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

[Holly3278]

:yup: The Church teaches it so I believe it even though I don’t understand it.

 

[SeanMc]

St. Irenaeus marytered in 202 before the completion of the Bible. What do you think he meant about scriputure? Certainly not what we have now.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem 315-386 died four years before it completion. My point is that they are not making the point you would like them to make.

What are you saying that all the books that that are make up Scripture were not written before 386 AD? I disagree with that. The Scriptures were considered to be the Gospels (Gosepl of St. Luke and the Acts were originally one, I believe), along with the writings of the Apostles. Are you saying that before the Council of Carthage or the Council of Rome, no one knew what formed scripture?

St. Ignatius of Antioch, among others, quoted the gospels as if they were scripture.

Orthodox Christians knew which books were of the Apostles and which were of the heretics (You don’t see St. Clement quoting from the Gospel of St. Peter, do you?).

Let me tell you, the Church which promulgated the Council of Rome did not teach the Assumption of Mary, at that time, and it is clear from the writings of Epiphianius, it was only a speculation.

Here’s an article about the canon (I’m not sure how good it is, but it has some useful patristic references which I shall quote):

In his First Apology, Justin Martyr (c. 110-165) referred to the gospels as containing the account of the Last Supper, although he did not list the titles or authors (1973, I:185). He later mentioned that the writings of the apostles were read along with those of the prophets in the Sunday assembly (I:186). Origen (c. 185-254), one of the most prolific early Christian writers, mentioned Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as genuine (1974a, X:412; Eusebius, 1971, I:273), along with Paul’s writings (without listing or numbering them), 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation. He listed 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John as disputed by some; and Origen mentioned a story from Acts as an apparent fact (the raising of Eutychus, Acts 20:7-12), which means he probably took Acts as a genuine writing (1974b, X:346-347; Eusebius, 1971, I:273). In his Homilies on Joshua, Origen listed the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament as abolishing idolatry and false philosophies (McGarvey, 1974, I:66), showing that as early as the mid-third century, these were the accepted writings.

Eusebius (c. 270-339), the famed historian of the early church, wrote concerning the accepted, disputed, and rejected books of the canon. He began the list of universally accepted works with the four gospels (previously listed as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John [1971, I:152-155]). To them he added Acts and the Pauline epistles (without listing them), 1 John and 1 Peter. The disputed books were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation (I:155-157). Athanasius (c. 296-373) listed the canon of the New Testament—the twenty-seven books that comprise our current New Testament. Of these books he said, “These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these” (1971, IV:552).

The bible didn’t just pop out of the council of Rome like you allege, but it came out as whether or not a certain book was made by the Apostles or one of the Apostles’ disciples (in the case of the gospels).

 

[RyanL]

Sean,

Perhaps you should read this:
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105sbs.asp

God bless you and your family richly,
RyanL

 

[SeanMc]

Ryan,

I’ve already covered those arguments (mostly) in my previous posts.

God bless,

Sean

 

[RyanL]

…er…sorry. I’ll actually read the thread before I post next time…



Peace be with you,
RyanL

 

[SeanMc]

Ryan,

…er…sorry. I’ll actually read the thread before I post next time…

I wouldn’t expect anone to read a thread this long, and I came around half-way through I reckon.

 

[Church_Militant]

My own opinion is that if the church didn’t know what it was talking about then the whole thing would’ve collapsed long ago, which it clearly did not. I don’t think that they just got up one day and decided to make this a dogma of faith just for the giggles and grins of it. If anything, the Catholic Church is incredibly slow in defining most things and this is no different. (IMO)

Pax tecum,

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

SeanMc:

What are you saying that all the books that that are make up Scripture were not written before 386 AD? I disagree with that. The Scriptures were considered to be the Gospels (Gosepl of St. Luke and the Acts were originally one, I believe), along with the writings of the Apostles. Are you saying that before the Council of Carthage or the Council of Rome, no one knew what formed scripture?

St. Ignatius of Antioch, among others, quoted the gospels as if they were scripture.

Orthodox Christians knew which books were of the Apostles and which were of the heretics (You don’t see St. Clement quoting from the Gospel of St. Peter, do you?).

Let me tell you, the Church which promulgated the Council of Rome did not teach the Assumption of Mary, at that time, and it is clear from the writings of Epiphianius, it was only a speculation.

Here’s an article about the canon (I’m not sure how good it is, but it has some useful patristic references which I shall quote):

The bible didn’t just pop out of the council of Rome like you allege, but it came out as whether or not a certain book was made by the Apostles or one of the Apostles’ disciples (in the case of the gospels).

The fallacy involved is described here:​

web.linix.ca/pedia/index.php/Fallacy_of_distribution

web.linix.ca/pedia/index.php/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle

This is a very frequent fallacy in Catholic apologetic - and not just among Catholics ##

 

[sparkle]

Don’t know about anyone else, but I would tend to go with the Church’s teaching and doctrine that’s 2000 years old, rather than something else.

I have learned THERE WAS A CHURCH BEFORE THERE WAS A BIBLE, and that Jesus said the gates of hell will never prevail against it. This is awesome. She is the bride of Christ, ONE bride. So, we can Trust what the Church decides!!!

God Bless~~

 

[Genesis315]

SeanMc:

But in John 16:13, he’s telling the Apostles that the Spirit will guide the Apostles into all truth, not the Church in communion with Rome.

Hmmm, and strangely he doesn’t say that the whole truth will be contained in Scripture. I wonder why that is…

 

[Alfie]

Church Militant:

1. 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!

So why didn’t Jesus just take Mary with him when he ascended to heaven on the day of Pentecost? Why bother to leave her on earth for her to just live a secluded and hidden life? What would be the point? What kind of a witness would that be for people? Would not people want to see her for spiritual guidence and for blessings if she is the mother of God? There were thousands of people at pentecost so most likely the authories or some of the Jews knew she was there.

 

[Church_Militant]

Alfie:

So why didn’t Jesus just take Mary with him when he ascended to heaven on the day of Pentecost?

Did He take anyone else? I guess you’d have to take that up with Him.

Why bother to leave her on earth for her to just live a secluded and hidden life? What would be the point? What kind of a witness would that be for people? Would not people want to see her for spiritual guidence and for blessings if she is the mother of God?

You really haven’t thought this through have you? As I have pointed out in other places, it is evident from all the Gospel accounts of events from the Annunciation through Jesus’ age 12 that the Blessed Virgin was the source for the information that they present. It can’t have been Joeseph since it seems apparent from scripture (as well as traditional writings of the church) that he passed away sometime between Jesus being found in the temple and the beginning of Jesus public ministry at age 30. It can’t have been first-hand from the apostolic authors since they didn’t even meet Jesus until He was 30 years old.

Also, there are many very personal statements about Mary and things that she said and did during those times and only she would have been in a position to share those with the apostles. That would appear to have been a good reason for the Lord to have allowed her linger for a while.

There were thousands of people at pentecost so most likely the authories or some of the Jews knew she was there.

But so what? The account in Acts plainly says that she was there that day, but that is not really relevent.

If God assumed Moses, Enoch, and Elijah into heaven when He was ready, why would He not have done the same for the holy woman who bore and nurtured His divine Son?

"The Assumption

The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary “ascended” into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, “after the completion of her earthly life” (note the silence regarding her death), “was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.”

The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: “[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called “paradise,” where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.

No Remains

There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.

It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere. " More on this.
Pax tecum,

 

[Church_Militant]

I also found this:

Q: How do we know that the Protoevangelium of James is credible?

A: We don’t. But because it is an ancient document, dating to the first half of the second century, it may contain accurate historical traditions that give Christians an idea of some of the stories that were circulating regarding Mary’s childhood and the selection of Joseph to be her guardian and spouse. It opens our minds to other possibilities, specifically the idea that Joseph was an older widower and wed Mary to be her support and the guardian of her virginity. Catholics are not required to believe that the Protoevangelium of James is accurate, but it could be, and that offers new things to ponder.
The Protoevangelium of James can be found online at newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

 

[Alfie]

Church Militant:

Did He take anyone else? I guess you’d have to take that up with Him.You really haven’t thought this through have you? As I have pointed out in other places, it is evident from all the Gospel accounts of events from the Annunciation through Jesus’ age 12 that the Blessed Virgin was the source for the information that they present. It can’t have been Joeseph since it seems apparent from scripture (as well as traditional writings of the church) that he passed away sometime between Jesus being found in the temple and the beginning of Jesus public ministry at age 30. It can’t have been first-hand from the apostolic authors since they didn’t even meet Jesus until He was 30 years old.

Also, there are many very personal statements about Mary and things that she said and did during those times and only she would have been in a position to share those with the apostles. That would appear to have been a good reason for the Lord to have allowed her linger for a while.But so what? The account in Acts plainly says that she was there that day, but that is not really relevent.

If God assumed Moses, Enoch, and Elijah into heaven when He was ready, why would He not have done the same for the holy woman who bore and nurtured His divine Son?

"The Assumption

The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary “ascended” into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, “after the completion of her earthly life” (note the silence regarding her death), “was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.”

The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: “[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called “paradise,” where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.

No Remains

There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.

It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere. " More on this.
Pax tecum,

OK, I get it.

 

[Church_Militant]

Alfie:

OK, I get it.

COOL!
Thank you Holy Spirit!
Pax tecum,

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I do believe, with all my heart, that Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven. She enjoyed then what we will enjoy at the end of time, when our bodies will be resurrected and reunited with our souls.

Mary, assumed into Heaven, pray for us.

 

[stompalot]

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.

(I cite no scripture because the pertinent passages should be fairly easy for anyone to find if interested.)
Pax vobiscum,

sure, but if you read the bible, you would notice that mary’s assumption is NEVER mentioned. how can people say this happened?

 

[Zooey]

sure, but if you read the bible, you would notice that mary’s assumption is NEVER mentioned. how can people say this happened?

:doh2:Oh, boy, have you just picked the wrong Irish person to ask that question of…!!!

Take it from me, laddie…Ye :dts: dinnae know what ye’re talking about!! The man did say:

I cite no scripture because the pertinent passages should be fairly easy for anyone to find if interested.

…And I assure you, it’s right there…:yup: in the Bible.
(It helps if you read with your eyes and your mind both open…)

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Assumption of Mary is a preview of what will happen to those who remain faithful in Christ. For one, Mary did dead and willing accept her death so she can imitate her son. She is the first Christians to be resurrected by her son, and was assumed into heaven by God.

Though the Catholic Church is silent whether or not Mary died or was resurrected by her son. I do held this belief that Mary indeed died base on the accounts of the Early Church Fathers, the Eastern Rite Catholics and Orthodox Church’s tradition of Dormition of Mary which falls on the same day as the Assumption of Mary.

 

[Benadam]

The Assumption of Mary is a preview of what will happen to those who remain faithful in Christ. For one, Mary did dead and willing accept her death so she can imitate her son. She is the first Christians to be resurrected by her son, and was assumed into heaven by God.

Though the Catholic Church is silent whether or not Mary died or was resurrected by her son. I do held this belief that Mary indeed died base on the accounts of the Early Church Fathers, the Eastern Rite Catholics and Orthodox Church’s tradition of Dormition of Mary which falls on the same day as the Assumption of Mary.

I believe Our Blessed Mother followed her Son in every way she could as well.