Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[jburgherr]

Good Fella, your last two post were absolutely amazing! Spot on. Thanks so much!

 

[Good_Fella]

Justasking4 : “The (scriptural) passages below make no such claim that the Church would be kept free from error.” (#381)

Good Fella The Sacred Scriptures are infallible and inerrant, but when put in the hands of individuals who have no divine and apostolic authority, they can be the source of heretical beliefs and teachings which contradict the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church.

The heretical doctrine of Apollinarius (310-390), Bishop of Laodicea in Asia Minor, Apollinarianism, held that Christ had a human body but only a sensitive soul - human emotions, but no rational human mind or or human free will, these having been replaced in Christ by the divine logos or Word of God. (Mary could not then be his mother entirely.) The bishop vehemently appealed to the New Testament to prove he was right in what essentially amounted to an individual theory: “And the Word was made flesh.” (Jn 1:14); “and the Word was made flesh.” (Phil 2:7"Being made in the likeness of men and in habit found as a man", and ( 1Cor 15:47): “The second man, from heaven heavenly.” We must ask ourselves, could we possibly have ever known what these verses definitively meant about the person of Jesus without the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Bible alone is not sufficient to receive true divine Revelation. This heresy was condemned by Roman synods in 377 and 381 and by the ecumenical Council in Constantinople in the latter year. The Lord kept his promise to Peter and the Apostles. The next heresy we examine presupposes that Mary is not the Mother of God.

Arianism was a major heresy which almost destroyed the Catholic Church and may have if the Muslim invaders hadn’t providentially put it out of business. It sprung up in the fourth century originating with Arius, a priest in Alexandria.This false belief basically denied the divinity of Christ. Arius denied that there were three distinct divine persons in God ( the solemnly undefined traditional belief at the time). For him there was only one divine person, God the Father. (Arius rejected the divine mysteries which Jesus had kept from his apostles while he was still with them. After all, they were only simple fishermen and a tax collector who hadn’t yet been infused by the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.) In any event, the Son was created, not begotten of the Father. Christ was a son of God not by nature, consubstantial with the Father, but only by grace and adoption - how Muslims see Christ. This heresy wipes out the entire significance of the Incarnation: God had to have become man in order to redeem the world. As with all heretics, Arius rejected the traditional beliefs and teachings of the Church and turned to infallible and inerrant scriptures to support his private theory: Jesus rejected being called so little as good in deference to God (versus the Father) (Mk 10:18), disavowed omniscience as the Son, “learned obedience” (Heb 5:8), and referred to ascending to “my Father and your father, and to my God and your God.” (Jn 20:17). That Jesus was only human is inferred from his declaration that the Father was greater than he and that only the Father knew the day and the hour. (Mk 13:32). Arians supported their heretical belief by refering to Jesus as “the first born of all creation” ( Col 1:15) and “the beginning of God’s creation” (Rev 3:14). Arianism was formally condemned in 325 by the first ecumenical council of Nicea, which as a result formulated and promulgated the Nicene Creed.

These are just two heresies that plagued the early Church. Altogether there were twenty of them, and on each occasion the Catholic Church got all things right, not just “some things right.” If it were not for the Council of Nicea and the formal definition of the Holy Trinity and the Hypostatic Union in Christ, we could very well have been born into an Arian family. To be honest, the scriptural references of Arians, who do exist today even, are rather convincing. Without the guidance and instruction from our shepherds and teachers we can easily fall victim to lies by simply opening the Bible. Once all these thorns were removed, in the life of the early Church, it was time for Catholics to get better acquainted with the Mother of God.

Epiphanius emerged only forty-five years later to raise the issue of the Assumption of Mary.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Calvinator]

**Jay will maybe give you something as well

newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm**

Thanks for posting the article.
Pretty good article, esp pointing out the Feast’s beginnings in Palestine churches in 400s.

I dispute the author of the article’s contention that basis for belief in the fact of the Assumption is based on Transitus literature.
That is pure speculation on the author’s part. If this belief were unknown until the time of the Transitus literature, it would have caused a riot being introduced to the church. Novelties were always met with great and emphatic resistance by the Catholic church. The Ebionites, the Manicheans, the Arians, the Nestorians, they and their novelties were POUNCED on by the entire church as novelties and errors. If the Assumption were a novelty out of harmony with the centuries-old (by then) faith of the Catholic church, the notion of the Assumption would have been violently rejected. Some of today’s “scholars” need to be careful how they phrase things. Of course, the scholar who wrote the article on Saint Philomena for the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia wrote a disparaging and smart-alecky article about her in the Encyclopedia, and this at a time when the authorities of the Church, esp Pope St. Pius X were emphatically declaring the reality of her Sainthood and Martyrdom, so careless statements even in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia are nothing new.

I have in some of my books at home articles about the Feast of the Assumption, all of which agree it began in the eastern sectors of the Church (Palestine, Greece, Syria, etc.) in the 400s and was spread to the Western Church with not a whit of complaint or opposition, thus proving that it was in harmony with the ancient belief of the church as a whole. New beliefs aren’t assigned feasts in their honor, ever.

But the Transitus literature is NOT the “source” of the belief.
It is one of the earliest written statements of the fact of the belief, but that literature itself, though not 100% false, is not reliable literature and the reading of it was discouraged by the early popes, though not because of it’s mention of the Assumption.

The fact remains that not a soul in the Church of the 1st two centuries ever even bothered LOOKING FOR Mary’s remains, when they WERE collecting the remains of the other early Christian saints. That alone speaks volumes.

Jaypeeto4 ( at 12:35 in the morning and bleary eyed )
+JMJ+

Thanks for the replies.

Unfortunately my laptop is all but ruined and since I am in the middle of a move, all my household goods are in storage for the next month or so, I don’t have easy access to post.

I read the article from newadvet.org and also several other articles on the feast as well. I’m not so sure that what was celebrated in the 400’s was the assumption as it appears that it was Mary’s dormition that was being celebrated.

I may have missed a post or two concerning this but does anyone else have any more information concerning the beginnings of the feast of the assumption?

BTW, I appreciate the civil tone that I have encountered here at CAF or at least have experienced for the most part.

 

[justasking4]

Justasking4 : “The (scriptural) passages below make no such claim that the Church would be kept free from error.” (#381)

Good Fella The Sacred Scriptures are infallible and inerrant, but when put in the hands of individuals who have no divine and apostolic authority, they can be the source of heretical beliefs and teachings which contradict the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[justasking4]

Justasking4 : “The scriptures warn us that false teachers would come into the Church (not churches?) itself and deceive many. If the Church were guaranteed to be kept free from error, then this verse ( 2 Pet 2:1) and others like it ( Rev 2:14-15, 20) would be absurd.”

Good Fella : The false teachers this verse refers to are not Peter or any of the apostles, so Christ’s promise to guide the Church “in all truth” is still in force.

This promise does not mean it cannot err. It is true that ultimately the church will prevail but it is a different entirely to say the church cannot error when we know it has at times.

 

[justasking4]

I think you are confusing the charism of infallibility as applying to all individuals who teach, and this is not the case. The charism was given to the church. Individuals do err, and false teachers have emerged (such as Arius, Nestorius, and Luther). Members of churches can also espouse false teaching. Whole congregations followed after Arias.

You are not applying the concept correctly.

I disagree. If individuals can error so can groups. Your church errored in a number of places in history. It did with Joan of Arc and Galileo. It needed a “counter reformation” to correct errors and practices after the protestant reformation. Reformations implies that something is wrong that needs to be correctedl.

 

[justasking4]

All the Apostles were, de facto if not by name, bishops.

Again there is no proof of this in scripture. If scripture didn’t call them bishops then we should not either.

You imagine anyone else, even if he had the title bishop and one of the Twelve or Paul didn’t, could order them (or Paul) around? Certainly they were all bishops - and more.

 

[Good_Fella]

Justasking4 :“Heretical teachings and beliefs come about by a number of ways. One is trying to make scriptures says things in which they do not exist…The Catholic Church may claim that these (Marian doctrines) are infallible teachings, but they are not taught in scripture and are but the teachings of fallible men.”

Good Fella : What you are saying here is “not taught in scriptures” but your own fallible and biased opinion. What Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, Smythe and a host of other fallible men taught are not in the scriptures unless what they taught accorded with existing Catholic teaching. These men were not enlightened by the Holy Spirit, for they had separated themselves from the Church and had no apostolic authority to boot. Obviously, you fail to understand the true meaning of the charism of ‘infallibilty’ or choose to reject it because of your prejudices. The Catholic teaching about this charism is clearly supported by the biblical texts I cited. There would not be any point in having inerrant and infallible scriptures to begin with, if Christ hadn’t appointed an inerrant and infallible teaching body through the Apostles: the Sacred Magisterium of the Church, as opposed to the Ordinary Magisterium, which can err, but not to the extent of leading us off the path of salvation. Marian dogmas belong to the Sacred Magisterium’s jurisdiction and are thus infallible teachings. You believe that the Church may only get some things right and not all things right. If that is the case, how can we be sure that the things we think we got right are not actually wrong, or that what appears to be wrong could very well be right. This is why Christ sent the Holy Spirit to the Apostles on Pentecost: to be sure that his Church got all things right in her essential doctrines and sacred teachings. Jesus said, “in all truth” not just some. The scriptures tell us that the pope can authoritatively and infallibly proclaim Marian dogmas, so they must be true. By your reasoning alone, you cannot be sure that you have properly understood the Sacred text, but you keep declaring: “It is not in the scriptures.” You agree that the scriptures provide no explicit or implicit evidence that you are always right in your fallible interpretations of them. That is not the case with the Sacred apostolic authority of the Catholic Church.

Justasking4 :“Peter did fall into error or at least a couple of times. The first was in Matthew 16:22-23 and then in Galatians 2:11-14. In both cases he was not kept free from error by Christ.” (So our Lord must have broken his promise.)

Good Fella : Again you show how you tend to fallibly misinterpret the scriptures and fail to understand the meaning of the charism of infallibilty. How did Peter err when he said to the Lord, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing should ever happen to you.” On this occassion Peter merely misunderstood the universal import of Christ’s passion and death. Ignorance is not an error; nor can one err or even be concupiscent if he is completely ignorant of a truth. Error comes with knowledge, and the knowledge of the meaning of Christ’s death and resurrection was not attained until after Jesus rose from the dead and had sent his Holy Spirit on Pentecost. For now it was not yet time for Peter and the Apostles to know the truth about the mystery of salvation.

Peter may have erred by breaking table fellowship at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, but his action was an independent one not related to his official capacity as shepherd and teacher. By this time the Church had recognized the freedom of Christian Gentiles from the Mosaic Law established at the council in Jerusalem in 49AD. But the problem of table fellowship between Jewish Christians, who possibly still kept kosher food regulations, and Gentile believers was not yet settled. When Peter first came to the racially mixed community of Jewish and Gentile Christians in Antioch, he ate with non-Jews because of the preserved custom of the Jews to eat kosher food. Peter felt that the Jews were not acting in a true Christian manner by binding themselves to a traditional Jewish custom, so he separated himself from them and what he considered to be a hypocrisy. Clearly he was wrong to have separated himself from part of the community at the table of the Lord’s Supper, and he “stood condemned” in the face of Paul’s rebuke. To absent oneself from the breaking of the bread celebration was a grievous offence for any reason. But the scope of the charism of infallibilty does not extend this far. This instance is a matter of Church discipline, not Church teaching. Peter simply showed that he was not ‘(name removed by moderator)eccable’ and fallible outside his official capacity as shepherd and teacher. The charism of infallibilty resides only within the scope of the Church’s sacred teachings.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

justasking4:
Justasking4(it) : “Again, (and I say again) there is no proof of this in scripture. If scripture did not call them bishops, then we should not either.”

Good Fella : Again, and I say again, there is no proof in Matthew 16:22-23 that Peter had erred, although you have claimed he did. If you had read the following verses I will present by having read a previous reply of mine thoroughly, you would not have objected to Lily’s reply. Please read Titus 1:5-9.

‘For this reason I have left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious. For a BISHOP of God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not agressive, not greedy for sordid gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, temperate, just, holy, and self-controlled, holding fast to the true message as taught (Apostolic succession) so that he will be able to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.’

There certainly is proof of this in scripture. Why do you appeal to scripture when you are obviously unfamiliar with it?

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

part 1

Justasking4 :“Heretical teachings and beliefs come about by a number of ways. One is trying to make scriptures says things in which they do not exist…The Catholic Church may claim that these (Marian doctrines) are infallible teachings, but they are not taught in scripture and are but the teachings of fallible men.”

Good Fella : What you are saying here is “not taught in scriptures” but your own fallible and biased opinion.

 

[justasking4]

Thanks for the help. I don’t want to upset people if i’m not using this correctly. i will take your advice and try it.

JA-

You have become quite active in the forum recently, and you are asking some good questions to which we would like to respond with thoughtful replies. This will be easier if you take a few moments to learn

How to use the Catholic Answers Forum Quote Function

If you want to insert your comments into the middle of something you are quoting, you have to manually insert square brackets. Here is the original passage I want to comment on:

You don’t even need two brain cells to see how idiotic the teaching of the eucharist really is. It was so important that Peter, who wrote two epistles, overwhelms the reader with the topic of the eucharist.

In order to show you what you need to do, I have to use a different set of brackets for illustrative purposes only. I’ll use { and } instead of and ] so that you can see where the brackets should be located, and I’ll insert my comments in red text.

{quote}You don’t even need two brain cells to see how idiotic the teaching of the eucharist really is.{/quote} I’m inserting my comments here in red. {quote}It was so important that Peter, who wrote two epistles, overwhelms the reader with the topic of the eucharist.{/quote}Hope this helps.

Now, wherever you see the { or } you have to actually use a square bracket or ]. So the paragraph above comes out like this:

I’m inserting my comments here in red. Hope this helps.

Thanks. :tiphat:

 

[justasking4]

This will be my last reply for awhile. I’m going to be on vacation and won’t have access to a computer. Its been great dialoguing with all of you. If i have offended anyone here personally please forgive me. That has not been my intention.
Blessing in Christ

 

[Mannyfit75]

This will be my last reply for awhile. I’m going to be on vacation and won’t have access to a computer. Its been great dialoguing with all of you. If i have offended anyone here personally please forgive me. That has not been my intention.
Blessing in Christ

You are forgiven. I do pray for you that you will at least try to understand Catholic doctrines. You may disagree but don’t assume you know what we believe. You aren’t Catholic.

 

[zemi]

This will be my last reply for awhile. I’m going to be on vacation and won’t have access to a computer. Its been great dialoguing with all of you. If i have offended anyone here personally please forgive me. That has not been my intention.
Blessing in Christ

Thank you as well, justasking, hope to see you again here

 

[Good_Fella]

This will be my last reply for awhile. I’m going to be on vacation and won’t have access to a computer. Its been great dialoguing with all of you. If i have offended anyone here personally please forgive me. That has not been my intention.
Blessing in Christ

Where are you going on your vacation, Lourdes or Fatima ?

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Jaypeeto4]

This will be my last reply for awhile. I’m going to be on vacation and won’t have access to a computer. Its been great dialoguing with all of you. If i have offended anyone here personally please forgive me. That has not been my intention.
Blessing in Christ

Way cool !!! Have a FANTASTIC vacation and BE SAFE.
God bless you and yours,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[guanophore]

Such a claim has no support in the Scriptures. Heritical teachings and beliefs come about by a number of ways. One is the trying to make the scriptures say things in which they do not. Such is the case with the marian doctrines. For example, there is no support in them for Mary being kept from sinning or being immaculate conceived. The catholic church may claim these are infallible teachings but they are not taught in Scripture and are but the teachings of fallible men.

Since you have rejected the authority established by Christ of the Catholic Church to hold and teach His truth, why are you here? Why visit and participate in an enviroment that is contaminated so badly with the "fallible teachings of men? What are you DOING here?

 

[guanophore]

“Heretical teachings and beliefs come about by a number of ways. One is trying to make scriptures says things in which they do not exist…The Catholic Church may claim that these (Marian doctrines) are infallible teachings, but they are not taught in scripture and are but the teachings of fallible men.”

Yes, and most heresies start when someone rejects Apostolic Authority. The canon of scripture comes for that same body that you describe as “the teachings of fallible men”. If that is the case, then the scriptures are of no use to you either!

Are you aware that your church has not defined what all the Scriptures mean?

How is this relevant to eht scriptural basis for Mary’s asumption? Please stay on the topic. The church has defined what the meaning of the scriptures are in relation to Mary.

. The weakness you have is that Mary’s assumption has no scriptural support. Search the scriptures and you will see what i mean.

Actually, we don’t consider this a “weakness” at all! Since we know that there are two equal threads of divine revelation, one in scripture, the other in the Sacred Tradition, we know that they never contradict one another, being parts of the same Word of God. I think the weakness of which you speak must be yours, and not ours!

]This is nonsense. The standard for truth is not catholic teaching but the inspired-inerrant scriptures. Catholic teaching is not inspired-inerrant. If it is, then it should be added to the Scriptures as scripture. Are you willing to do so?

You are just uneducated, is all, justasking. The Catholic Church produced the scriptures, and yes, they are part of the standard of truth. However, they are a reflection of the Sacred Oral tradition from which they emerged. It is the Word of God which is inerrant, whether in writing or orally. There is no need to “add” to the scripture. The scriptures were never mean to be separated from the Apostolic Teaching from which they emerged.

What is your test for being enlightened by the Holy Spirit? How do you know when some is enlightened?

We know that one will never contradict the Word of God which has been revealed to us through the Divine Deposit of Faith.

I have looked at those passages catholic claim for this and its not there when you look at the context.

No, I don’t think that one can possibly be pursuaded by scripture alone that Mary was Assumed into heaven. Just like one could never be pursuaded by the gospels alone that Jesus said “it is better to give than receive.”

Where is this taught in scripture that therre is a “Sacred Magisterium” that would be inerrant -infallible?

This is a very good question that belongs on another thread. Actually there are several good threads on this topic running now. If you need, I will send you links.

Thats the problem you have in the catholic church. You must beleive everything that teach based on their authority whether its taught in Scripture or not. Protestants go to the inspired-inerrant scriptures to test all things.

Again, it is not a problem for Catholics, who know that those inspired-inerrant scriptures were produced from the Sacred Tradition that came from Jesus. There is no contradiction between the two threads.

This is why Christ sent the Holy Spirit to the Apostles on Pentecost: to be sure that his Church got all things right in her essential doctrines and sacred teachings.

Well, this is part of the answer to your question above about the scriptural support of the magesterium. The Holy Spirit prevented the Church from error in her essential doctrines and sacred teachings, from the first day of Pentecost until the present day, including the Assumption of Mary.

 

[Calvinator]

Originally Posted by Jaypeeto4
Jay will maybe give you something as well

newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

Thanks for posting the article.
Pretty good article, esp pointing out the Feast’s beginnings in Palestine churches in 400s.

I dispute the author of the article’s contention that basis for belief in the fact of the Assumption is based on Transitus literature.
That is pure speculation on the author’s part. If this belief were unknown until the time of the Transitus literature, it would have caused a riot being introduced to the church. Novelties were always met with great and emphatic resistance by the Catholic church. The Ebionites, the Manicheans, the Arians, the Nestorians, they and their novelties were POUNCED on by the entire church as novelties and errors. If the Assumption were a novelty out of harmony with the centuries-old (by then) faith of the Catholic church, the notion of the Assumption would have been violently rejected. Some of today’s “scholars” need to be careful how they phrase things. Of course, the scholar who wrote the article on Saint Philomena for the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia wrote a disparaging and smart-alecky article about her in the Encyclopedia, and this at a time when the authorities of the Church, esp Pope St. Pius X were emphatically declaring the reality of her Sainthood and Martyrdom, so careless statements even in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia are nothing new.

I have in some of my books at home articles about the Feast of the Assumption, all of which agree it began in the eastern sectors of the Church (Palestine, Greece, Syria, etc.) in the 400s and was spread to the Western Church with not a whit of complaint or opposition, thus proving that it was in harmony with the ancient belief of the church as a whole. New beliefs aren’t assigned feasts in their honor, ever.

But the Transitus literature is NOT the “source” of the belief.
It is one of the earliest written statements of the fact of the belief, but that literature itself, though not 100% false, is not reliable literature and the reading of it was discouraged by the early popes, though not because of it’s mention of the Assumption.

The fact remains that not a soul in the Church of the 1st two centuries ever even bothered LOOKING FOR Mary’s remains, when they WERE collecting the remains of the other early Christian saints. That alone speaks volumes.

Jaypeeto4 ( at 12:35 in the morning and bleary eyed )
+JMJ+

I respond…

Thanks for the replies.

Unfortunately my laptop is all but ruined and since I am in the middle of a move, all my household goods are in storage for the next month or so, I don’t have easy access to post.

I read the article from newadvet.org and also several other articles on the feast as well. I’m not so sure that what was celebrated in the 400’s was the assumption as it appears that it was Mary’s dormition that was being celebrated.

I may have missed a post or two concerning this but does anyone else have any more information concerning the beginnings of the feast of the assumption?

BTW, I appreciate the civil tone that I have encountered here at CAF or at least have experienced for the most part.

BUMPED FOR JAY

 

[Jerry-Jet]

In the RSV version of the bible the scriptural proof for Mary’s Assumption is:

Psalms 132 verse 8 “Arise and go to thy resting place Lord, thou and the Ark of thy might”.

The Ark of the Lord’s might is not the Ark that contained the ten commandments–God wrote those commandments and that Ark didn’t have anything to do with his might.

The Ark that would have something to do with the Lord’s might would be an Ark that contained Him and His might.

Te only Ark that could be would be the Ark of the new covenant–Mary–that contained Our Lord Jesus!

Jesus did arise and go to His resting place in heaven–along with the New Ark of the Convenant Mary that had contained His might when she was pregnant before He was born!

Both are in heaven!

Ark is used only 1 time in the Psalms!

How fitting since the New Ark–Mary–was redeemed by Jesus before He was born in the Immaculate conception–a Singular grace that was granted only to her!