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.
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Hi Mickey, Everyone that was born died. Dust you came and dust will you go. Even Christ died. :confused: God Bless
Why the confusion face SW? I agree with you. Byzantine Catholics believe that The Blessed Mother fell asleep in the Lord and was bodily assumed into heaven.
 
40.png
Mickey:
Why the confusion face SW? I agree with you. Byzantine Catholics believe that The Blessed Mother fell asleep in the Lord and was bodily assumed into heaven.
Hi Mickey,you said Mary did not rise from the dead,correct? Did she die or not? :confused: God Bless
 
40.png
mercygate:
What shrines are those? I am a Convert (so I’m kind of ignorant), and although I grew up in a Catholic neighborhood and am pretty old, I have not heard of these shrines. What happened to them after 1950 – I mean, it’s not like nobody ever heard of the Assumption before 1950.
Yeah…I’d like to know too since I’ve never heard such things.
All the sources that I’ve read say there are no Marian relics out there at all. Someone’d have to prove this one to me.
Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Hi Mickey,you said Mary did not rise from the dead,correct? Did she die or not? :confused: God Bless
Fell asleep in the Lord means to die. She was then assumed into heaven by God–body and soul. She did not rise and walk the earth, like Jesus–She did not ascend by her own power, like Jesus. She was assumed into Heaven to take her rightful place as the Holiest of saints and the Mother of our Lord. This is Sacred Tradition.

P.S.-Please don’t start a debate with me on Sacred Tradition. I accept and believe it–you don’t. We can leave it at that. 😉

God Bless
 
40.png
Mickey:
Fell asleep in the Lord means to die. She was then assumed into heaven by God–body and soul. She did not rise and walk the earth, like Jesus–She did not ascend by her own power, like Jesus. She was assumed into Heaven to take her rightful place as the Holiest of saints and the Mother of our Lord. This is Sacred Tradition.

P.S.-Please don’t start a debate with me on Sacred Tradition. I accept and believe it–you don’t. We can leave it at that. 😉

God Bless
Hi Mickey, Thanks for the clarification. 👍 God Bless
 
40.png
mj330:
I agree, but they could have written about her after the event. (The writings of the NT were written between 64AD and 95AD).
Think about the beauty and love between mother and Child when Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to Mary in private. What a Holy and tender moment beyond description or comprehension. But wait a minute–you say it doesn’t talk about that in the Bible. Do you think it did not happen? Would he appear to His apostles and disciples but not to His Blessed mother in a private and glorious reunion?

This is why Sacred Tradition is so important to us. It would be impossible to reveal everything that ocurred in this one book called The Bible. For all we know, the Assumption (Dormition) was such a well known event, John did not feel it was necessary to write it down. Thank God we have Sacred Tradition!

But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think would not be able to contain the books that should be written. John 21:25
 
40.png
Mickey:
But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think would not be able to contain the books that should be written. John 21:25
Hi Mickey, Thank God that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God ,and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction, for instruction in righteousness.2 Tim.3;16. The most important were written down. 👍 God Bless
 
40.png
SPOKENWORD:
Hi Mickey, Thank God that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God ,and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction, for instruction in righteousness.2 Tim.3;16.
Thank God indeed! But keep in mind, the verse you quoted from 2 Timothy says ALL Scripture—It does not say ONLY Scripture. Two thousand years of Church history and Sacred Tradition reveals much to us. The deepest wells have the clearest water! 😉

Christ is Risen!
Indeed He is Risen!
 
Church Militant:
Why Dave? History is not all in the Bible…not even close. Nor is mathematis, science, or all literature! No; God might not let us know in the canon… but there is a great deal of stuff that He didn’t see fit to include in the canon. Is there a miraculous principle of God doing things like this? Of course there is! The Holy Spirit snatched Philip away to Azotus after he baptized the eunuch…is that the only time that happened? No one can say…not even you or your preachers and teachers. Are there stories of such things happening after the NT was closed? Yep. Lots of them…or does your particular version of Christianity disbelieve in miracles? If so I’d say that is really a shame.

I think that the whole fallacy of what you try to tell us is summed up in the closing line of your statement: That is a drastic oversimplification of Christianity and it simply defies all God-given good sense and logic since history tells us a very great many things about what the early church believed and why things developed the way they did. Just the ECF offer more insight into what we should believe than anything that I’ve read from any n-C preacher. Accept or reject…believe whatever you want…but I know what I believe and why. I go with the real full gospel New Testament church, not some bunch of johnny-come-lately Bible thumpers with a wide diversity of opinons and no Holy Spirit unity of doctrines.
Pax vobiscum,
Hi
We believe that God performs miracles every day. I do believe that Christianity is simple and that the Catholic church takes oral tradition way to far, scripture clearly warns against following traditions of men rather than the word of God. That is why I am a, as you call it a Bible Thumper. I don’t think that when I stand before God on judgment day that he will ask me ‘‘What were you doing following my word’’. I do know what I believe and why I believe it.
Please don’t lump me in with all the different denoms you like to throw me in. The Bible is my guide and not some off the wall evangelist. I think it’s a shame that so many false teachers pray on the poor and weak of society. I don’t lump you in with what I hear going on in the Catholic church.
In Him and Only Him, Dave.
 
We believe that God performs miracles every day
Good!
I do believe that Christianity is simple and that the Catholic church takes oral tradition way to far, scripture clearly warns against following traditions of men rather than the word of God.
Your interpretation. The traditions of men that Jesus condemned have nothing to do with the apostolic traditions that are historically based. The fact that you reject historical evidence just means that you believe what someone tells you to believe from a pulpit tradition that has evolved over the last 487 years or so. Probably MUCH less.
That is why I am a, as you call it a Bible Thumper. I don’t think that when I stand before God on judgment day that he will ask me ‘‘What were you doing following my word’’.
I agree, but we all will be held accountable for truth that we have been shown and rejected. Still there is no record of the early church sayin’ that they based their faith and practice upon the Bible ALONE. IMO that is simply a modern wind of doctrine.
I do know what I believe and why I believe it.
Which is just fine. Then why are you here pestering Catholics? We are not out there on sites that belong to n-Cs in an effort to disparage what they believe and we consider that a failure of charity to do so. The Catholics here at CA are here to learn to give correct answers to people who ask us why we believe what we believe, not to get ammo to go out and prosyletize people away from their Christian (though seperated) faiths. If someone decides to become Catholic as a result of our sharing then fine…great and alleluia, but if not we say that’s fine too. It’s between them and the Holy Spirit.
Please don’t lump me in with all the different denoms you like to throw me in.
Then don’t act like them! You espouse the very same doctrines, do you not? And if you disagree with them how are we supposed to tell the difference and know which of you (20,000 plus) is telling the truth? We know that we have the witness of the Holy Spirit within us that what we already believe is true…(or I for one would sure as vitam aeternam wouldn’t be here) why should we leave truth for uncertainty and vociferous allegations that we know are untrue? Geeminy cripes Dave give us a break willya?:rolleyes:
The Bible is my guide and not some off the wall evangelist. I think it’s a shame that so many false teachers pray on the poor and weak of society.
Your interpretation of the bible is your guide…I have to wonder where you got all the a/c rhetoric that you espouse Dave. Someone had to teach you all this tripe that makes you feel you have to come into our fora and wrack on Holy Mother Church. What you allege is not true…we tell you that again and again. We offer you Biblical and historical evidences that you reject out of hand. You cannot tell us that history is no witness of what the early church believed and we have tons of it! That’s just blind faith in your preachers. You have nothing more than the modern winds of doctrine that have become a new tradition within the last 487 years or so. (Most far less than that!)

Look Dave; I did all my homework…I researched what the Catholic Church really teaches and believes and it isn’t anything like the stuff I was fed in n-C churches for over 34 years and all the stuff that you and others on here tell us is just simply wrong. No matter what you think…you do not know the Catholic faith or what we believe. You believe what others have told you and have not looked into it for yourself from real Catholics who DO know the faith. But …you never listen…you never hear us…and I don’t see how you can say that you care about us at all when you do that. By your fruit we know you Dave…
I don’t lump you in with what I hear going on in the Catholic church.
😃 You’d better not unless it’s Catholics who are doing their very best to live the faith and who love Our Lord with all their heart, soul, mind, and body and our neighbors as ourselves.
Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
Mickey:
Think about the beauty and love between mother and Child when Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to Mary in private. What a Holy and tender moment beyond description or comprehension. But wait a minute–you say it doesn’t talk about that in the Bible. Do you think it did not happen? Would he appear to His apostles and disciples but not to His Blessed mother in a private and glorious reunion?

This is why Sacred Tradition is so important to us. It would be impossible to reveal everything that ocurred in this one book called The Bible. For all we know, the Assumption (Dormition) was such a well known event, John did not feel it was necessary to write it down. Thank God we have Sacred Tradition!

But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think would not be able to contain the books that should be written. John 21:25
An argument from silence is generally quite weak: While the thought of Jesus appearing privately to his mother is a happy thought, it is nothing more than speculation.

Speaking as one who has been a Catholic for only one year, we will accomplish nothing with our intelligent protestant brothers and sisters in Christ if we give our own personal speculations the same weight as revealed fact.
 
It can be argued in two ways, either using any available evidence pertaining to it, or proving that Jesus established an infallible Chuch. There is more evidence for the latter I suppose, and proving that would guarantee the perfection of the doctrine on Mary’s assumption.
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
An argument from silence is generally quite weak: While the thought of Jesus appearing privately to his mother is a happy thought, it is nothing more than speculation.

Speaking as one who has been a Catholic for only one year, we will accomplish nothing with our intelligent protestant brothers and sisters in Christ if we give our own personal speculations the same weight as revealed fact.
I don’t often argue from silence. Please research the spritual exercises of St Ignatius Loyola:

JESUS IS SEEN BY HIS MOTHER MARY

“Here it is how, after Christ had risen body and soul from the sepulcher, he appears to his blessed mother.” She had brought him to birth, raised him, and had stood by him through the passion. Now he wants to share with her the joy of his resurrection." St. Ignatius Loyola (The spiritual exercises ).
In Acts we read that Jesus appeared to many other people, and many writers, from the early Fathers of the church to Ignatius Loyola, could not imagine that our Lord did not appear to his beloved mother. Some might argue that it is a spiritual and psychological necessity, others might propound simple supernatural good sense. Either way it is a personal and intimate moment as mother and child, who somehow are also creature and creator, come together and are reunited.
 
A thread on the rapture got me thinking. Could it be possible that God assumed Mary so she would not have to go through the persecutions of the early Church?
 
40.png
unworthysinner:
Up until 1950, I know because my father a former Catholic remembers this, there were many shrines to Mary with flakes of her bone. If Mary was assumed into heaven, these shrines would have never existed
Absolute rubbish!

Such shrines never existed and are recorded nowhere. I think you need to get your “former Catholic” father to produce some checkable evidence for these “shrines”.

If such shrines had existed, do you think the anti-caholics of the time wouldn’t have screamed the house down about them?

The truth is that despite the fabulous fame and wealth that any church holding the body of the virgin Mary would gain. None has ever claimed to hold a single bone of hers.
the writers of the New Testament would have written about it.
Read Revelation 12.
Actually surprisingly little is written about Mary in the NT.
Wrong. Mary is actually one of the most present figures in the gospel accounts.
Here are all the refefrences to Mary the mother of Jesus in the Bible…
Not “all”. Your list misses out Revelation 12, and many OT prophecies of Mary.
 

The Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the ApostleIgnatius, and the brethren who are with him, to John the holy presbyter.


We are deeply grieved at thy delay in strengthening us by thy addresses and consolations. If thy absence be prolonged, it will disappoint many of us. Hasten then to come, for we believe that it is expedient. There are also many of our women here, who are desirous to see Mary [the mother] of Jesus, and wish day by day to run off from us to you, that they may meet with her, and touch those breasts of hers which nourished the Lord Jesus, and may inquire of her respecting some rather secret matters. But Salome also, [the daughter of Anna,] whom thou lovest, who stayed with her five months at Jerusalem, and some other well-known persons, relate that she is full of all graces and all virtues, after the manner of a virgin, fruitful in virtue and grace. And, as they report, she is cheerful in persecutions and afflictions, free from murmuring in the midst of penury and want, grateful to those that injure her, and rejoices when exposed to troubles: she sympathizes with the wretched and the afflicted as sharing in their afflictions, and is not slow to come to their assistance. Moreover, she shines forth gloriously as contending in the fight of faith against the pernicious conflicts of vicious1 principles or conduct. She is the lady of our new religion and repentance,2 and the handmaid among the faithful of all works of piety. She is indeed devoted to the humble, and she humbles herself more devotedly than the devoted, and is wonderfully magnified by all, while at the same time she suffers detraction from the Scribes and Pharisees. Besides these points, many relate to us numerous other things regarding her. We do not, however, go so far as to believe all in every particular; nor do we mention such to thee. But, as we are informed by those who are worthy of credit, there is in Mary the mother of Jesus an angelic purity of nature allied with the nature of humanity.3 And such reports as these have greatly excited our emotions, and urge us eagerly to desire a sight of this (if it be lawful so to speak) heavenly prodigy and most sacred marvel. But do thou in haste comply with this our desire; and fare thou well. Amen.
**A Second Epistle of Ignatius to St. John.His friend[1](http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/anf01/htm/v.xxi.htm#_fnf1) Ignatius to John the holy presbyter.**
If thou wilt give me leave, I desire to go up to Jerusalem, and see the faithful2 saints who are there, especially Mary the mother, whom they report to be an object of admiration and of affection to all. For who would not rejoice to behold and to address her who bore the true God from her3 own womb, provided he is a friend of our faith and religion? And in like manner * the venerable James, who is surnamed Just, whom they relate to be very like Christ Jesus in appearance,4 in life, and in method of conduct, as if he were a twin-brother of the same womb. They say that, if I see him, I see also Jesus Himself, as to all the features and aspect of His body. Moreover, * the other saints, both male and female. Alas! why do I delay? Why am I kept back? Kind5* teacher, bid me hasten [to fulfil my wish], and fare thou well. Amen.

These 2 letters can be found at www.ccel.org/fathers2/, it is Volumne 1. Does anyone know anything about these letters - are they reliable?

I thought they were interesting in the fact that it puts Mary in Jerusalem although I couldn’t see a date attached to this letter. In one of the following letters, he calls himself a neophyte.

Any thoughts?*
 
Hi all,

Someone posted that the NT Scriptures were written between 64 and 95 A.D. Paul died in 64 A.D. so we have to push the beginning date back. Most scholars, even liberal ones, agree that Paul wrote his first letter around 50 A.D.

As far as the Gospels are concerned, most everyone agrees that John was most likely written in the 90’s A.D. but there is disagreement over Matthew, Mark and Luke. Personally, I believe there is strong evidence that they were written, along with Acts, by the time Sts. Peter and Paul were martyred in 64. A.D.
Gene
 
I have a problem with those who always say that Mary could not have been assumed into heaven when there are so many things that God has done in the NT (Acts in particular) that are precedent setting. There are a lot of things that God has done that are beyond my simple comprehension, yet that does not make me doubt the things that He did for her. I mean if people are willing to believe in tongues and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit, then why not this as well? The fact that God has assumed OT faithful such as Moses & Elijah makes me wonder why He wouldn’t do the same for someone as holy and special as His own grace filled mother. That just seems like a serious case of doubt to me.
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.
mj330!!! 😃 I don’t believe it would be likely that the writer would have referenced the Assumption as such, (ie. “Also, Jesus took his Mom up to Heaven after She died”) BECAUSE that was not the point of his writtings. The point in his Gospel was to show Jesus was God. The point in Revalation was to show God’s Mercy & Justice. (Did he write 1-3 John, or is that another John?) Anyway, how was he going to fit that in when that’s not what his writtings covered? I do believe in it because she is not around in body here. I mean, I’ve asked before on this site & there is an empty tomb kept by the Greek Orthodox of Jerusalem, I believe. It is possible. It is indeed even probable. Just because it’s not in the Bible, doesn’t make it any less true. I mean, I always wondered, when the Bible said that Elijah then walked with God, how did we know that that just wasn’t metaphorical for Elijah died? I always thought that this was possible…even when I was told by others that he just…was assumed with God. If the Church teaches it, it is true. You gotta believe that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top