding Mary’s assumption. For me, this spirituality helped me understand on a layman’s level.

 

[guanophore]

I qualified that the potential of violence from the Church Authority was in the past while standing on my parallel as a conclusion of my post that Church Authority does however (like the FDA) control what is religous truth…but obviously you didn’t read the parenthesis.

You are right, I did not read that.

…or now are you going to tell me that that’s not what I meant even though I wrote it?

I will accept what you have said.

The second part is still wrong, though. the Catholic Church does not control what is religions truth. The Truth is revealed to humans by God. It is the duty of the Church to preserve it, not to “control” it. Only God controls the Truth.

---- back to the thread topic ----

Guanophore Said - Those who understand the Marian doctrines know that they are founded primarily in Sacred Tradition (which suggests that it is found “secondarily and/or otherwise” in Sacred Scripture).

So this confirms the answer to the thread question; “no, Mary is not described as being assumed to heaven from the book of Revelation”.

I am not sure who claimed that it was, but any educated Catholic knows that the story of the Assumption is an extrabiblical reference.

What we see in scripture are references that confirm what the Apostles believed and taught about Mary. But, just like all other Catholic docrtrine, Scripture is not the Source of the Doctrine.

Even though there is imagery of a "woman" - which let's say is Mary -  **descending from** heaven to the wilderness, there is not imagery of the "woman" **assuming or ascending to** heaven.

The Apostle sees the woman “in heaven” with the Ark of the Covenant, crowned with starts. It is a reference to the fact that she dwells in heaven, not a description of how she got there.

The last description of the “woman” is she’s given two (2) wings of an eagle to flee into the wilderness where she is protected and nourished from the face of the dragon…the dragon then sends a flood to swallow her but the earth swallows the flood [Rev. 12:14-16…end description].

Mary’s life is paralleled by the journey of the Ark of the Covenant, or I should say, is prefigured by it. Mary has triumphed over the dragon.

 

[KathleenGee]

What people aren’t think about, is we all know about Rose Kennedy’s funeral, and to way back about the death of Cleopatra. They are possibly at the threshold of finding her remains with Mark Anthony.

We know the expanse of Christianity into the world. So from that we know that Jesus Christ is a profound presence over the world today, whether they believe in Him or not. We are now finding out the tomb at St. Peter’s could very well be that of St. Peter, and at St. Paul’s church, the sarcophagus most likely his…science at work at present…

But we do not know where Christ’s Mother Mary’s tomb is. There are no remains…there are stories passed down that her passing was shocking.

In the study of perfection, those who sin return to dust. But Mary’s immaculate conception allowed her to provide sinless flesh and blood and womb carry the Christ. She provided a most holy lar for Him with St. Joseph, most chaste.

Her whole creation was ‘Yes’ to God…and she is the only one able to follow Christ into heaven because she had no sin, no purgation, perfect union with the Father her whole life, although she as well did not always understand…she grew in faith…just as Jesus grew in wisdom…

Mary followed the way of perfection into heaven without purgation, without returning to the soil because she never sinned, she was not made of the flesh that is weak and leads us to sin.

The Scripture cannot explain all beliefs in the Catholic church because Revelation ended 90 years with the death of St. John. But what knowledge continues of Christ is found in His Church in the holiness of the saints…Mary was and is Par Excellence. There is no other like her. She was a follower of Jesus, and the first evangelist…a lay woman proclaiming Him at the visit with Elizabeth.

Mary was very hidden in her time…all the attention was for Jesus and the building up of His church. She advised the apostles. Tradition says she served the aged.

Mary brings women into the life of the church, not just outstanding women like you see in the Old Testament. For 2,000 years, we have had countless women saints who greatly outnumber the ancient women believers…the working of the Holy Spirit breathing the life of Christ throughout the Church and into the world.

 

[guanophore]

I just wanted to point out some things where (apparently) you and I differ in perspective.

The first and foremost is this:

I sincerely believe that no human creature is perfect, none save Christ Himself, for only God is perfect and we creatures in our humility should acknowledge this. Even in our salvation we cannot attain to the perfection that can only be in God. In other words (if one can follow my meaning here) for us perfection is a goal, not a destination.

In the context of sanctification, “perfect” means completed. This is Jesus’ intention for all of us. He has promised it,and He will bring it to pass. All those who are with Him in heaven are already perfected, because nothing unclean can enter heaven. Those who dwell in the heavenly realm are forever kept by Him from sin.

I feel quite certain that the Holy Theotokos would readily agree and also deny that she is perfect, not of any false modesty but because she should know that is so.

I think you are drawing a false equation between being human,and being imperfect. God did not create humans to sin. Sin is not part of His eternal plan for us. In His redemption of us, he separates us completely from our sins. By grace we are made partakers of His Divine nature. Why do you think He would leave His mother out of His perfect plan of salvation for man?

The second point I would make is that the ecstatic visions and writings of mystics are not the source for our belief in the assumption of Mary … and that the death, burial and assumption of Mary as a fact cannot be supported by them.

I will agree that they are not the source of the doctrine, except perhaps John, who is a mystic and does write about the image of the Theotokos. However, of course the experiences of the faithful confirm the doctrine of the faith. All those who have experienced the Theotokos after her assumption support this doctrine of the faith.

At best we can take them as inspirational poetic musings, or perhaps pious fiction.

It is a puzzle why you would think that people could not have authentic experiences of God and the communion of the saints. This attitude is not consistent with Holy Orthodoxy!

You can be sure I am not disputing the holy reputation of saint Catherine of Siena.

Again, I do not wish to offend.

She got her reputation by communicating with the faithful! If the communications were not authentic, then her reputation rests on “pious fiction”!

Do you think that the account of Saul interacting with Samuel is “pious fiction”?

 

[KathleenGee]

Thank you, Guanaphore, we have been down this road before…

As Mary was sinless, the Holy Spirit led her on the same path as Christ…her assumption into heaven…we have no tomb of Mary…

The work of Mary as Immaculate Conception was not that of Anna and Joachim, but of the Heavenly Father, and it is His Spirit who carried her on the same way to heaven, as she did not sin…taken up to the Lord.

Tradition has it that her leaving us was shocking to those who witnessed it, but not much more was said.

This also reflects to me personally Mary’s great modesty, and according to the Marian Doctor St. Louis de Montfort, that it was God’s will Mary be hidden until the latter days…and these are the times the dogma of her Immaculate Conception and Assumption into Heaven were made…through the witness of her hidden participation for the past 2000 years in helping us become closer to Jesus, she is justly given these beliefs.