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.
I believe this just because it makes sense to me in the context of the Bible.
 
. Mary’s Assumption into Heaven

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

“[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones…” *Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4 (inter A.D. 575-593). *

“As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.” *Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634). *

“It was fitting …that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory …should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.” *Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption (ante A.D. 650). *

“You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life.” *Germanus of Constantinople, Sermon I (PG 98,346), (ante A.D. 733). *“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.” *John of Damascene, PG (96:1) (A.D. 747-751). :blessyou: *
 
Hi everyone, 🙂

I have to admit, Mary’s Assumption is one of the things I have always believed in, even when I was recently having my Crisis of Faith in the Catholic Church…(Phew, thank goodness that’s over!)
It made perfect sense to me, that if Enoch etc, were assumed into heaven for being faithful followers of God, then why wouldn’t the mother of our Lord and Saviour, be worthy of the same grace.

Today, I stumbled across a site, which I have found quite interesting, and whilst this is from non-canonical text, I can’t help believing in its authenticity. (I confess I may be easily pleased.)
ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-111.htm

I found it interesting, that poor ol’ St. Thomas who was ever doubtful of things which were not apparent before his very eyes, was not permitted to be present pre-death, at time of death, or burial, but ‘arrived’ in time to see the assumption, which the other Apostles etc, missed; Jesus, ever mindful of Thomas’ need to witness things with his own eyes, provided him with visual proof; and Mary ever gracious, provided him with her girdle. Thomas was truly blessed!

A thought just occured to me…(quick on the uptake, am I…😉 ) Perhaps, unlike St. Thomas, we should stop only accepting things we see, and learn to accept that nothing is impossible with God…Just because we don’t see something transpire, doesn’t mean it didn’t take place.

Peace be with you all, and all whom you love. 🙂
 
The reasons why I believe in the Assumption? Simple: Papal infallibility. The Assumption was declared dogma in the Bull of Pius XII “Munificentissimus Deus”

Pius XII said:
44. …by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Click to expand...

I am also afraid of the consequences incurred if you don’t believe in the Assumption:

Pius XII said:
45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
  1. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
Click to expand...
(taken from papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MUNIF.HTM)

I know I don’t want to incur the wrath of Almightly God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
 
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...
John did reference the Assumption, but not by that name. You will find it in the Book of Revelation:

" and behold the heavens opened up and I saw the ark of the covenant" (paraphrase of Rev 11:19)

He was not referring to that wooden box, and that means he was referring to the Woman who appears in the next sentence, that is the one he named as Queen of Heaven (with the crown of 12 stars).

The problem with wanting every word to appear in the Scripture is that it destroys the very purpose of the Scripture as the Word of God. What is the purpose of the Scripture? Was it to give us the life history of Mary? No. It’s purpose is to reveal the Son, not the Mother. That is precisely why the Scripture does not give us a lot of detail about Mary. Even the Book of Revelation is written to reveal Jesus who is the First and the Last. It was not written to provide a prophecy of the future. It was written to provide comfort to those who were under persecution at the time.

Keeping in mind that the Scripture is not history per se, that is we have written history but not as we tend to accept history. The history within the Scripture is written with a set purpose in mind, that is the writings are for a set audience. That is why the four Gospels address different audiences: (1) Matthew - a gospel for the Hebrew (2) Mark - for a Hebrew and Gentile audience; (3) Luke books 1 and 2 (including the Acts of the Apostles)- the Gospel of the Holy Spirit for the Gentiles and (4) John, for his own Joahinne community.

Written history on the hand is written for a separate purpose and as such the historian sets out to write an accurate description of events, that is why the Books of the Maccabees are historical and Scriptural documents. These books set out to tell the story of the Maccabean wars. The same is true of the Books of Kings, Samuel and Chronicles.
 
40.png
DianJo:
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?
Click to expand...
The answer to your question is found on the CCEL site. These letters come under the heading of “spurious letters of Ignatius”. The introduction to these letters explains that they are claimed to be from Ignatius but some of the content proves that they were written at a later date.

You will find the comment here:

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-27.htm#TopOfPage

MaggieOH
 
40.png
MaggieOH:
John did reference the Assumption, but not by that name. You will find it in the Book of Revelation:

" and behold the heavens opened up and I saw the ark of the covenant" (paraphrase of Rev 11:19)

He was not referring to that wooden box, and that means he was referring to the Woman who appears in the next sentence, that is the one he named as Queen of Heaven (with the crown of 12 stars).

The problem with wanting every word to appear in the Scripture is that it destroys the very purpose of the Scripture as the Word of God. What is the purpose of the Scripture? Was it to give us the life history of Mary? No. It’s purpose is to reveal the Son, not the Mother. That is precisely why the Scripture does not give us a lot of detail about Mary. Even the Book of Revelation is written to reveal Jesus who is the First and the Last. It was not written to provide a prophecy of the future. It was written to provide comfort to those who were under persecution at the time.

Keeping in mind that the Scripture is not history per se, that is we have written history but not as we tend to accept history. The history within the Scripture is written with a set purpose in mind, that is the writings are for a set audience. That is why the four Gospels address different audiences: (1) Matthew - a gospel for the Hebrew (2) Mark - for a Hebrew and Gentile audience; (3) Luke books 1 and 2 (including the Acts of the Apostles)- the Gospel of the Holy Spirit for the Gentiles and (4) John, for his own Joahinne community.

Written history on the hand is written for a separate purpose and as such the historian sets out to write an accurate description of events, that is why the Books of the Maccabees are historical and Scriptural documents. These books set out to tell the story of the Maccabean wars. The same is true of the Books of Kings, Samuel and Chronicles.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Church Militant:
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...
On a side note, there are those (me) that believe that this is why the NT is silent about Jesus’ wife (in the small but not zero chance Jesus was married).
 
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?
Click to expand...

We can’t say a thing happened merely because it may seem to us that it must have, or might have, or could have. Otherwise our own fantasies and bright ideas will replace what Scripture does say.​

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
Click to expand...

Maybe the same was true of St. Joseph’s vision of Paradise; it was so well known, that it was not mentioned. Actually, I have just made it up. 🙂​

The point being, that such reasoning is very dangerous - it allows plenty of room for all those fables about how Jesus went to Scotland, Kashmir, England, and the Americas; so that before we know it, we are in the world of the Book of Mormon and the Da Vinci Code. The absence of an event from the Bible does not prove it took place 🙂 ##
 
DianJo said:

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?

Both are from the 13-letter body of Ignatian letters; not from the 7-letter one. The 6 extra letters are forgeries; so while they may reflect the ideas of a later age about what Ignatius “should have” written, they aren’t his.​

earlychristianwritings.com/tixeront/section1-1.html#ignatius - click on “St.Ignatius”, and scroll down to page 14 ##
Click to expand...
 
I’ve been thinking about this, & doing a little research (& a lot of 😉 toiling with my brain!!)
I finally came up with what I had been trying to remember. In Matthew 16:28, Jesus says:“There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom”(KJV)…OK, this is explained away by a lot of people, but this–plus the reference in Revelation–It seems to me that He is saying that there is somebody–a real actual human person-- that is known to/in the company of the apostles, who is not going to die, but be taken to Heaven without dying.
And, as someone has all ready pointed out, the person with the empty tomb–in fact, the* missing* tomb–is Mary.
So combine that with the fact that this is not something that just :nope: occurred to someone one morning–It has been :yup: believed throughout history, I find that it is a :yup: pretty sure thing that, yes, Mary was assumed into Heaven.
Besides,** why not**??
 
40.png
Zooey:
I’ve been thinking about this, & doing a little research (& a lot of 😉 toiling with my brain!!)
I finally came up with what I had been trying to remember. In Matthew 16:28, Jesus says:“There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom”(KJV)…OK, this is explained away by a lot of people, but this–plus the reference in Revelation–It seems to me that He is saying that there is somebody–a real actual human person-- that is known to/in the company of the apostles, who is not going to die, but be taken to Heaven without dying.
And, as someone has all ready pointed out, the person with the empty tomb–in fact, the* missing* tomb–is Mary.
So combine that with the fact that this is not something that just :nope: occurred to someone one morning–It has been :yup: believed throughout history, I find that it is a :yup: pretty sure thing that, yes, Mary was assumed into Heaven.
Besides,** why not**??
Click to expand...
You just blew me away! That is entirely possible, and as with so many things that I have discovered from the Scriptures it makes serious sense. I can think of quite a few reasons for Mary’s assumption…and very few counters. It really doesn’t hurt us either way though.
Pax vobiscum,
 
Because it was believed by the Church since her death, and was officially and infallibly proclaimed by the church… who would doubt it?
 
Hi All
I’m not sure of the assumption of Mary, I agree that Mary was a very Holy woman but I think that if it were important for us to know then God would have let us know by way of the Holy scriptures. I would have to say probably not, though it is not a salvation issue.
Thanks
 
40.png
LoneRanger:
Because it was believed by the Church since her death, and was officially and infallibly proclaimed by the church… who would doubt it?
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you LR. The fact that there are extra canonical sources that tell these things makes it all the more clear. There is ample precedent in scripture and when a thinking person considers all this one can see that it follows logic and the sense of the Word of God. It therefore does not surprise me that the Church proclaims it infallibly. 👍
Pax tecum,
 
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 and the writers of the New Testament would have written about it.
Click to expand...
I’ve never ever once in my life heard about that. And the fact that a “former Catholic” said this is a red light right away for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top