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.
From the tract on the CA Library. The rest is here

"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.

Complement to the Immaculate Conception

Over the centuries, the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Assumption. The speculative grounds considered include Mary’s freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ.

The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, “Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might.” If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark—who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ.

Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell “in a body under debt of sin” (Wis. 1:4 NAB).

But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].

Mary’s Cooperation

Mary freely and actively cooperated in a unique way with God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:38; Gal. 4:4). Like any mother, she was never separated from the suffering of her Son (Luke 2:35), and Scripture promises that those who share in the sufferings of Christ will share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Since she suffered a unique interior martyrdom, it is appropriate that Jesus would honor her with a unique glory. …"
 
Really, Church, I’ve already argued against your speculative “history.” Please go back and read my previous posts.
 
Well, if you think I’m the final authority, go ahead, but I wouldn’t suggest it.
You stated the Apostles couldn’t have taught it.
Your statement suggested you thought you were the final authority on what the Apostles could and couldn’t teach. I disagree with you on your statement of indulgences. Perhaps you have proof? Proof is not your statement that they couldn’t have taught it. That is your opion. However, if you persue this please start another thread.
Let me ask you, where is the tomb of our Lord or the nails that crucified him to a cross? Do we doubt the existance of our Lord because we lack relics? No. Do we believe in his resurrection more because of the lack of relics? Obviously not. The collection of relics is a tradition of men, a pious tradition, but a tradition nonetheless.
The Church of the Holy Spulcher is built over the tomb of Jesus. The nails are in the The Church of the Cross of Jerusalem as well as the thorns from from the crown of thorns,
splinters from the cross and the cross bar of the good thief. We do not lack relics but our faith does not rely on them either. It is a tradition of men true so why is it lacking in Mary’s case?
 
We do not lack relics but our faith does not rely on them either. It is a tradition of men true so why is it lacking in Mary’s case?
Well, I may not know much about the proliferaiton of Christian relics in the first centuries of Christianity, but this Catholic website says that many Marian relics were claimed. You may check the sources that website posted if you wish, but appearently relics do/did exist. Of course, many relics were frauds and it wouldn’t surprise me if they were fake; also it most definitely wouldn’t surprise me if the “True Cross” is either fake or from another crucifixion.
 
40.png
SeanMc:
Well, I may not know much about the proliferaiton of Christian relics in the first centuries of Christianity, but this Catholic website says that many Marian relics were claimed. You may check the sources that website posted if you wish, but appearently relics do/did exist. Of course, many relics were frauds and it wouldn’t surprise me if they were fake; also it most definitely wouldn’t surprise me if the “True Cross” is either fake or from another crucifixion.
I don’t understand your point.:confused:
The web site states we do not have a first class relic because Mary was Assumed into heaven. That we would have other relics makes sense. What we don’t have and we should have if she were not assumed is her body. No one claims to have that. Good reason she is not here. She is with her Son.

You did not answer my questions.
 
OK, I’ll try to answer your question to the best of my ability; however, I’ve not yet started my study of Christian history (that begins in the Winter session in September).
I disagree with you on your statement of indulgences. Perhaps you have proof? Proof is not your statement that they couldn’t have taught it. That is your opion. However, if you persue this please start another thread.
The burden of proof lies upon those who proclaim it as Apostolic truth. It is highly unlikely that it was, and it was most likely an invention. I’ve seen some historical arguments for indulgences and they follow a lot like the Assumption: they start weakly and non-doctrinally in the 4th century and then seem to “develop” from there.
We do not lack relics but our faith does not rely on them either. It is a tradition of men true so why is it lacking in Mary’s case?
I don’t have a conclusive answer, but I will say that the primary reason would be that the earliest Christians didn’t hoarde relics like their counterparts in later generations did.
 
The evidence to that is quite the contrary as you so provided with your link
These relics didn’t pop up 'till later, so I wouldn’t say thus.
 
I was referring to the relics related to the Blessed Virgin and other such relics that did “pop up” from the 4th century to beyond.

You aren’t making a very good case for the Assumption by focusing on an ancillary issue.
 
40.png
SeanMc:
I was referring to the relics related to the Blessed Virgin and other such relics that did “pop up” from the 4th century to beyond.

You aren’t making a very good case for the Assumption by focusing on an ancillary issue.
Let me recap this for you. The natural reactions of people is to collect items from people they admire or like. We have that today with signature collection etc.
We have that with the saints. You made the statement
the earliest Christians didn’t hoarde relics
Which is untrue Christians have always had relics. There are many claims of where people are burried such as Peter and Paul. There are claims of Mary’s tomb but nowhere is there a claim of her body. If she has not been assumed, the early Christians would have claimed first class relics as they did others. It is easy to call it ancillary issue then you don’t have to answer.
 
They didn’t hoarde relics back then. They certainly wouldn’t do the disgusting practices of today in which some chop up saints bodies or peel off pieces of skin for relics.
If she has not been assumed, the early Christians would have claimed first class relics as they did others. It is easy to call it ancillary issue then you don’t have to answer.
That’s not a logical conclusion and it doesn’t help your argument.
 
They didn’t hoarde relics back then. They certainly wouldn’t do the disgusting practices of today in which some chop up saints bodies or peel off pieces of skin for relics.
Horde was your termonology and you lack history on what was done and not done.

Let me see now. We know where Jesus was buried. We know where Peter and Paul was buried. We know that the early Christians carefully perserved relics. We have to places that claim that they were burial places for Mary but neither place has any bones.
That’s not a logical conclusion and it doesn’t help your argument.
You mean it doesn’t help yours.
 
St. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote something very important: “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures” (Catechetical Letters, Letter IV:17).

Again, I shall quote St. Gregory of Nyssa: “Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words” (On the Holy Trinity and the Godhead of the Holy Spirit).

Apostolic tradition clearly points out our course of action.
 
40.png
SeanMc:
They didn’t hoarde relics back then. They certainly wouldn’t do the disgusting practices of today in which some chop up saints bodies or peel off pieces of skin for relics.
.
You are totally wrong there. The relics of the martyrs were preserved from the Colisseum and other places. Physical relics exist from the bodies of all major Saints.

Yet NO relics have ever been claimed for Mary. When the body of a local Saint brought pilgrims flocking to a town, to have the body or bones of Mary would have brought untold riches to any city. Yet no-one ever claimed this - even fraudulently. Why not? Because no-one would have believed them. Everyone in the ancient church knew Mary had been taken bodily into heaven.
 
Everyone in the ancient church knew Mary had been taken bodily into heaven.
And you are totally wrong here. There is no evidence that everyone in the ancient church believed in the Assumption, and it certainly wasn’t a dogma or a part of the faith.
 
40.png
SeanMc:
St. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote something very important: “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures” (Catechetical Letters, Letter IV:17).

Again, I shall quote St. Gregory of Nyssa: “Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words” (On the Holy Trinity and the Godhead of the Holy Spirit).

Apostolic tradition clearly points out our course of action.
Yes. because Apostolic Tradition clearly teaches that Scripture AND Oral Tradition are the joint founts of doctrine. The bible did not even exist in its completed form until 382 AD, when it was finally compiled at the Councils of Rome and Carthage under Pope Damasus.

Jesus left His **Church ** to carry His teachings forward - not a book. the church chose, many hundreds of years later, to make a book, which held many of the teachings handed down, but it did not set the book up above the Church.

Some - who disagreed with the ancient teachings of the Church - later tried to claim that the Church Jesus founded and promised to remain with, was unreliable, and that Jesus’s promises had failed. They then threw out the church’s teachings and devised new ones based on their own interpretation of selected Bible verses. The problem was, that they could not agree between themselves what these teachings were to be - and so we ended up with 30,000 different denominations all teaching different things from the same Bible!
 
You assume that the Church is an instution headquartered in Rome, whereas Church is better defined as an ekklesia, an assembly of believers. Ubi episcopus, ibi ecclesia. not Ubi pontifex, ibi ecclesia.
Jesus left His Church to carry His teachings forward - not a book. the church chose, many hundreds of years later, to make a book, which held many of the teachings handed down, but it did not set the book up above the Church.
St. Irenaeus says that “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles” (Adv. Hae. 3:1:1).

We can see from the earliest of times that the Early Christians viewed the Scriptures as the full expression of Apostolic teaching. Why do you insist on improving on the teaching of the Apostles by forcing the Assumption down the throats of Christians, epecially when there was NO reference to it, not even a remote one, until the third/fourth century?

I notice how y’all like to propagate the idea of the One, True Church ™, but the creeds say nothing about that. Credo in unam, sanctam, catholicam, et apostolicam ecclesiam. Now, is the ecclesia here the Church in communion with Rome or the assembly of believers who profess the revealed truths of God? For example, is the filioque a revealed truth of God? No! It is an invention of a council in Spain that spread to Rome. It is mere speculation. The Church of Rome has utterly confused speculation for dogmatic truth.

Now, yes, there are 30,000 Protestant denomination and even the Orthodox are fractured in a sense (Oriental Orthodox, ROCOR vs. OCA, etc.). What’s your point, the Roman Church has been the starting cause in all of them (Pope forcing the filioque in 1054 and twisting the faith to make money in order to build St. Peter’s Basilica in the Reformation).
 
SeanMc
This is not a thread about solo scripture. Do a search on it any you will have answers to your line of thinking.

To put it very simply and to quote from Axion
completed form until 382 AD
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.
We can see from the earliest of times that the Early Christians viewed the Scriptures as the full expression of Apostolic teaching.
From the earliest times it was quite clear that the written Tradition was equal with the Oral Tradition. If it were not so, there would be no Scriptures.
You assume that the Church is an instution headquartered in Rome, whereas Church is better defined as an ekklesia, an assembly of believers. Ubi episcopus, ibi ecclesia. not Ubi pontifex, ibi ecclesia.
You are the one who is making assumptions. This link will give you a morec complete definition of Church
newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
 
Why do you insist on improving on the teaching of the Apostles by forcing the Assumption down the throats of Christians, epecially when there was NO reference to it, not even a remote one, until the third/fourth century?
In the first three centuries there are absolutely no references in the authentic works of the Fathers or ecclesiastical writers to the death or bodily immortality of Mary. Nor is there any mention of a tomb of Mary in the first centuries of Christianity. The veneration of the tomb of the Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem began about the middle of the fifth century; and even here there is no agreement as to whether its locality was in the Garden of Olives or in the Valley of Josaphat. Nor is any mention made in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (431) of the fact that the Council, convened to defend the Divine Maternity of the Mother of God, is being held in the very city selected by God for her final resting place. Only after the Council did the tradition begin which placed her tomb in that city.
The earliest known (non-Apocryphal) mention concerning the end of Mary’s life appears in the writings of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia, the ancient Salamina, in the isle of Cyprus. Born in Palestine, we may assume that he was well aware of the traditions there. Yet we find these words in his Panarion or *Medicine Chest *(of remedies for all heresies), written in c. 377: "Whether she died or was buried we know not."7 Speaking of the cautious language used by St. Epiphanius, Father Roschini says: "To understand his words fully we must remember that he was conscious, when writing, of two heresies which were then living and dangerous: that of the Antidicomarianites, and that of the Collyridians. The former denied the perpetual virginity of Mary, the latter, erring in the opposite direction, maintained that divine worship should be given to her. To assert that Our Lady died was to give a handle to the one heresy (for it was to suggest that the body of Mary was subject to the corruption of the tomb, and thus minimize her prerogatives); to assert that she did not die was to encourage the other."8 And with the exception of a so-called contemporary of Epiphanius, Timothy of Jerusalem, who said: "Wherefore the Virgin is immortal up to now, because He who dwelt in her took her to the regions of the Ascension,"9 no early writer ever doubted the fact of her death. They did not, however, examine the question; they merely took the fact of her death for granted.
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=469
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top