Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary's Assumption

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Church_Militant

Guest
To me, the Assumption is easy to believe in. If you check the OT you see that it happened back then too. Enoch, Moses, and Elijah were all taken up by God because of who they were in His plan and their faithfulness to Him and though the NT gives us nothing to go on on this event, there are non-canonical early church writings that do suggest that our Lord took the Blessed Virgin as well. This makes perfect sense to me for several reasons.
  1. Mary was Jesus mother and He surely loves her just as any of us love our own and would do everything He can to display that love.
  2. Jesus would no doubt protect his mother from the terrible persecutions that followed. You will notice that there is no record of Mary’s death or where she went after the day of Pentecost, though we do know that she went home to live with St. John after Our Lord’s death right? We know that St. John was the last of the apostles to die and that at one point he was miraculously saved by God when being boiled in oil for his faith…yet he never mentions Mary in his letters but there’s just no way that he wouldn’t have known her fate…that just doesn’t make any sense.
I think that the NT is so silent about the Blessed Virgin because they all agreed to protect her. Can you imagine the PR blitz that would’ve occurred if the Jews or Romans could have found and tortured and killed the mother of this Jesus? Whew!
  1. Since God did some really amazing things with the early church, like snatching St. Stephen away to Azotus after he baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts, it seems logical to me that God did some amazing things for the woman who said yes to bearing His only Son. My friends, Mary is probably the 2nd most unique soul in all of history, behind Jesus Himself. No one else was ever called “Full of grace” like that, and I believe that that “fullness of grace” meant she was way more than what a lot of folks think she was. No…she’s not God! But I think she had to be about THE holiest person imaginable. Can ya imagine living every day of your life with the real live son of the living God as your kid? WOW! Now THAT’s “walkin’ with Jesus!” 😃
So…the Assumption is really pretty easy for me and that is why.

(I cite no scripture because the pertinent passages should be fairly easy for anyone to find if interested.)
Pax vobiscum,
 
I think that the NT is so silent about the Blessed Virgin because they all agreed to protect her. Can you imagine the PR blitz that would’ve occurred if the Jews or Romans could have found and tortured and killed the mother of this Jesus? Whew!
Click to expand...
Great point. I never thought of that possibility.
 
Also, whereas early christian relics were guarded VERY jealously, no one claims the relics of the BVM. Nor is there a grave with a body.
 
There is a tomb…but it is empty. Just like her Son’s tomb.
 
Help me with believing this (I voted the third option). let’s assume that the dating for the writings of the apostle John were correct (dated about 95AD, while imprisoned during the reign of Domitian) and Scripture is clear that Jesus “gave care” for his Mother to John at the cross. Wouldn’t it be likely that the writer would have reference the Assumption somewhere, because the event would have probably occurred far earlier than the last writing of Scripture? It seems logical that an event that big would have been referenced as were the events noted in the Old Testament.
 
The Blessed Virgin Mother and her role in salvation history is very much sculpted out in Holy Scripture from the beginning. She is the archetype Woman from the first prophecy in Genesis and she is manifested in many women throughout the history of the People of God. Her assumption into heaven would be expected by me even if the Church didn’t teach it as dogma.
 
40.png
Windmill:
Also, whereas early christian relics were guarded VERY jealously, no one claims the relics of the BVM. Nor is there a grave with a body.
Click to expand...
This reason convinces me the most too. There were so many people who faked relics as well, but still nothing to say anywhere was Mary’s grave or that churches have pieces of Mary.
 
40.png
mj330:
Help me with believing this (I voted the third option). let’s assume that the dating for the writings of the apostle John were correct (dated about 95AD, while imprisoned during the reign of Domitian) and Scripture is clear that Jesus “gave care” for his Mother to John at the cross. Wouldn’t it be likely that the writer would have reference the Assumption somewhere, because the event would have probably occurred far earlier than the last writing of Scripture? It seems logical that an event that big would have been referenced as were the events noted in the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
Judith 12-16 And the heart of Holofernes was smitten, for he was burning with the desire of her.

Judith 13-10 And she struck twice upon his neck, and out off his head,
Judith 11-19 There is not such another woman upon earth in look, in beauty, and in sense of words.

Judith 13-23 And Ozias the prince of the people of Israel, said to her: Blessed art thou, O daughter, by the Lord the most high God, above all women upon the earth. 24 Blessed be the Lord who made heaven and earth, who hath directed thee to the cutting off the head of the prince of our enemies. 25 Because he hath so magnified thy name this day, that thy praise shall not depart out of the mouth of men who shall be mindful of the power of the Lord for ever, for that thou hast not spared thy life, by reason of the distress and tribulation of thy people, but hast prevented our ruin in the presence of our God.

Luke 1-46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him. He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. 54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: 55 As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.
 
I think that the NT is so silent about the Blessed Virgin because they all agreed to protect her. Can you imagine the PR blitz that would’ve occurred if the Jews or Romans could have found and tortured and killed the mother of this Jesus? Whew!
 
40.png
Exporter:
I think that the NT is so silent about the Blessed Virgin because they all agreed to protect her. Can you imagine the PR blitz that would’ve occurred if the Jews or Romans could have found and tortured and killed the mother of this Jesus? Whew!
Click to expand...
I agree, but they could have written about her after the event. (The writings of the NT were written between 64AD and 95AD). Better still, are there any early church writers who would have referenced the assumption?
 
In fact there are. They are of extrabiblical and non-canonical , but traditional.
Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about it all:

THE FACT OF THE ASSUMPTION

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

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. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:
Code: 
St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.
Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.

Link: newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

I hope that helps. (Mj330: PM me when ya get a second…I been where you are)
Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
mj330:
Help me with believing this (I voted the third option). let’s assume that the dating for the writings of the apostle John were correct (dated about 95AD, while imprisoned during the reign of Domitian) and Scripture is clear that Jesus “gave care” for his Mother to John at the cross. Wouldn’t it be likely that the writer would have reference the Assumption somewhere, because the event would have probably occurred far earlier than the last writing of Scripture? It seems logical that an event that big would have been referenced as were the events noted in the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
What you have to remember is that the purpose of the Scriptures is to reveal Jesus as the Messiah. However, if you study very carefully the Book of Revelation 11:19 - 12:1, you will find a reference that suggests that Mary was assumed into Heaven. There is a reference to the ark of the covenant. However, I doubt that John saw the wooden box when the heavens opened, for the very reason that the flow of what was written then goes onto the Woman clothed with the sun. In John’s Gospel, Mary is referred to as “Woman”, because John was relating back to the Book of Genesis, because he is saying that Mary is the New Eve, the Woman who was promised at the same time that the Messiah was promised to Adam and Eve.

The Scriptures are not pure history, for they are an interpretation of the events that took place with a special emphasis upon certain aspects of the Jewish culture. The Old Testament scholars have found that within the Scripture there are separate styles of writing known as JEPD. In the same way the Evangelists were writing to a specific audience and their writing addressed specific issues within their community.

On the other hand, there are apocryphl works that suggest the Assumption of Mary - that is Mary fell asleep (her Dormition) and then after about 3 days the angels came to fetch her body so that body and soul were reunited in Heaven, making Mary the first to experience the resurrection of the dead. Mary did not “ascend” into heaven because she is not divine, yet it was through the Divine Power that Mary’s body was taken up into heaven.

MaggieOH
 
Maggie what is JEPD.

One of the reasons I find the Assumption compeling is the inclusion of the Assumption as early as the 5th century in the church liturgical calender at that an early a date it would have to be something generally accepted as to be true. You just didn’t put things in that were debateable into the church calender. It was a truth that was held for a very long time which tradition went uncontested when the church was telling its followers look we are all going to celebrate this feast of Mary that we all know happened long ago.
No history of protest or controversy. Why?
Because it was an accepted oral tradition. Well that’s the way I see it.
 
Does anyone know if Luther and company believed in the Assumption?
 
If we remove the general logical arguments for Mary Assumption (eg where is her body?) and concentrate on it as a matter of faith, I think it should be safe to say that “not sure” is a reasonable answer.

Is it necessary to believe in the Assumption of Mary? If so, why? IMO the Assumption of Mary (if it DID happen) demonstrated the power of the Lord to do ever more wondrous things. It points to Him as the All Mighty, All Powerful and Ever Loving Creator. So to say the Assumption of Mary is impossible is to (once again for some people) put God in a box. NOTHING is impossible to Him!

This does not mean I believe it definitely happened, but no-one attributes the occurence to anything other than the love and will of God (correct me if I’m wrong here). If I choose not to believe in the Assumption of Mary, how does this sit with my faith? What are the consequences of not believeing in the Assumption?

I guess what I’m asking is:
  1. Is it something Catholics must believe?
  2. If so, why?
 
40.png
teresas1979:
If we remove the general logical arguments for Mary Assumption (eg where is her body?) and concentrate on it as a matter of faith, I think it should be safe to say that “not sure” is a reasonable answer.

Is it necessary to believe in the Assumption of Mary? If so, why? IMO the Assumption of Mary (if it DID happen) demonstrated the power of the Lord to do ever more wondrous things. It points to Him as the All Mighty, All Powerful and Ever Loving Creator. So to say the Assumption of Mary is impossible is to (once again for some people) put God in a box. NOTHING is impossible to Him!

This does not mean I believe it definitely happened, but no-one attributes the occurence to anything other than the love and will of God (correct me if I’m wrong here). If I choose not to believe in the Assumption of Mary, how does this sit with my faith? What are the consequences of not believeing in the Assumption?

I guess what I’m asking is:
  1. Is it something Catholics must believe?
  2. If so, why?
Click to expand...
Well, the easy answer is because the Church infallibly defined it as a dogma which means it’s true. Remember, the Church cannot teach error.

Let’s say hypothetically you don’t believe in the Assumption:

If you don’t believe in the Assumption, you say that the Church has taught error. In doing so, you have rejected another basic Catholic teaching: namely, that the Church speaks with the authority and guidance of Christ in her official teaching. If in one instance she teaches error (and you have said that the Assumption is in error), she obviously does not–indeed, cannot–speak authoritatively in Christ’s name.

Finally, you have refused to submit to the Church’s authority and have thereby taken a non-Catholic stance toward everything else the Church teaches. You are saying in effect that you will decide what is authentic Catholicism. You focus not on belief in the Church’s doctrines but on your own opinions about those doctrines.
 
I don’t think anywhere does it say Moses was assumed into heaven…wasn’t he buried on a mountain?

Now we can assume that he was assumed as he was there at the transfiguration…

So since the woman with twelve stars appears in revelation, I think we can assume that this is Mary and she was assumed.

Also, the Church has defined it ex cathedra…no need to question if ye have any faith!
 
40.png
ppcpilot:
I don’t think anywhere does it say Moses was assumed into heaven…wasn’t he buried on a mountain?

Now we can assume that he was assumed as he was there at the transfiguration…

So since the woman with twelve stars appears in revelation, I think we can assume that this is Mary and she was assumed.

Also, the Church has defined it ex cathedra…no need to question if ye have any faith!
Click to expand...
There was a battle between St. Michael the Archangel and Satan over Moses’ body (Jude 9). I assume (pardon the pun) St. Michael won. There are also apocryphal works that mention Moses’ assumption.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
There was a battle between St. Michael the Archangel and Satan over Moses’ body (Jude 9). I assume (pardon the pun) St. Michael won. There are also apocryphal works that mention Moses’ assumption.
Click to expand...
I forgot to add a little bit. This battle is not mentioned in the Old Testament (correct me if I’m wrong) so it must have been oral tradition, just like Mary’s Assumption is today (although now it has been defined and written down!).
 
40.png
Genesis315:
I forgot to add a little bit. This battle is not mentioned in the Old Testament (correct me if I’m wrong) so it must have been oral tradition, just like Mary’s Assumption is today (although now it has been defined and written down!).
Click to expand...
The work you refer to is The Assumption of Moses which is a non-canonical Jewish traditional writing that St. Jude quotes from as well as The Book of Enoch. Jude is one epistle that I use to point out the inconsistency of their rejection of the church’s authority to confirm what really is inspired canon. 😃
Pax vobiscum,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top