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 either read somewhere or heard on EWTN somewhere an interesting defense of the Assumption: When King David established his kingdom in Jerusalem, he brought the ark of the covenant into the city. Likewise, when Jesus ascends into Heaven for His reign as the King of Kings, He brings the ark of the new covenant into the kingdom of God.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
I either read somewhere or heard on EWTN somewhere an interesting defense of the Assumption: When King David established his kingdom in Jerusalem, he brought the ark of the covenant into the city. Likewise, when Jesus ascends into Heaven for His reign as the King of Kings, He brings the ark of the new covenant into the kingdom of God.
Click to expand...
Fascinating…I’ve never thought of it that way. :hmmm:
 
Yes, the Church teaches it and it makes sense…and history only confirms it.
 
Originally Posted by Genesis315
Click to expand...
I either read somewhere or heard on EWTN somewhere an interesting defense of the Assumption: When King David established his kingdom in Jerusalem, he brought the ark of the covenant into the city. Likewise, when Jesus ascends into Heaven for His reign as the King of Kings, He brings the ark of the new covenant into the kingdom of God.
Click to expand...
Yes, that was Dr Scott Hahn on a special series “Answering Common Objections”. You can listen and download the entire series on EWTN web site:

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=54&T1=common

The aforementioned program title is: Our Lady: The Queen Mother
I have listened them all - very good and recommended.
 
40.png
dvalle27:
Yes, that was Dr Scott Hahn on a special series “Answering Common Objections”. You can listen and download the entire series on EWTN web site:

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=54&T1=common

The aforementioned program title is: Our Lady: The Queen Mother
I have listened them all - very good and recommended.
Very cool. I’ll use this more often. It’s very compelling. 👍
 
The Assumption of Mary is the logical result of the Immaculate Conception. There are several Biblical proofs for the Immaculate Conception - 8 of them I think - although I can only think of 3 right now. I don’t think it’s a huge stretch at all.
 
Our Blessed Mother was assummed Body and Soul into Heaven. Jesus was already in Heaven and would not allow his Immaculate Mothers Body to remain on Earth.

God Bless Pope Benedict XVI
 
Was Mary assumed into heaven? Well, I figure it this way:

God has certain laws (commandments).
These commandments are binding on all human beings.
Jesus is a human being.
Therefore, God’s law is binding on Him.
Jesus did not follow God’s law in a wish-washy, lukewarm, half-baked way. He followed it perfectly, that is, he fulfilled it to the nth degree.
One of God’s commandments is Honor thy father and thy mother.
Jesus’s Father is his Father in heaven. Jesus perfectly followed the commandment to honor His Father.
Jesus’s mother is Mary.
Jesus perfectly followed the commandment to honor His mother, and, being a divine human being, was in a position to do so.
If Mary was not assumed into heaven, I must conclude that Jesus honored Enoch and Elijah more than Mary. In that case, He did not honor her to the nth degree, and thereby did not perfectly follow God’s commandment.
Therefore, Mary was assumed into heaven.

It seems to me that the same argument applies to the Immaculate Conception. If Mary was not immaculately conceived, Jesus honored Adam and Eve more.
 
The Assumption of Mary is the logical result of the Immaculate Conception
Click to expand...
Therein lies the error of Thomist theology: the elevation of logic over Tradition and Truth (BTW, St. Thomas Aquinas vehemently denied the Immaculate Conception, if I remember my history).

Lots of things are LOGICAL, but that doesn’t imply or prove truth.

The earliest evidence for the Assumption comes from an apocryphal work by heretics (and BTW, this is the only early patristic evidence), no wonder NOTHING was quoted, unlike other dogmatic pronouncements, from patristic sources in Munificentissimus Deus.
 
I disagree. God is perfect and His works are the source of all wisdom and truth, therefore they are also logical. If there is error…it will be in our capacity to understand, not His works or will.

My contention is that this is still within the character that God has revealed to us in His word and teh Assumption is not inconsistent with that nature since God did the same thing with OT people who were not His mother.
Pax tecum,
 
I disagree. God is perfect and His works are the source of all wisdom and truth, therefore they are also logical. If there is error…it will be in our capacity to understand, not His works or will.

My contention is that this is still within the character that God has revealed to us in His word and the Assumption is not inconsistent with that nature since God did the same thing with OT people who were not His mother.
Pax tecum,
 
I disagree. God is perfect and His works are the source of all wisdom and truth, therefore they are also logical. If there is error…it will be in our capacity to understand, not His works or will.
Click to expand...
I disagree with you, God transcends all human logic and reasoning. Indeed, the resurrection itself is a contradiction of rationalistic human reasoning.

St. Paul issues a wise warning in his letter to the Colossians: “Be on your guard; do not let your minds be captured by hollow and delusive speculations, based on traditions of man-made teaching and centred on the elemental spirits of the universe and not on Christ” (Col. 2:8, NEB).

Of course, this doesn’t mean that we throw out reason and logic completely, but it must be within the confines of scripture and apostolic tradition.
My contention is that this is still within the character that God has revealed to us in His word and the Assumption is not inconsistent with that nature since God did the same thing with OT people who were not His mother.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it is entirely possible that God did assume the Blessed Virgin into heaven (NB., all ancient sources say she died first). However, we don’t base our faith on what is possible or what is logical, but upon the teachings that our Lord gave to the Apostles to propagate.

The basis for the Assumption in both tradition and scripture is extremely weak and virtually non-existant.

Just because God assumed a patriarch such as Enoch it does not follow, especially not logically, that he would do so for the Blessed Virgin.

Pope Pius XII said this about the dogma of the Assumption: “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.”

Let us examine the Apostolic faith and see whether this statement is in accord with it.
 
Obedience is a very important factor in being CATHOLIC. You can’t plick and plug the Dogma or corresponding Doctrine you wish to believe. Believing in the Assumption is no different…

If the Church teaches it, I believe it…

I’ve made enough mistakes in my life to now realize the full value of the Church and her teachings ---- I’ve come to realize her Wisdom.

Blessings,
Joanie
 
If the Church teaches it, I believe it…
Click to expand...
That is simply a fallacy, an appeal to authority (ie., believing in something because of a supposed authority rather than any evidence).

I, too, used to think this way, but I believe God gave us reason for a reason (excuse the pun).

We should all remember St. Paul’s admonition to the Galatians to follow the good news which the Apostles had set forth.
 
Let us examine the Apostolic faith and see whether this statement is in accord with it.
Click to expand...
Here’s the link to Munificentissimus Deus so everyone can read it for themselves.
MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Since you bring up this document, I decided to have a look at it for myself, and found this:

"21. Thus St. John Damascene, an outstanding herald of this traditional truth, spoke out with powerful eloquence when he compared the bodily Assumption of the loving Mother of God with her other prerogatives and privileges. “It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in the act of giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father. It was fitting that God’s Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God.”[17]
  1. These words of St. John Damascene agree perfectly with what others have taught on this same subject. Statements no less clear and accurate are to be found in sermons delivered by Fathers of an earlier time or of the same period, particularly on the occasion of this feast. And so, to cite some other examples, St. Germanus of Constantinople considered the fact that the body of Mary, the virgin Mother of God, was incorrupt and had been taken up into heaven to be in keeping, not only with her divine motherhood, but also with the special holiness of her virginal body. “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.”[18] And another very ancient writer asserts: “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.”[19]"
It’s all there for all to see, and spells it all out far better than I can. All I need say about it is “Amen”!
Pax tecum,
 
40.png
SeanMc:
That is simply a fallacy, an appeal to authority (ie., believing in something because of a supposed authority rather than any evidence).

I, too, used to think this way, but I believe God gave us reason for a reason (excuse the pun).

We should all remember St. Paul’s admonition to the Galatians to follow the good news which the Apostles had set forth.
Click to expand...
Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.

The problem is that you reject that authority and in relying upon your own understanding have brought about your doubts. The fallacy falls more to you Sean than any of us who know who and what we believe. Know that I was once like you and will pray for you.
Pax tecum,
 
The accountgiven by St. John Damascene of the Assumption is almost identical to the account given by the Transitus Santae Mariae. A work which was specifically listed and condemned (nunc et in aeternum confitemur esse damnatam) as apocryphal by the Decretum Gelasianum (thelatinlibrary.com/decretum.html ).

I think that Saints can teach error. Take St. John-Baptiste-Marie Vianney. He attributed his cures to a Saint (the name escapes me) that didn’t really exist. He also had a great devotion to this Saint. But did his devotion and homilies make this Saint exist?

Your appeal to St. Peter’s authority does not bolster your argument, St. Peter also had a chair at Antioch.
 
bump

Come on guys, I am actually hoping someone would prove me wrong, but that’s my emotions and my mind tells me something else.
 
Church Militant:
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,
Click to expand...
Sorry, Mary’s assumption is not told to us in Scripture, so one should not believe that it happened.
Simple. :cool:
 
40.png
Ric:
Sorry, Mary’s assumption is not told to us in Scripture, so one should not believe that it happened.
Simple. :cool:
Click to expand...
Lots of things happen that are not in Scripture. For example, the birth of you and I, the US civil war, the lunar landing, the Battle of Hastings, the death of Ghenghis Kahn, etc.–yet all these things happened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top