Mary's Assumption

[rwoehmke]

However, the Trinity is a doctrine taken directly from Holy Scripture and the Christ’s own description of the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The issue here is an historical event, such as the transfiguration and the Ascension (which are described in Scripture). The event of the Assumption is not described in scripture. I have not studied this issue, but would like to know if there are any historical accounts of the assumption, when was the first mention of the assumption, and why only recently (relatively!!) was it made into a dogma?

Beliefs of long standing are not always defined as the Assumption was because they have not been subject to spreading question by some of the faithful. When that starts to happen it has been the usual practice of the Church to formally define such beliefs either by Papal Pronouncement or action of a Council. Thus the timing is very need dependent and not a matter of someone fishing up a new belief.

 

[Allen_Scott]

The Book is Hidden Politics of the Crucifixion by Glenn Kimball and David Stirland.

To quote: "We only begin to understand Joseph of Arimethea when we begin hearing the echoes of his life from England, where he took the Mother Mary and her associates after the death of Jesus. He later became the “Apostle of Britain” and eventually was canonized with the title of Saint Joseph by the Roman Christians. pp. 74 & 75

I’m not saying it is true, but an interesting story not proven false. Its kind like how did satan get in the Garden of Eden. Lay the time line out and come to your on conclusion If the Garden of Eden was paradise and untainted and he got there second only to God then he tainted The Garden of Eden not Adam and Eve. Another interesting theory.

 

[mnealon1]

There is a large opinion the Our Lady " died " in Ephesus Turkey, where there is a large Marion Shrine to her there, and many pilgrims visit. Since Jesus gave Our Lady into the care of St. John on the Cross and that is where he went to spread the Good News, our Lady went with him, but she pined to be with Jesus.
Another account is that St. John knew how much she wanted to be with Jesus and he called the Apostles to meet them in Jerelesum, where she said goodbe to them.
When I visited the Holy Land our guide told us that Our Lady did not die, but went to sleep and at that point her body was taken up to Heaven.
I would agree with Antonabe that the Mother of God would not have to suffer corruption and find no problem whatsoever with Her Assumption. God can, did, and does anything, so why a problem with Jesus coming to take His beloved Mother bodily into Heaven. I think it is simply wonderful.
He is my Shepherd, and He shall fufil all my purpose Isa - 44:28

 

[yusef]

The problem for me is not that it would be “wonderful.” I readily agree and concede that it would. The problem is that it sounds like we are all speculating because such an event would have been appropriate and fitting. At the same time, had she died a normal death, as had Moses and Elijah, it would not detract from her being the finest, most beautiful and most favored person in the history of God’s creation. Would God not crown her anyway?.. Hence, it seems to be an event where there should be some room for differences of opinion since it only seemed to take a grassroot foothold among Christians generations later. It is one of those issues, such as the mystery of the death of Saint Joseph: whether or not we could speculate as to whether it was an illness or injury, or perhaps another cause. Could we then create a grassroot movement in support among the faithful to make such a theory a dogma… In spite of the appeal of the theory, would it be correct to then say that we must believe that this is what occurred?

 

[holy_moly]

From my OWN personal perspective - If I were Jesus, there is no way I would let my mother ever die! That woman suffered throughout her entire life for the cause of her Son. Now, I ask you - Would YOU want YOUR mother to die if you were Jesus? To me, it’s a common sense thing. Just my .02 cents.

She didn’t die, she was assumed into full life in Heaven… better than death no?

 

[ChadS]

At the same time, had she died a normal death, as had Moses and Elijah, it would not detract from her being the finest, most beautiful and most favored person in the history of God’s creation.

I’m pretty sure the Bible records that Elijah was taken into heaven on the fiery chariot prior to death. There is also a tradition that Moses was assumed into heaven but that is apocraphyl and isn’t known for sure.

ChadS

 

[Allen_Scott]

I am not trying to invent a new theological rumor. I am CaTholic and do believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Mother. I just would like to know where did this happen? Also there may not have been an England per se, but there was a Druid University at that time and wasn’t it called Gaul? You might want to read another book: Two Thousand Years Ago (The World at the time of Jesus) by Charles A Frazee. I often wondered where was the industrial park in Christ time. Sounds silly, doesn’t it? But who made the robes and shrould of turin or the leathers, how did they get ore hot enough to smelt? This book answers some of those questions, It won’t change history or my religion. Just like to know these things. If anyone has answers, please speak up, we all may want to know.

 

[Mintaka]

Well, now you know that nobody knows for sure just where all the places where Mary lived were, or where the Assumption happened.

As for a “Druid University” – you are probably remembering reading about the Roman armies’ final attack all the Celtic religion human sacrifice stuff – which archeology supports as really having been done in Gaul (today’s France and Belgium) and in Britannia (today’s UK). There was some kind of holy place with tons of Druids and priestesses, called the Isle of Mona or Mon. (That’s today’s Anglesey, off the coast of Wales.) The Romans moved in and pretty much slaughtered everybody. (And I seem to recall there’s some archeological evidence backing that up, too.) This is not to say that the Celtic religions were totally worthless and unphilosophical. They had some very deep ideas, from all one can tell. Unfortunately, one of them was the idea that you should honor the gods by burning people up in wicker frames or killing them in three ways simultaneously and then popping them into a bog for all eternity.

The only religions really banned in the Roman Empire were the Druidic form of Celtic religion, with the human sacrifice; a very nasty fish goddess religion that also got up to human sacrifice; and Christianity, which was of course rumored to get up to human sacrifice, but which was really banned for not worshipping the Genius of the Emperor while not having an out for being really old and reliable, like Judaism.

This didn’t stop people from the 1700’s from theorizing big time that Jesus learned everything from the Druids, because Druids were popular then. Jesus has also supposedly learned everything from Egyptians, Hindu priests, Tibetans, Chinese mystics, Japanese mystics… and probably Eskimos and Sioux, too. (Somehow the Irish restrained themselves. They only theorized that St. Brigid somehow got to Israel and was hired on as Jesus’ wetnurse.)

The whole Joseph of Arimathea thing probably comes from the fact that Cornwall’s tin mines drew traders from the Middle East, and it’s possible that Joseph of Arimathea was one. Of course, this has led to all sorts of what-if legends: What if Jesus shipped out during his younger years? What if Joseph of Arimathea hauled along all the disciples? Etc.

But in point of fact, the only common idea among all the legends is that Joseph of Arimathea built the first church at Glastonbury, which was apparently indeed a very early Christian church; and that he planted the Glastonbury Thorn. That’s about it.

There are also legends that the disciples fled to Gaul, and just about everywhere else.

There probably was some amount of fleeing, but as the Acts of the Apostles shows, it wasn’t all that soon. The big flight of the Church in Jerusalem was when the big Jewish revolt was on; and it doesn’t seem that most people fled any further than to cities just outside Israel’s borders.

On the whole, there’s nothing wrong with wondering about the old legends. But believing every single ramification of the plotlines is a bit problematic.

 

[mnealon1]

While I totally respect the view of anyone and everybody, I as an Irish woman, feel I must step up to the mark to defend the statement made by Mintaka about St. Brigid. In Ireland we have three patron Saints. St Patrick, St.Brigid, and St. Colmcille.
St. Brigids parents were probably Baptised by St Patrick ( St Patrick 390-460) and St. Brigid was a good friend of his.
St. Brigid started to form religious life 468 and settled around Kildare Southern Ireland.
St. Brigid is best know for her St.Brigids Cross. When dying she lifted somes rushes from the floor and wove them to-gether to form a Cross to explain the Passion of Jesus,
and are still made to-day and Irish homes have one. I do
A bit late to be the wetnurse of Jesus. I never hear such a thing in my life living in Ireland.
The Feast day of St. Brigid is Feb. 2nd.
God Bless.

 

[Allen_Scott]

What a response to one question. I appreciate all answers, but I guess we really don’t know where. Lots of historical opinions which is great. Thanks to all. Allen

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

I am Catholic, I believe in the Assumption. I just want to know geographically where did it, the Assumption occur on this earth. Please this is a simple question but maybe a complex answer. Thanks, Allen Scott

I don’t think anyone knows that for sure

 

[JP_Marat]

Hello all! Mary’s Assumption is something I have not had a problem with until recently. How can something that happened after the time of Christ be required to be believed for salvation? I thought all public revelation stopped after Christ ascended into heaven. If a person has a problem with this dogma, then how can they be required to believe it?

RESPONSE:

You are absolutely correct. More importantly, in limiting ex cathedra papal teachings, the First Council of the Vatican declared:

"For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound **the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. **

Unfortunately, Pope Pius XII ignored this limitation in proclaiming the dogma of the Assumption. So evidently he did not have Holy Spirit support for his claim.

 

[JP_Marat]

If all public revelation stopped after the Ascension, none of the Gospels are to be believed all of which were written and codified many years after Christ. Tradition precedes the Gospels and the Gospels themselves were the subject of selection by the Church.

If a person has a problem with dogma, humility is required.

RESPONSE:

No. Not humility. Common sense and a study of history.

Evidence for the Assumption by Father William G. Most
'There had been a problem of how the Pope could define the Assumption. There seemed to be **nothing in Scripture **on it, and what things there were in the **Tradition** of the Fathers seemed to come **not from an apostolic origin**, but from some **apocryphal stories **that circulated chiefly **beginning in the fourth century. '**

 

[mnealon1]

Pope Pius X11 made the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother an article of faith in 1950. ( When a Pope speaks on matters of Faith and Morals he is infallable )
He regarded the fact that Our Lady was born without original sin, so remained sinless, like Jesus. Corruption of the body is part of our punsihment for the sins of our lives, but as Our Lady had no sin therefore it was obvious Our Lady would not be buired, and her precious body would not enter into corruption . Had her womb not been the first Tabernacle of Jesus the Son of God?
Revelation 12: 1-8 is well worth reading.

As to where the Assumption took place, some say Ephesus, some say Jerusalem?
For me it is not important. Our Lady is crowned Queen of Heaven by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. She was the most perfect adorer of the Blesed Trinity. Good enough for me, and boy does mankind need her at this present time.

Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

RESPONSE:

You are absolutely correct. More importantly, in limiting ex cathedra papal teachings, the First Council of the Vatican declared:

"For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound **the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. **

Unfortunately, Pope Pius XII ignored this limitation in proclaiming the dogma of the Assumption. So evidently he did not have Holy Spirit support for his claim.

And what makes you think that an Apostle did not witness the Assumption? You are making an assertion that you cannot back up with facts.

If you are a Catholic then you are speaking heresy. If not, then at the least you are making assertions that you cannot back up.

 

[JP_Marat]

Because it is dogma. All dogmatic definitions must be believed by Catholics. If you are a Catholic, then you will believe what the Catholic Church teaches. And the Catechism states:

CCC 82: As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

CCC 87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

RESPONSE:

The Church sometimes has trouble with “dogma.” How about the claim that the Church always interprets scripture correctly (see Council of Trent and Vatican I)?

Yet the Church was in error claiming biblical approval of slave ownership, it’s bibically based condemnation of charging any interest, and even its claim that the bible proved that the sun revolves around the earth.

The time is rapidly passing when the Church could expected its members to believe any claim it made merely by declaring it to be “dogma.”

 

[JP_Marat]

Public Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. All of the New Testament was written after the Ascension, that doesn’t mean we should get rid of it. The Trinity was defined until the second century, should that not be believed because it was defined after Jesus’ Ascension? Nope. Revelation might have ended, but we are still learning about the faith and there is much more to learn. It’s called the development of doctrine.

RESPONSE:

The Trinity claim was invented in the second or third century and became “dogma” in the fourth. It was necessary because the bible insisted that there could only be one God. However, when the claim that Jesus was, in addition to being the messiah, divine himself, there was obviously a conflict with Mosaic law.

Voila, the Trinity was invented!

 

[JP_Marat]

From my OWN personal perspective - If I were Jesus, there is no way I would let my mother ever die! That woman suffered throughout her entire life for the cause of her Son. Now, I ask you - Would YOU want YOUR mother to die if you were Jesus? To me, it’s a common sense thing. Just my .02 cents.

RESPONSE:

What about St. Joseph? Did Jesus care about him?

Or was he “assumed” too?

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

…Yet the Church was in error claiming biblical approval of slave ownership…

Two errors in your statement:

1. There is no DOGMATIC intepretation about slave ownership
2. Slave ownership is not intrinsically evil, since the NT teaches about how to treat your slaves

The Trinity claim was invented in the second or third century and became “dogma” in the fourth. It was necessary because the bible insisted that there could only be one God. However, when the claim that Jesus was, in addition to being the messiah, divine himself, there was obviously a conflict with Mosaic law.

Voila, the Trinity was invented!

VOILA - you believe in a false God, because God is Trinity. Are you a JW?

 

[JP_Marat]

Beliefs of long standing are not always defined as the Assumption was because they have not been subject to spreading question by some of the faithful. When that starts to happen it has been the usual practice of the Church to formally define such beliefs either by Papal Pronouncement or action of a Council. Thus the timing is very need dependent and not a matter of someone fishing up a new belief.

RESPONSE:

Then please provide any proof from scripture, or the early Church Fathers, or, in fact, anyone that there was any mention of an Assumption before the fourth century.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admit’s:

"The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is **founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite.… The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious… Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing **definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11).