G
Good_Fella
Guest
Kujo, you confuse me, as do all fundamentalists who think they speak infallibly and
authoritatively because they cite Holy Scriptures in light of their own preconceived
ideas and out of misconceptions. You claim that the Assumption of Mary is “not heretical
in and of itself” yet it is heretical for the Church to teach this doctrine and promulgate
it as dogma, encouraging the faithful to give a sacred assent to this dogma. If the Assumption
of Mary is not heretical, then how can believing in something not heretical be heretical? Is it
because such a belief leads Catholics into venerating and honouring the Mother of God,
not to mention praying to her? (We don’t worship and adore her as we do Christ, by the way.)
But if God could assume Mary into heaven body and soul because she is the mother of
his divine Son, and she was conceived without the stain of original sin for the same reason,
then obviously she would be deserving of the honour we show her and the recourse we take to her.
The doctrine of the Assumption has its beginnings in 5th century Syria, if I recall.
However, the tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary has been traditionally venerated
in the Valley of Cedron near Jerusalem since the second century. Doctrines evolve from
traditional beliefs commonly held among the faithful. And, indeed, there was never any
tradition connecting Mary’s death and burial with Ephesus. Not a single writer or pilgrim
speaks of her tomb as being there. Apparent sources have been ruled out as unclear
and unreliable by most Christian scholars. On the otherhand, the apocryphal works of
the 2nd to the 4th century point to Jerusalem as Mary’s resting place. According to
the “Acts of St.John by Prochurus” written by Lencius (160-70), the evangelist went to
Ephesus alone at an advanced age after Mary’s death. The two letters ‘B. Inatii missa
S.Joanni’ ,written about 370, show that Mary spent her last days in Jerusalem. Other early
Church writings place her tomb at Gethsemane. From a historical standpoint the apocryphal
books have a real value, reflecting as they do the tradition of the early centuries. The testimony
of the Patriarch of Jerusalem is probably the strongest attestation to the actual burial place of Mary.
Kuja, you are wrong in charging that Catholics believe Mary “ascended into heaven”
or had “resurrected from the dead”. Christ by his own power rose from the dead and ascended
into heaven. We believe that Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul like Enoch and
Elijah by the power of God, not by her own power; so we don’t deify her as you misconceive.
Finally, you claim that the Assumption of Mary has no biblical ground. We must keep
in mind that the authors of the New Testament were soley concerned with the salvific
merits of Christ. The Assumption of Mary has no direct bearing on our salvation, so there
is no point in documenting the Assumption in Holy Scriptures. But as the Patriarch of
Jerusalem had pointed out, the apostles and the infant Church were aware of Mary’s empty
tomb near Jerusalem. Still the Gospel of Matthew suggests that Mary’s assumption is
possible, as does Genesis and 2 Kings. The possibilty of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is related in Matthew 27:52-53.
Regardless, the negative historical proof for Mary’s assumption, that the early Christians
could not find her remains for the purpose of veneration, strongly indicates that she was
assumed into heaven. It is only fitting that Christ would wish that we venerate his mother
in her glorified state, preceding our own resurrection from the dead just as she had
preceded our redemption by her Immaculate Conception.
authoritatively because they cite Holy Scriptures in light of their own preconceived
ideas and out of misconceptions. You claim that the Assumption of Mary is “not heretical
in and of itself” yet it is heretical for the Church to teach this doctrine and promulgate
it as dogma, encouraging the faithful to give a sacred assent to this dogma. If the Assumption
of Mary is not heretical, then how can believing in something not heretical be heretical? Is it
because such a belief leads Catholics into venerating and honouring the Mother of God,
not to mention praying to her? (We don’t worship and adore her as we do Christ, by the way.)
But if God could assume Mary into heaven body and soul because she is the mother of
his divine Son, and she was conceived without the stain of original sin for the same reason,
then obviously she would be deserving of the honour we show her and the recourse we take to her.
The doctrine of the Assumption has its beginnings in 5th century Syria, if I recall.
However, the tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary has been traditionally venerated
in the Valley of Cedron near Jerusalem since the second century. Doctrines evolve from
traditional beliefs commonly held among the faithful. And, indeed, there was never any
tradition connecting Mary’s death and burial with Ephesus. Not a single writer or pilgrim
speaks of her tomb as being there. Apparent sources have been ruled out as unclear
and unreliable by most Christian scholars. On the otherhand, the apocryphal works of
the 2nd to the 4th century point to Jerusalem as Mary’s resting place. According to
the “Acts of St.John by Prochurus” written by Lencius (160-70), the evangelist went to
Ephesus alone at an advanced age after Mary’s death. The two letters ‘B. Inatii missa
S.Joanni’ ,written about 370, show that Mary spent her last days in Jerusalem. Other early
Church writings place her tomb at Gethsemane. From a historical standpoint the apocryphal
books have a real value, reflecting as they do the tradition of the early centuries. The testimony
of the Patriarch of Jerusalem is probably the strongest attestation to the actual burial place of Mary.
Kuja, you are wrong in charging that Catholics believe Mary “ascended into heaven”
or had “resurrected from the dead”. Christ by his own power rose from the dead and ascended
into heaven. We believe that Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul like Enoch and
Elijah by the power of God, not by her own power; so we don’t deify her as you misconceive.
Finally, you claim that the Assumption of Mary has no biblical ground. We must keep
in mind that the authors of the New Testament were soley concerned with the salvific
merits of Christ. The Assumption of Mary has no direct bearing on our salvation, so there
is no point in documenting the Assumption in Holy Scriptures. But as the Patriarch of
Jerusalem had pointed out, the apostles and the infant Church were aware of Mary’s empty
tomb near Jerusalem. Still the Gospel of Matthew suggests that Mary’s assumption is
possible, as does Genesis and 2 Kings. The possibilty of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is related in Matthew 27:52-53.
Regardless, the negative historical proof for Mary’s assumption, that the early Christians
could not find her remains for the purpose of veneration, strongly indicates that she was
assumed into heaven. It is only fitting that Christ would wish that we venerate his mother
in her glorified state, preceding our own resurrection from the dead just as she had
preceded our redemption by her Immaculate Conception.
(i.e. same here) 
