Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[Good_Fella]

Hi,
Thanks for the direction. I found the articles very interesting. As I mentioned in my meet and greet message, I have been looking into the apparitions of Mary for quite some time now. I suppose what I find disturbing about them is that some of the messages seem to me to fly right in the face of the Bible. The titles of Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix as well as Advocate, all claimed by the apparition, seem to be contrary to what the Bible teaches - that these titles should belong to Jesus alone.

CWT

There are too many false claims of private revelations in the Church this past
century. One sign of a Marian apparition being untrue is Mary’s purported use of
appellations such as "Mediatrix of (all) Grace(s); co-Redemptrix, and Advocate. The
false claims of Julia Kim, Teresita Catillo, Josefina-Maria, and Ida Peerdman contain
instances of our Blessed Mother addressing herself with these expressions which
do not intimate a solemnly defined doctrine of the Church. Be wary of apparitions
or visions that contain messages that clearly distort and contradict Sacred
Scriptures and sacred Tradition and mar the integrity of the Magisterium. In
the Marian apparitions which have been fully approved by the Church, Lourdes
and Fatima for instance, the Blessed Virgin Mary does not identify herself with
grand titles. She did tell St. Bernadette that she was the “Immaculate
Conception” but this title had already been adopted by the Church in the
Apostolic Constitution ‘Ineffabilis Deus’ of Pius lX in 1854. Popes have referred to
Mary as Mediatrix of (all) Grace(s), co-Redemptrix, and Advocate, but in encyclicals
containing non-infallible and undefined teachings concerning Mary’s role in the
economy of salvation. I find it hard to believe that Mary would use these titles to
address herself to us when the Church has not yet reached a definite under-
standing of their meaning. The former Cardinal Ratzinger discouraged
Pope John Paul ll from proclaiming the anticipated fifth Marian dogma: Mary
invoked as Mediatrix, co-Redemptrix, and Advocate. He advised the Pope that
these expressions were still unclear and confusing among Catholic theologians,
so it would be best to put this dogma on hold. Ignore apparitions in which Mary is
reported to have used these undefined titles by the Church. I believe these
claims of false apparitions are the product of Catholics who are trying to urge
the Holy See in proclaiming the fifth Marian dogma.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

No, but it is also true that Israel gave birth to the savior, as Jesus tells the Samaritan woman “salvation is of the Jews”. It is also true that Jesus commanded us all in the great commission to go forth and make disciples of all nations…baptizing them (rebirth) so the Church can also “give birth” to Christ in the world.

The interpretation that the woman of Revelation 12:1-5 is a personification of Israel
has its flaws. To begin, this interpretation is contextually wrong. All the other figures in
this passage represent individuals, not ideas or groups of people. The child is clearly Jesus,
the dragon Satan, the stars swept out of the sky fallen angels; Michael and his angels
are who they are presented as, and also the beast - who is Antichrist. It makes no
sense that the woman is the only figure in this passage who represents a collective
body, whether it be Israel or the Church.

Indeed, when Israel or the Church appear in other passages in Revelation, they do not
appear as personifications, but in literal form {Rev 7:4; 7:9; 21:9-10} Further, if a veiled
meaning is intended, that meaning is immediately explained in the text: The Lamb is
defined as the Lord of Lords, the Dragon is identified as Satan, the Heads of the Beast
are revealed as Kings. If no such explanation is given for the woman, it is because
the obvious meaning is the one intended by the author.

What makes the intended meaning so obvious is that the woman is introduced as a “sign
in Heaven”. This image of her clearly resembles and confirms the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14:
“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. The virgin will be with child and will give
birth to a son.” Finally, I believe Revelation 12 also alludes to Genesis 3:15: " I will
put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; she
will strike at your head, while you strike at her heel." [Latin Vulgate] It is so obvious
that the woman in Rev 12 is Mary. She is presented as having been exalted, for she
wears a crown. Israel, on the other hand, could not have been exalted for having
rejected the Messiah.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[JoeyWarren]

Very good indeed, very good indeed.

 

[Mannyfit75]

True, the entire Israel Nation rejected Jesus as the Messiah… It makes it pretty clear that the woman clothed with the sun is Mary or the Church…

 

[Calvinator]

Actually, no. No 'assumptions" are made with regard to Apostolic teaching. The Church teaches what was given to her by Jesus, and the Apostles.

This isn’t exactly true. Your church has never defined a single word uttered by either Jesus or the apostles outside of that which we find recorded in scripture.

 

[revmarty]

If you wish, let me know what you think about this article:

A convert from Fundamentalism explains why, with the wrong assumptions, he got the Assumption wrong:
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9205fea2.asp

Assumption means we assume something, we should use this principle in every part of Life not just the church, we should use it in law, education and politics if i assume it to be and a couple of important people agree with my assumption then that should be good enough, and all the more if some one brings in evidence to the contrary we can just say that, that doesn’t count because the people who had the assumtion i had said so, yeah that makes sence.

 

[pete_29]

Forgive me, I am not a theologian so my thoughts may be simple minded and I have not read all the posts so my comments may be redundant. Here goes. I read in one post that the woman in Revelation was obviously a symbol of Israel. To me, as I have read this passage, I always assumed the woman was the Blessed Virgin Mary. A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet. This passage is more descriptive of a person than a country or a race of people. As for the crown with twelve stars, considering when the Book of Revelation was written, it would seem to me that the stars would represent the church under the leadership of the Twelve Apostles in the New Covenant rather than the Twelve Tribes of Israel under the old.

 

[revmarty]

This isn’t exactly true. Your church has never defined a single word uttered by either Jesus or the apostles outside of that which we find recorded in scripture.

what is wrong with you reading the Bible for yourself and believing what it say’s? you know their is a good reason the catholic church tried to conceal the word of God from everyday man, you see they knew that even the simplest of people would see their lies and errors when compared to the truth of the Bible. that is why so many died and suffered to bring the bible to mankind and from under the control of the Church. and once it was out there what could do? oh now we need to say that scripture is not reliable alone or are they saying you and I can not be trusted to read it and understand it with our simple minds,

Bless you

 

[revmarty]

There are too many false claims of private revelations in the Church this past
century. One sign of a Marian apparition being untrue is Mary’s purported use of
appellations such as "Mediatrix of (all) Grace(s); co-Redemptrix, and Advocate. The
false claims of Julia Kim, Teresita Catillo, Josefina-Maria, and Ida Peerdman contain
instances of our Blessed Mother addressing herself with these expressions which
do not intimate a solemnly defined doctrine of the Church. Be wary of apparitions
or visions that contain messages that clearly distort and contradict Sacred
Scriptures and sacred Tradition and mar the integrity of the Magisterium. In
the Marian apparitions which have been fully approved by the Church, Lourdes
and Fatima for instance, the Blessed Virgin Mary does not identify herself with
grand titles. She did tell St. Bernadette that she was the “Immaculate
Conception” but this title had already been adopted by the Church in the
Apostolic Constitution ‘Ineffabilis Deus’ of Pius lX in 1854. Popes have referred to
Mary as Mediatrix of (all) Grace(s), co-Redemptrix, and Advocate, but in encyclicals
containing non-infallible and undefined teachings concerning Mary’s role in the
economy of salvation. I find it hard to believe that Mary would use these titles to
address herself to us when the Church has not yet reached a definite under-
standing of their meaning. The former Cardinal Ratzinger discouraged
Pope John Paul ll from proclaiming the anticipated fifth Marian dogma: Mary
invoked as Mediatrix, co-Redemptrix, and Advocate. He advised the Pope that
these expressions were still unclear and confusing among Catholic theologians,
so it would be best to put this dogma on hold. Ignore apparitions in which Mary is
reported to have used these undefined titles by the Church. I believe these
claims of false apparitions are the product of Catholics who are trying to urge
the Holy See in proclaiming the fifth Marian dogma.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

sorry but has anyone mentioned Astrix and Obilix?

 

[mich2]

Str-r-r-r-r-r-r-retch:nope:

What is your understanding on the words of Jesus’ …

**Matthew 16:27-28 : “… some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” **

and also…Why did Jesus say to Peter **"What is it to you whether he (John) remains until I return? ** His statement did indeed start a rumor within the church that John would not taste death, as Enoch and Elijah.
This rumor, along with the rumor of Mary’s assumption, are not found among the early christians, since the battleground was centered on the person of Christ; from the first century, the humanity of Jesus was doubted ( gnostics) as well as his divinity, the latter being responsible for a split within the church (Arian teaching). However, John assures us that a rumor concerning the belief that he would not die did indeed exist, and not one of the early church fathers wrote anything in order to give rest to this particular rumor.
Therefore, within the 4th century, after the Nicene Council clarified the dogmatic teachings on the person of Christ,and this, in turn, giving rise to a more definite structure to the church, we then find stories of both Mary and John as having been taking to heaven with their bodies, as surfacing.
These stories, in my opinion, satisfy the words of Jesus concerning some who will not die until His return.
We now believe as dogma that Moses’ body was fought over by the Archangel Micheal and Satan. Before the christian scriptures
identified this belief as dogma, it existed as a rumor in the same way the Assumption of Mary now exists today. Some Jews believed in the teaching found within the pre-christian Jewish document entitled “The Assumption of Moses”, however, not every Jews believed in the story as being true.

Andre

 

[Church_Militant]

This isn’t exactly true. Your church has never defined a single word uttered by either Jesus or the apostles outside of that which we find recorded in scripture.

Wrong. You need to read through the Catechism of The Catholic Church. I’ve never seen a better topical Bible study.

sorry but has anyone mentioned Astrix and Obilix?

Concerning what?

 

[guanophore]

True, the entire Israel Nation rejected Jesus as the Messiah… It makes it pretty clear that the woman clothed with the sun is Mary or the Church…

This is an absurd thing to say! All the Apostles and disciples (the 72 He sent out) were Jews, and so were the 3000 added on Pentecost! God preserved for Himself a remnant out of Israel. The book of Revelation has to be taken along with all the OT prophesy where God promises to bring salvation to the world through Israel.

3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?
Rom 3:1-3

This is one of the things Jesus means when He says “salvation is of the Jews”.

Isa 37:31-32
31 And the surviving remnant of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward; 32 for out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and out of Mount Zion a band of survivors. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this. "

 

[guanophore]

This isn’t exactly true. Your church has never defined a single word uttered by either Jesus or the apostles outside of that which we find recorded in scripture.

Gracious mercy! Have you never heard of the TRINITY!?!?!

Anyway, that is off topic. Are you the reincarnation of someone who recently got banned?

 

[guanophore]

Assumption means we assume something, we should use this principle in every part of Life not just the church, we should use it in law, education and politics if i assume it to be and a couple of important people agree with my assumption then that should be good enough, and all the more if some one brings in evidence to the contrary we can just say that, that doesn’t count because the people who had the assumtion i had said so, yeah that makes sence.

revmarty, that was a play on words. Mary is a human being, and not divine, therefore, she has not the power in herself to ascend into heaven like Jesus did. When Jesus came to fetch her, at the time she was to depart from the earth, we call this the “assumption” that she was assumed (taken up by Jesus) into heaven. Also, you cannot use a word as part of the definition. What do you mean when you say we “assume” something?

You accused the Catholic Church of "assuming " truths about the faith, which is not the case. The Catholic Church recognizes truths that have been divinely revealed by God. This is not a human assumption.

 

[guanophore]

Forgive me, I am not a theologian so my thoughts may be simple minded and I have not read all the posts so my comments may be redundant. Here goes. I read in one post that the woman in Revelation was obviously a symbol of Israel. To me, as I have read this passage, I always assumed the woman was the Blessed Virgin Mary. A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet. This passage is more descriptive of a person than a country or a race of people. As for the crown with twelve stars, considering when the Book of Revelation was written, it would seem to me that the stars would represent the church under the leadership of the Twelve Apostles in the New Covenant rather than the Twelve Tribes of Israel under the old.

This symbol can be interpreted in many ways. She has characteristics if Israel, Mary, and the Church.

 

[revmarty]

revmarty, that was a play on words. Mary is a human being, and not divine, therefore, she has not the power in herself to ascend into heaven like Jesus did. When Jesus came to fetch her, at the time she was to depart from the earth, we call this the “assumption” that she was assumed (taken up by Jesus) into heaven. Also, you cannot use a word as part of the definition. What do you mean when you say we “assume” something?

You accused the Catholic Church of "assuming " truths about the faith, which is not the case. The Catholic Church recognizes truths that have been divinely revealed by God. This is not a human assumption.

who say’s that the truth was divinely revealed to the people who recorded it? they do and that is enough for you? wow

 

[Church_Militant]

what is wrong with you reading the Bible for yourself and believing what it say’s? you know their is a good reason the catholic church tried to conceal the word of God from everyday man, you see they knew that even the simplest of people would see their lies and errors when compared to the truth of the Bible.

This is anti-Catholic bunkum that you cannot support with facts, and I defy you to provide them. I suspect all I’ll get is some a-C source and nothing based upon historical facts.

that is why so many died and suffered to bring the bible to mankind and from under the control of the Church.

Yeah, right. Provide the names and watch as you see that the historic facts prove this to be propaganda as well.

and once it was out there what could do? oh now we need to say that scripture is not reliable alone or are they saying you and I can not be trusted to read it and understand it with our simple minds,

Really?

Lesson 15:
Reading The Bible

1. Are we under any obligation to read the Bible?

We are under no obligation to read the Bible.
2. Are Catholics forbidden to read the Bible?

By no means; on the contrary, all Catholics are urged to read the Bible.
3. Besides ordinary benefits, what do those gain who read portions of the Bible every day?

“A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who with the veneration due to the divine word make a spiritual reading from Sacred Scripture. A plenary indulgence is granted, if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour.” (Enchiridion of Indulgences. Authorized English edition. 1969. Catholic Book Publishers. New York. Page 68. # 50)

 

[guanophore]

what is wrong with you reading the Bible for yourself and believing what it say’s?

Nothing. The Catholic Church highly encourages the faithful to read and believe it. “ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ”.

you know their is a good reason the catholic church tried to conceal the word of God from everyday man,

This is an erroneous assertion, revmarty. The Catholic Church never “tried to conceal the word of God from everyday man”. It seems that you have been given to believe a number of erroneous assertions about Catholicism. If you keep hanging around here, you may get the real facts!

you see they knew that even the simplest of people would see their lies and errors when compared to the truth of the Bible.

revmarty, for most of history, the "simpliest people of the would (sic) " could not read. Neither was there any printing press so that bibles could be widely disseminated. There are no lies and errors in the church teaching.

It is against the forum rules to defame the faith, so it behooves you to choose your language differently if you wish to remain.

that is why so many died and suffered to bring the bible to mankind and from under the control of the Church. and once it was out there what could do? oh now we need to say that scripture is not reliable alone or are they saying you and I can not be trusted to read it and understand it with our simple minds,

It is a relief to see that you admit you are simple minded. In fact, the holy scriptures were never meant to be separated from the sacred oral tradition which produced, protected, and promulgated them. The church has always taught this, long before the reformation.

Bless you

This seems to be a hypocritical salutation coming from you, revmarty. If you wish to be a blessing, it might be more appropriate to start with some basic courtesy. Try having some dialogue without insulting us, and maybe you will present a better blessing.

 

[guanophore]

What is your understanding on the words of Jesus’ …

**Matthew 16:27-28 : “… some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” **

and also…Why did Jesus say to Peter **"What is it to you whether he (John) remains until I return? ** His statement did indeed start a rumor within the church that John would not taste death, as Enoch and Elijah.
This rumor, along with the rumor of Mary’s assumption, are not found among the early christians, since the battleground was centered on the person of Christ; from the first century, the humanity of Jesus was doubted ( gnostics) as well as his divinity, the latter being responsible for a split within the church (Arian teaching). However, John assures us that a rumor concerning the belief that he would not die did indeed exist, and not one of the early church fathers wrote anything in order to give rest to this particular rumor.
Therefore, within the 4th century, after the Nicene Council clarified the dogmatic teachings on the person of Christ,and this, in turn, giving rise to a more definite structure to the church, we then find stories of both Mary and John as having been taking to heaven with their bodies, as surfacing.
These stories, in my opinion, satisfy the words of Jesus concerning some who will not die until His return.
We now believe as dogma that Moses’ body was fought over by the Archangel Micheal and Satan. Before the christian scriptures
identified this belief as dogma, it existed as a rumor in the same way the Assumption of Mary now exists today. Some Jews believed in the teaching found within the pre-christian Jewish document entitled “The Assumption of Moses”, however, not every Jews believed in the story as being true.

I think that these stories are at a higher level than “rumor”. Otherwise they would not be getting used on the level of scripture. I highly doubt the apostles would be teaching “rumors”.

Andre

 

[revmarty]

QUOTE=Church Militant;2387049]This is anti-Catholic bunkum that you cannot support with facts, and I defy you to provide them. I suspect all I’ll get is some a-C source and nothing based upon historical facts.Yeah, right. Provide the names and watch as you see that the historic facts prove this to be propaganda as well.
Really?

unfortunatly the C.C didn’t record these events, even if I gave you a 1000 examples you would say they were all A.C. Because you alone except the historical evidents of the c.c.

SIZE=“4”]Lesson 15:
Reading The Bible

1. Are we under any obligation to read the Bible?

We are under no obligation to read the Bible.
2. Are Catholics forbidden to read the Bible?

By no means; on the contrary, all Catholics are urged to read the Bible.
3. Besides ordinary benefits, what do those gain who read portions of the Bible every day?

“A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful, who with the veneration due to the divine word make a spiritual reading from Sacred Scripture. A plenary indulgence is granted, if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour.” (Enchiridion of Indulgences. Authorized English edition. 1969. Catholic Book Publishers. New York. Page 68. # 50)

of course they encourage you to read it, but they have convinced you it’s not reliable, so read to your hearts content.