Question about Mary in Scripture

[TimothyH]

Not so; Jacob’s obedience to his mother is to obtain Esau’s blessing; not his birthright.

That’s exacly what I said.

Easau sold his birthright for the food. Jacob’s obediece to his mother was to obtain the blessing.

Your insight has given me much to think about.

-Tim-

 

[Ben_F]

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).

Not believing in the Holy Assumption of Mary is like saying Jesus is lying. If you disbelieve the Holy Magisterium, then you disbelieve Jesus. When they hear you they hear me. If you reject them, then you reject me. God bless:thumbsup:

 

[Cachonga]

Ben F:

Not believing in the Holy Assumption of Mary is like saying Jesus is lying. If you disbelieve the Holy Magisterium, then you disbelieve Jesus. When they hear you they hear me. If you reject them, then you reject me. God bless

The topic is “Question about Mary in Scripture”. What, in Ben’s comment addresses that topic? Since I have left the Catholic Church, I would hope it is obvious that I reject the “Holy Magisterium” and authority claims they make for themselves. Ben’s comments are off topic and are a direct attack against me. This is what is known as an ad hominem argument. I apologize to those who are using this thread as it was intended. Ad hominem arguments have no place in these threads (unless that happens to be the topic, which I have yet to see).

Ben, please stick to the topic!

 

[GraceSofia]

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).

Elements of the dogma are implicitly contained in the Bible, and Scripture does not deny or forbid the idea of The Assumption, rather like The Trinity can be deduced from the Bible although it is never explicitly called The Trinity.

So let’s look at this quote from Ludwig Ott that you are so fond of bringing out on Mary threads in an attempt to undermine Catholic teaching. The biggest problem is that the book the quote comes from is not available to read online. However, there are some other quotes available. Ott does not say there is no scriptural basis for The Assumption. He says there are no express scriptural proofs. Big difference. There are plenty of indirect proofs. Please read the whole passage, not just the first sentence, where he presents some of the biblical support for The Assumption:

Direct and express scriptural proofs are not to be had. The possibility of the bodily assumption before the second coming of Christ is not excluded by 1 Corinthians 15:23, as the objective Redemption was completed with the sacrificial death of Christ, and the beginning of the final era foretold by the prophets commenced. Its probability is suggested by Matthew 27:52-53: And the graces were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, and coming out of the tombs after His Resurrection came into the holy city and appeared to many. According to the more probable explanation, which was already expounded by the Fathers, the awakening of the “saints” was a final resurrection and transfiguration. If, however, the justified of the Old Covenant were called to the perfection of salvation immediately after the conclusion of the redemptive work of Christ, then it is possible and probable that the Mother of the Lord was called to it also.

From her fullness of grace spoken of in Luke 1:28, Scholastic theology derives the doctrine of the bodily assumption and glorification of Mary. Since she was full of grace she remained preserved from the three-fold curse of sin (Genesis 3:16-19), as well as from her return to dust . . .

Modern theology usually cites Genesis 3:15 in support of the doctrine. Since by the seed of the woman it understands Christ, and by the woman, Mary, it is argued that as Mary had an intimate share in Christ’s battle against Satan and in His victory over Satan and sin, she must also have participated intimately in His victory over death. It is true that the literal reference of the text is to Eve and not Mary, but already since the end of the second century (St. Justin) Tradition has seen in Mary the new Eve. ~ Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

And with this quote from Wikipedia we can understand that the esteemed scholar believed in the dogma of The Assumption:

“Ludwig Ott’s view is that, as Mary completed her life as a shining example to the human race, the perspective of the gift of assumption is offered to the whole human race.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary

 

[GraceSofia]

I don’t think this has been posted recently. It is an excellent 30-page pdf by Steve Ray about The Assumption and Queenship of Mary. Quite good for those who wish to learn.

catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/AssumptionAndQueen2.pdf

 

[Cachonga]

GraceSofia,
Thanks for the clarification from Ludwig Ott’s book. As I mentioned, I didn’t have my copy available (it’s in storage someplace at the moment), and so I missed the “direct and express” portion. Just because the work is not available online, though, does not make it invalid (especially since it’s available for purchase from the CA book store). In regard to the Wikipedia reference, I have no doubt that Mr. Ott, being a good Catholic, believes in all of the dogmas of the Church. However, give me enough time and I can use Wikipedia to prove almost anything I wanted (in other words - I don’t consider it a reliable source).

I do take exception to the comparision of the assumption with the Trinity. The Trinity, though not called that within the pages of Scripture, is clearly depicted and easy to identify, while the assumption must rely on “indications” for it’s Scriptural support. There is no comparison between the two.

 

[kentuckyliz]

I like the other Scripture for the Assumption–the responsorial Psalm (45) - I’ve been singing it for days…and was amused to look down and realized I had on gold sandals for the Assumption Mass, unplanned–I would have chosen a blue outfit if I were thinking about it when I got dressed that morning.

The queen stands at your right hand arrayed in gold

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Psalms 132:8 is scriptural proof positive of the Assumption of Mary. "Arise Oh Lord to they resting place, thou and the Ark of thy might’.

The ONLY thing that can be the Ark of the Lord’s might–that vessel which would encradle the MIGHT of God would HAVE to be Mary.

If you don’t believe me then read it for yourself in Pope Pius’ encyclical.

The ONLY resting place for the Lord is Heaven.

The verse doesn’t say–"Arise the Lord’s soul–it says arise Oh Lord to they resting place(body and soul to heaven)–but not only arise the Lord–but arise the Ark of the Lord’s might!

The Lord’s might IS NOT contained in the Ark of the covenant–the Lord Jesus WAS CONTAINED in Mary–His mother!

So the verse is saying that The Lord–Jesus and Mary–the Ark of his strength will arise to his resting place and that resting place is heaven!

The REASON Mary is worth of this honor is because she never sinned and God wanted this for her–in fact God had originally wanted it for Adam and Eve but they fell.

Mary the 2d Eve undoes what the first eve did.

Jesus the 2d adam undoes what the first Adam did.

And Mary had to be sinless so that Jesus would inherit a PRE-FALL perfect humanity from Mary that would be like Adam and Eve’s PRE-FALL humanity–PERFECT because Jesus had to be the PERFECT sacrifice.

Now God COULD HAVE done that without Mary being perfect but if the Holy Spirit had given Jesus a humanity newly made and not inherited from Mary than Jesus wouldn’t be fully human.

And if the Holy Spirit had filtered out all the bad aspects from a hypothetical fallen Mary’s humanity then the Holy Spirit would be SAVING Jesus from that Fallen humanity blemish which is IMPOSSIBLE because Jesus is perfect and doesn’t need saving!

What makes more sense–Mary’s Immaculate Conception where God SAVES Mary from originnal sin or the Holy Spirit SAVING Jesus from original sin in a Fallen Mary’s sinful humanity?

And if you don’t believe that Mary was perfect then you think that God was so dumb and impotent in power that He was incapable of making any human being that was capable of perfection–

in other words you really think that Satan is more powerful than God because in the human depravity scenario Satan ALWAYS gets man to fall–who’s more powerful then–Satan or God–that’s why all the sinless Mary haters are really in fact full with the hate of Satan–they really believe that sin is stronger than God!

They either believe that God wasn’t capable of making Mary perfect or they think that god CHOSE not to have Jesus inherit Mary’s humanity.

They believe that Mary IS NOT the Mother of God.

Guess who wants people to believe that?

Satan!