Question about Mary in Scripture

[dmartinmca]

In the 1st reading on the Feast of Assumption it says that Mary was “Taken to the desert to a special place prepared by God” (paraphrasing). My question is this: Just where is Mary anyway? It appears to be a place other than Heaven.

 

[MarcoPolo]

In the 1st reading on the Feast of Assumption it says that Mary was “Taken to the desert to a special place prepared by God” (paraphrasing). My question is this: Just where is Mary anyway? It appears to be a place other than Heaven.

She is in heaven. From the 1950 Munificentissimus Deus defining the dogma, it refers to " the dogma of the Virgin Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven." I don’t know the exact phrase you are paraphrasing, but it could simply mean “special place” in the sense that Mary is exempt from the normative afterlife experience of the just whose bodies still decay and are not reunited with their souls without the passing of the “last day.” (e.g. see paragraphs 4-5 in the linked document) She holds a special place in the sense that she holds a special privilege.

 

[dmartinmca]

The verse is rev 12:6 There must be some significance to this verse.

 

[Bravo_6]

Mary’s bodily assumption into Heaven?

No Christian could dispute the fact that Mary’s soul is in Heaven. Christ certainly did not suffer the soul of His own mother to be lost. The doctrine of her bodily assumption after her death is not contained in Scripture, but is guaranteed by tradition and by the teaching of the Catholic Church. That Scripture omits to record the fact is no argument against it. Omission is not denial. Meantime early traditions positively record the fact, and negatively we note that, whilst the mortal remains of a St. Peter and of a St. Paul are jealously possessed and honored in Rome, no city or Christian center has ever claimed to possess the mortal remains of Our Lady. Certainly relics of Our Lady would be regarded as having greater value than those of any Saint or Apostle, so nearly was she related to Christ. And it was most fitting that the body of Mary, who had been preserved even from the taint of original sin, should not have been allowed to corrupt After all, it was just as easy for God to take her glorified body to Heaven at once as it will be to take the glorified bodies of all the saved at the last day. However the definite sanction of this doctrine by the Catholic Church is sufficient assurance of the fact.

Death and corruption are penalties of original sin. But Mary, by her Immaculate Conception, was preserved free from all taint of original sin. You may ask, “Why, then, did she die?” Though innocent, she died in union with her innocent Son. She shared in the whole work of redemption, identifying herself with Jesus in all His sorrows and sufferings. And she accepted death as He accepted death. But, as she shared in His redemptive work, so also she shared in the privilege of His resurrection and glory. After all, it was just as easy for God to take her glorified body to heaven at once as it will be to take the glorified bodies of all the saved at the last day.

 

[Bravo_6]

What authority is there for the doctrine?

Firstly, of course, the inherent teaching authority of Christ. The Catholic Church was commissioned to teach all nations with His authority and under His protection. The mere fact that she teaches the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven is sufficient assurance of the event. But what reasons support the teaching, apart from the authority of ithe Church? There is no express reference to the subject in Sacred Scripture. But it has ever been the tradition of Christians from the very beginning, and, as the Anglican Mozley has pointed out, “The conviction of the fact did not arise from mere belief; the belief can only be accounted for by the primitive fact.” Theologically, the corruption of the body is a consequence of the corruption of original sin. But Mary was exempted from the corruption of original sin, and it was most fitting that she should be exempted from corruption in the grave. The Greek Orthodox Church agrees with the Catholic Church on this doctrine. High Church Anglicans are returning to it. I have just been reading an Anglican booklet on the subject, in which the author writes: “It would seem rash to deny such a bodily assumption, for despite the prevalence of credulity in the matter of relics, no Church (or city) has ever claimed to possess the mortal remains of our Lady. Why not? It is a fact which requires explanation. Relics of our Lady would possess a greater value for Christians than any others. Do not urge that the Reformers abolished the festival of the assumption. They abolished much that had been better left untouched. Many of their experiments have not proved successful. We may hope the day will come when the authorities of our provinces will repair the loss which has been sustained by its omission.” I quote that to show the High Anglican tendency, and also, because there is something in the historical fact that, whilst St. Peter’s body, for example, is so deeply reverenced at Rome, no city has ever claimed to possess the remains of our Blessed Lady. Her assumption, body and soul, into heaven is an obvious reason why.

 

[Cachonga]

Catholic scholar Ludwig Ott, in his book “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” notes that there is no scriptural evidence for the assumpton of Mary. Furthermore, he notes that the first documentation for the assumption comes from the transitus literature of the 5th or 6th century (this was declared heretical by Pope Gelasius). I don’t have my copy of the book handy, but I believe it’s found around page 122 (could be 129). The reference from Rev 12 is not directly related to Mary, but has been used by the Church as an indication of her assumption. While I agree that it could have happened, I do not agree that the bodily assumption is something that should be a defined dogma of the Church. It seems to me just as likely that God buried her in secret (like He did with Moses).

 

[dmartinmca]

I have no doubt and firmly believe in the assumption of The Blessed Virgin and I also have no doubt that the verse refers to her. My take on it is she was taken to a special place, probably part of Heaven, to a place of special honor within Heaven. What I’d like to know is if there is an official teaching on this. After all she is the Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven & Earth.

 

[TimothyH]

The verse is rev 12:6 There must be some significance to this verse.

I have no doubt and firmly believe in the assumption of The Blessed Virgin and I also have no doubt that the verse refers to her. My take on it is she was taken to a special place, probably part of Heaven, to a place of special honor within Heaven. What I’d like to know is if there is an official teaching on this. After all she is the Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven & Earth.

It’s about Joseph taking Mary and Jesus to Egypt to escape from Herod.

The verse is revelation 12:6 and it speaks not about Mary being taken to Heaven but of her flight to Egypt to escape from Herod who wanted to kill the newborn king of the Jews. Herod was an Edomite. Old Testament Biblical prophecy was that a king would arise Israel who would utterly destroy all Edom and kill all the Edomites.

"Thus says the Lord GOD: Because Edom acted revengefully against the house of Judah and has grievously offended in taking vengeance upon them, therefore thus says the Lord GOD, I will stretch out my hand against Edom, and cut off from it man and beast; and I will make it desolate; from Teman even to Dedan they shall fall by the sword. And I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel; and they shall do in Edom according to my anger and according to my wrath; and they shall know my vengeance, says the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel 25:12-14)

Herod was an Edomite and he knew this prophecy, and when he heard that there was a newborn king of the Jews he became afraid. He inquired of the three Magi as to where he could find the newborn King of the Jews and massacred all the children in Bethlehem.

When Herod realized that he had been deceived by the magi, he became furious. He ordered the massacre of all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had ascertained from the magi. (Matthew 2:16)

John is telling us what has already happened, when Joseph took Mary and Jesus to Egypt at the command of the angel because Herod was seeking to kill the newborn King.

***When they had departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you. Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him.” Joseph rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt. He stayed there until the death of Herod, that what the Lord had said through the prophet might be fulfilled, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” *(Matthew 2:13-15)

Revelation 12:6 is about Joseph’s flight to Egypt to escape Herod.

***The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days. *(Revelation 12:6)

Revelation 12:6 speaks not about Mary being taken to Heaven but of her flight to Egypt to escape from Herod who wanted to kill the newborn king of the Jews. records that Mary stayed “In the desert” 1260 days. That is approximately the same length of time from the massacre of the innocents by Herod to his death and the return of Jesus and Mary to Israel (Nazareth).

-Tim-

 

[dmartinmca]

I like that response and it seems reasonable with the context of the verse. I’m gonna go with that one

 

[TimothyH]

I like that response and it seems reasonable with the context of the verse. I’m gonna go with that one

Much of revelation is drawn directly from the Old Testament.

People think it is so mysterious and that it will only be fully understood at the end of time.

But much of it speaks about the Mass, about the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, and much of it is just a repetition of OT prophecy in light of the advent, death and ressurection of Christ and his formation of a kingdom on earth, the Church.

If you get familiar with the Old Testament, especially Exodus, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Jerimiah, then much of the book of Revelation begins to make sense.

-Tim-

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Much of revelation is drawn directly from the Old Testament.

People think it is so mysterious and that it will only be fully understood at the end of time.

But much of it speaks about the Mass, about the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, and much of it is just a repetition of OT prophecy in light of the advent, death and ressurection of Christ and his formation of a kingdom on earth, the Church.

If you get familiar with the Old Testament, especially Exodus, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Jerimiah, then much of the book of Revelation begins to make sense.

-Tim-

Hi Tim.
I am not aware of any place in scripture which tells us Herod was an Edomite.
I take it you are referencing a secular history on Herod antipas?

Herod the tetrarch, whom is Jesus’ contemporary at the crucifixion – I am aware was not a pure Jew; and I suppose the same would be expected of his father. Of course, it really doesn’t matter if his father was Edomite or not – as any other royal line which might displace him would have been motive enough to attempt to kill them.

But, I am curious – in order for the prophecy of the OT to be a non-false prophecy, it had to have been fulfilled. This passage you quote, indicates that Edom would suffer at the hands of the people of Israel; and if it were not already history at the time of Herod, when did it happen? eg: by 70 AD, there were no more Israelites to utterly destroy Edom.

Also, in that passage in Revelation – It says, the child was caught up to heaven – and then the woman went into the desert for the period of days.
That’s a period of exactly three years… but after the ascention?

What are your thoughts?

 

[TimothyH]

Hi Tim.
I am not aware of any place in scripture which tells us Herod was an Edomite.
I take it you are referencing a secular history on Herod antipas?

Herod the tetrarch, whom is Jesus’ contemporary at the crucifixion – I am aware was not a pure Jew; and I suppose the same would be expected of his father. Of course, it really doesn’t matter if his father was Edomite or not – as any other royal line which might displace him would have been motive enough to attempt to kill them.

But, I am curious – in order for the prophecy of the OT to be a non-false prophecy, it had to have been fulfilled. This passage you quote, indicates that Edom would suffer at the hands of the people of Israel; and if it were not already history at the time of Herod, when did it happen? eg: by 70 AD, there were no more Israelites to utterly destroy Edom.

Also, in that passage in Revelation – It says, the child was caught up to heaven – and then the woman went into the desert for the period of days.
That’s a period of exactly three years… but after the ascention?

What are your thoughts?

The exact order is not important to the author. Thats not how Hebrew storytellers wrote. It is not a newspaper article.

I was working from memory from something a way back, and I could very well be wrong about Herod being an Edomite, but I do recall reading or studying somewhere that Herod was scared to death at the prospect of the birth of a Jewish king. I think my reference was a Bible study by Jeff Cavins and I no longer have the DVDs, but he was scared of the newborn Jewish king and Joseph, Mary and Jesus did flee is wrath.

Again, my point is that the Book of Revelation draws heavily from the Prophets of the Old Testament and in some cases from the Gospels. It is not entirely prophecy about the end times. Much of the book of Revelation is a recapitulation the Jewish Scriptures and the events in the life of Jesus and his Church, but this time summarizing the narrative story in the Old Testament in a Christocentric way. Much of it is simply a restatment of the story of salvation in he bible with an emphasis on Christ.

 

[TimothyH]

I believe that Herod was from Idumaea, which is Edom of the Old Testament.

Encyclopedia Britiannica…

I’ll have to check the prophecy from Ezekiel which I cited, which could be wrong. It could be the prophecy of Balaam in Numbers 24.

I see him, though not now;
I observe him, though not near:
A star shall advance from Jacob,
and a scepter shall rise from Israel,
That will crush the brows of Moab,
and the skull of all the Sethites,
Edom will be dispossessed,
and no survivor is left in Seir.
Israel will act boldly,
and Jacob will rule his foes.
(Numbers 24:17-19)

-Tim-

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I believe that Herod was from Idumaea, which is Edom of the Old Testament.

Edom, and Idumaea, is the southeastern border of the promised land – it’s just below Moab. Esau and Jacob were given the lands through palestine and idumea for their inheritance – but they exchanged their inherited lands for the bowl of lentils… Esau preferred to hunt, in any event, and the hill country of Idumea suited him better.

The Brittanica article, however, appears to say the word Edom from which Herod Antipater came (my mistake for calling him antipas…) was southwest between the salt/dead sea and the gulf next to Egypt. I think that may be a more modern title as that’s not the Geography of Edom of the old testament esp. at the time of Balaam.

I think your memory is quite good. Ezekiel, is in the Babylonian captivity, and would reflect on the way Edom treated israel when Babylon came to conquer them.

Seir is the main city mentioned in all the curses against historical Edom, eg: Isaiah, etc. So the prophecy in Ezekiel is consistent.

Herod the Great, according to the article you linked (thanks, that was very helpful) was not from Idumea, it says : “Herod was born in southern Palestine”

His father – Antipater married a woman taken from Petra (southwest border) not Edom proper – and if Antipater was already a king; it was as a Roman appointee over the promised land.

It’s hard to imagine Herod the Great, then, was Edomite except by association with his father.

Edom was varously in favor and out of favor with Israel throughout history.
Esau himself was never banned from coming into the promised land (in spite, and contradiction to predestination arguments taken from St. Paul out of context); and Esau’s children often were on friendly terms with Israel allowing Garrisons of Israel to be stationed there.

I’ll have to check the prophecy from Ezekiel which I cited, which could be wrong. It could be the prophecy of Balaam in Numbers 24.

I think your memory is fine; I seem to have about as good a one when it comes to remembering things from Cavins, Hahan, etc.

Historically, though,…
At the time of Balaam – perhaps remembering the bad terms Esau and Jacob parted on; (Jacob did do Esau wrong…) Edom refused safe passage of the Israelites into their land (which was extorted from Esau).

That breach of brotherly tolerance – was what brought on the curse in Numbers 24.

At times, Edom was suppressed by Israel. However, I don’t recall any history ever indicating that Edom was crushed by Israel after the time of Christ. It seems to me, more likely, that if the prophecy of Ezekiel were fulfilled at all – that it had to be in the times of the Maccabees or immediately upon return from Babylon. (Otherwise, it can only be an anachronistic repetition of an older prophecy / apocalyptic out of anger… but which wouldn’t be fulfilled in the future)

Some historians deny that Edom was ever ruled by Israel; and I am not sure how the scriptural references are reconciled.

Herod the Great (of Jesus’ birth time), though, was more or less insane with power lust and fear. Even if the prophecy were already fulfilled, his Father’s potential link to historical Edom (even if he were born technically out of biblical Edom… ) would easily have swayed him to massacre anyone to protect his throne. His paranoia was often exploited to destroy even his own wife and children, let alone people he didn’t love.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The exact order is not important to the author. Thats not how Hebrew storytellers wrote. It is not a newspaper article.

but, the writers do organize by topic. Order is important, but not always for chronological reasons.

In this particular case in Revelation – the sequence is within one sentence; and I don’t recall this ever happening in another place where history is reversed within a single paragraph/idea. Generally, if something is anachronistic – they are separate events.

Here, the dragon goes after the woman because the child is out of reach.

IF we grant anachronism, then it still remains to be understood what the topic is that would cause such a reversal and contingent sequence to be logical.

… but he [Herod] was scared of the newborn Jewish king and Joseph, Mary and Jesus did flee is wrath.

True without a doubt…

Again, my point is that the Book of Revelation draws heavily from the Prophets of the Old Testament and in some cases from the Gospels. It is not entirely prophecy about the end times. Much of the book of Revelation is a recapitulation the Jewish Scriptures and the events in the life of Jesus and his Church, but this time summarizing the narrative story in the Old Testament in a Christocentric way. Much of it is simply a restatment of the story of salvation in he bible with an emphasis on Christ.

Yes, and you have shown that well.

 

[TimothyH]

Edom, and Idumaea, is the southeastern border of the promised land – it’s just below Moab. Esau and Jacob were given the lands through palestine and idumea for their inheritance – but they exchanged their inherited lands for the bowl of lentils… Esau preferred to hunt, in any event, and the hill country of Idumea suited him better.

The Brittanica article, however, appears to say the word Edom from which Herod Antipater came (my mistake for calling him antipas…) was southwest between the salt/dead sea and the gulf next to Egypt. I think that may be a more modern title as that’s not the Geography of Edom of the old testament esp. at the time of Balaam.

I think your memory is quite good. Ezekiel, is in the Babylonian captivity, and would reflect on the way Edom treated israel when Babylon came to conquer them.

Seir is the main city mentioned in all the curses against historical Edom, eg: Isaiah, etc. So the prophecy in Ezekiel is consistent.

Herod the Great, according to the article you linked (thanks, that was very helpful) was not from Idumea, it says : “Herod was born in southern Palestine”

His father – Antipater married a woman taken from Petra (southwest border) not Edom proper – and if Antipater was already a king; it was as a Roman appointee over the promised land.

It’s hard to imagine Herod the Great, then, was Edomite except by association with his father.

Edom was varously in favor and out of favor with Israel throughout history.
Esau himself was never banned from coming into the promised land (in spite, and contradiction to predestination arguments taken from St. Paul out of context); and Esau’s children often were on friendly terms with Israel allowing Garrisons of Israel to be stationed there.

I think your memory is fine; I seem to have about as good a one when it comes to remembering things from Cavins, Hahan, etc.

Historically, though,…
At the time of Balaam – perhaps remembering the bad terms Esau and Jacob parted on; (Jacob did do Esau wrong…) Edom refused safe passage of the Israelites into their land (which was extorted from Esau).

That breach of brotherly tolerance – was what brought on the curse in Numbers 24.

At times, Edom was suppressed by Israel. However, I don’t recall any history ever indicating that Edom was crushed by Israel after the time of Christ. It seems to me, more likely, that if the prophecy of Ezekiel were fulfilled at all – that it had to be in the times of the Maccabees or immediately upon return from Babylon. (Otherwise, it can only be an anachronistic repetition of an older prophecy / apocalyptic out of anger… but which wouldn’t be fulfilled in the future)

Some historians deny that Edom was ever ruled by Israel; and I am not sure how the scriptural references are reconciled.

Herod the Great (of Jesus’ birth time), though, was more or less insane with power lust and fear. Even if the prophecy were already fulfilled, his Father’s potential link to historical Edom (even if he were born technically out of biblical Edom… ) would easily have swayed him to massacre anyone to protect his throne. His paranoia was often exploited to destroy even his own wife and children, let alone people he didn’t love.

Glancing at your response here before I have to run out leaves me salivating. You have my interest now. Unfortunately, I have to get dinner and go to a meeting, but I plan on reading and your post slowly tonight if I can. It is something I should learn more about.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Edom, and Idumaea, is the southeastern border of the promised land – it’s just below Moab. Esau and Jacob were given the lands through palestine and idumea for their inheritance – but they exchanged their inherited lands for the bowl of lentils… Esau preferred to hunt, in any event, and the hill country of Idumea suited him better.

Jacob did not trade his inheritance for a bowl of lentils. Easau traded his “Birthright” for the food, but not Jacob.

The Brittanica article, however, appears to say the word Edom from which Herod Antipater came (my mistake for calling him antipas…) was southwest between the salt/dead sea and the gulf next to Egypt. I think that may be a more modern title as that’s not the Geography of Edom of the old testament esp. at the time of Balaam.

I think your memory is quite good. Ezekiel, is in the Babylonian captivity, and would reflect on the way Edom treated israel when Babylon came to conquer them.

Seir is the main city mentioned in all the curses against historical Edom, eg: Isaiah, etc. So the prophecy in Ezekiel is consistent.

Herod the Great, according to the article you linked (thanks, that was very helpful) was not from Idumea, it says : “Herod was born in southern Palestine”

His father – Antipater married a woman taken from Petra (southwest border) not Edom proper – and if Antipater was already a king; it was as a Roman appointee over the promised land.

It’s hard to imagine Herod the Great, then, was Edomite except by association with his father.

Edom was varously in favor and out of favor with Israel throughout history.
Esau himself was never banned from coming into the promised land (in spite, and contradiction to predestination arguments taken from St. Paul out of context); and Esau’s children often were on friendly terms with Israel allowing Garrisons of Israel to be stationed there.

I think your memory is fine; I seem to have about as good a one when it comes to remembering things from Cavins, Hahan, etc.

Historically, though,…
At the time of Balaam – perhaps remembering the bad terms Esau and Jacob parted on; (Jacob did do Esau wrong…) Edom refused safe passage of the Israelites into their land (which was extorted from Esau).

One could just as easily say that Easau did not deserve the birthright, and that it rightly belonged to Jacob. If the narrative is read carefully, Jacob simply obeys his Mother.

St. Louis de Montfort drew from the text the spiritual meaning of the elect (Jacob) and the reprobate (Esau), with Jacob obedient to his Mother (Mary), staying at home and helping her while the reprobate son is out “In the world”.

It is probably tangential to our conversation, but my love for Mary makes me bring it up.

That breach of brotherly tolerance – was what brought on the curse in Numbers 24.

At times, Edom was suppressed by Israel. However, I don’t recall any history ever indicating that Edom was crushed by Israel after the time of Christ. It seems to me, more likely, that if the prophecy of Ezekiel were fulfilled at all – that it had to be in the times of the Maccabees or immediately upon return from Babylon. (Otherwise, it can only be an anachronistic repetition of an older prophecy / apocalyptic out of anger… but which wouldn’t be fulfilled in the future)

Some historians deny that Edom was ever ruled by Israel; and I am not sure how the scriptural references are reconciled.

It is very interesting. I’ve not studied nor reflected on the subject as much as you.

Herod the Great (of Jesus’ birth time), though, was more or less insane with power lust and fear. Even if the prophecy were already fulfilled, his Father’s potential link to historical Edom (even if he were born technically out of biblical Edom… ) would easily have swayed him to massacre anyone to protect his throne. His paranoia was often exploited to destroy even his own wife and children, let alone people he didn’t love.

It is very interesting and I confess to knowing less about Herod than you, and not having studied nor reflected on the topic as deeply as I should.

-Tim-

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Jacob did not trade his inheritance for a bowl of lentils. Easau traded his “Birthright” for the food, but not Jacob.

One could just as easily say that Easau did not deserve the birthright, and that it rightly belonged to Jacob. If the narrative is read carefully, Jacob simply obeys his Mother.

Not so; Jacob’s obedience to his mother is to obtain Esau’s blessing; not his birthright. Note, reading carefully, that Esau complains to his father about the separateness of these two things Jacob had taken from him. The father then gives him the blessing, stating he will throw off the yoke of his brother.

This is another reason to question exactly how the curses were to be ultimately answered…

St. Louis de Montfort drew from the text the spiritual meaning of the elect (Jacob) and the reprobate (Esau), with Jacob obedient to his Mother (Mary), staying at home and helping her while the reprobate son is out “In the world”.

It is probably tangential to our conversation, but my love for Mary makes me bring it up.

Then I will note, again; Esau was permitted into the promised land even after these two events. He was not banished. Nor did Jacob take care of his mother in her old age – it was Esau. As the firstborn, it was Esau’s duty – and God’s order was preserved regardless of what favoritism she had for Jacob.

Esau was not reprobate in the sense many exegetes will claim.
A true reprobate will never enter heaven; nor take care of the mother… !

God’s election of Jacob was not at the expense of Esau; Esau served Jacob only while within his father’s house and while his father lived. (Romans 9:12-13).

Jacob’s fear of Esau, upon his return, also reflects something of the failure of Abraham and Isaac to grasp that the promise also protected their life. Abraham, later, through reason (as St. Paul tells us) came to the conclusion that his son Isaac would be protected from death – even on the altar – because of the promise. For the same reason, God would never have allowed Jacob to have been harmed by Esau even if he hadn’t left…

Just so, with respect to the flight of the mother into the desert in Revelation (For it doesn’t actually say Egypt – a minor point); We do have a “rhyming” with history, and at least this much occurs to me – the Hebrews tended to believe history was cyclic and not linear. This mother was to be protected, and it didn’t really matter what choice was actually made – she would be protected; period.

Prophecy is about what people need to hear; it often, and primarily, isn’t about the future as such; but what people need to do in the present.
One of the more timeless comments is “Judge not, lest you be judged”; or – more carefully stated; “do not judge by appearances but give honest judgment.”



St. Louis de-monfort is probably one of the greatest Marian saints; but he really is beyond my sensibilities. I wouldn’t express my piety as he did – though I honor my mother very deeply.

Shalom Messiah.

 

[seng]

In the 1st reading on the Feast of Assumption it says that Mary was “Taken to the desert to a special place prepared by God” (paraphrasing). My question is this: Just where is Mary anyway? It appears to be a place other than Heaven.

heaven is special place

 

[GraceSofia]

In the 1st reading on the Feast of Assumption it says that Mary was “Taken to the desert to a special place prepared by God” (paraphrasing). My question is this: Just where is Mary anyway? It appears to be a place other than Heaven.

This is one of the more fascinating and informative articles I’ve come across:

Where was Mary Assumed to?

We must be very clear on this point: The Assumption is not a metaphor. The Blessed Virgin Mary was really taken up, her physical body was transformed. Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus (1950) declared that Mary, “after the completion of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.” Both BODY and SOUL! This means that her physical body was transformed and glorified (in a manner identical to Christ’s after his Resurrection), her soul was perfected with the Beatific Vision, and she was taken up.

Where is heaven?
The simple answer is: This has not yet been revealed to us. However, we can say that it is certainly not on earth. Neither is it within the earth. It is not in clouds either. Heaven may be somewhere in our universe, far off – though we must be careful not to fall back into our terrestrial categories of space, distance, and location.

Perhaps it is most likely that heaven is outside the universe in what some Thomists have called “uncontained place”. . .