I’m not certain, but I believe that the ‘rapture’ (please excuse me, but this is from what I have been told; I could be wrong) involves more of an ‘instant resurrection’ than an assumption as I understand the Catholic explanation of Mary’s Assumption is.
If we are talking about that instant resurrection/change from mortal to resurrected state, I don’t know anybody who denies that Mary was not worthy–just that it did not happen.
I do believe that most Protestants (who actually believe in a physical resurrection…some don’t…) believe that Mary will, at the very least, be among the ‘first fruits,’ if not #1 on the list.
The problem, I repeat, isn’t one of worthiness–of course she was. The problem is–where is the evidence that it happened?
The evidence is in the actual experience of the Church. The Bible is not, and cannot, be likened to an encyclopedia where everything is written down and outside of which there is nothing else. To accept the 27 books of the New Testament is also to accept the judgement of the Church that canonized it. The oral, handed-down Tradition of the Church also contains events and teachings that are not in the NT, except, perhaps, by way of imagery or suggestion. In any event, the early Christians would have entirely mistrusted written documents (unlike today’s culture) so the fact that things occurred in the experience of the Church and were handed down in the Church’s liturgy and teachings, but are not in the canon of the NT, does not invalidate the latter.
It would be helpful, however, if you, sir, could also speak to the “grounds” of your own faith. Yes, we only accept the Scripture as a valid “document” between us. But Catholic Tradition provides the interpretive key to the Scripture. Without that key, Scripture is open to more than one interpretation which, in the Protestant world, has led to many denominations. It has also led to a number of denominations stemming from the 19th century or so I’ve heard!
What is the Mormon key of interpretation of the New Testament? That would help us all here understand where you and our friend Todd are coming from. We know that you are coming from somewhere. Don’t leave us surmising - be forthright and explain how the Mormons interpret the Bible, it’s role in your Church etc.
Let’s leave this nonsense of taking Scripture on its own and apart from the wider context of the Tradition in which it was formed and which allows the Church and us to understand it in the way God wishes us to understand it.
Let’s remember that the Lutherans thought that if they separated “papal tradition” from the Scriptures, then everyone would agree with their interpretation of the Bible. The Anabaptists didn’t think so however. We all have our own tradition in interpreting the Scripture and we all don’t stop there when we formulate our understanding of the Christian faith. So let’s drop it, why don’t we?
Alex
