Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[zemi]

Read the piece, a pretty fair piece of work. I didn’t come here to fight or argue, quite the opposite, but I do feel obligated to give voice to the truth, my responsibility as a Christian. You may be right and I wrong, but here’s the deal.

It’s never a good idea to argue from silence. I know that the Bible does not hold everything that was said or done, the story ends rather abruptly in fact. Most Protestants hold that the Bible is the only authority. I do not accept that, but am dogmatic that any other source must supplement, not conflict with the Bible.

I have a degree in European History, but Biblical History, archeology, etc is more of a by-line to me. My read on the first 200 years or so after the crucifixion, is that the Church was far from united in it’s beliefs. Just coming to terms with what they had experienced took time for the apostles. The understanding of the Trinity was not immediate. What’s more, there was a lot of “creative writing” that took place. Just look at The Gospel of Judas, stories about Lillith, stories about Mary’s childhood etc, that only the “Church of Dan Brown” accepts. So just finding a document isn’t real impressive by itself. Read the Nag Hammadi joke-O-Rama about Mary, Jesus, etc? Not real impressive.

Why weren’t stories of Mary’s assumption included in the Bible if the Church believed, or agreed on this?

Thank you for your response.

The easiest answer to your last question would be… all the writings that didn’t make it into the canon were…well, probably not inspired.

CCC 107:

The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

So they are in the canon because

1. God wanted to have them in the Bible
2. they are there for the sake of our salvation

Now, obviously, if God wanted to have the books we currently have in our canon, it follows he wanted us to know that:

They teach us about his establishing the Church

1. which is built upon Peter given the power to bind and loose (Mt 16,17-19; cfr Is 22,20-23)
2. which is sent to teach to whole world (Mt 28,19-20) and
3. which is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3,15)

Also we know from the books of the Bible (and what God wanted us to know) that the Bible is enough to teach us the Bible is not enough. We are taught to adhere to the traditions taught by the Apostles and his succesors (a very good and brief case is here biblechristiansociety.com/2min_apologetics.php?id=15)

Given this, I think God wants us to know through his one and only Church he founded some truths also about Mary. Mary cannot save us. She is not necessary for us today to get to heaven. That’s why maybe God didn’t “need” it for us to be in the canon. Or he needed the people to focus on something else at the time of heresies, I don’t claim to know. So why bother us then with Mary, one can say? I say - maybe it’s pure God’s grace, nothing else, that He sooo wants to help us in our struggles and in helping us to get closer to Jesus that he gives us Mary. Why else? Mary is all about Jesus (“Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.” Jn 2,5). She is not here for us for her own sake.

It’s my take on it. You are of course free to disagree.

God bless

 

[Zooey]

Can you give me a couple of examples?

Check out Arius, and then the http://bestsmileys.com/nono/2.gif Ever-Popular Nestorius…
http://bestsmileys.com/halloween1/13.gif<<<Nestorius
Arius gave us a whole line of heretical sects, of which the most prominent contemporary example are the JWs.
As for our (non-)friend Nestorius:
http://bestsmileys.com/halloween1/13.gif<<<Nestorius (again!!)
…There goes the hypostatic union. And we are still seeing the fallout.

To call Mary the mother of Jesus, but not the “Mother of God” is to diminish the person of Jesus as well as his mother, for it is a denial that Jesus is truly and fully God.

It was by responding to the Nestorian heresy in the 5th century that the formal definition of Mary invoked as Mother of God was given at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD. Patriarch Nestorius had preached, like fundamentalists today, that Mary was not the mother of God, being just the mother of Jesus’ physical body, which was then indwelt by the divine Word. His preaching was condemned as heresy, for the Gospels tell us that the Word did not ‘unite’ with a man, but was ‘made’ man. According to Nestorius, there were two persons occupying one body: one divine and the other human. Mary was the mother of only the human Jesus. Fundamentalists today say the same heretical thing about Mary, although it is a fundamental Christian belief that Jesus is one person with two “natures”, a fully divine nature and a fully human one. Mary gave birth to one person, Jesus, who is called both the Son of God and the Son of man: divine and human.It was through Mary that our Lord acquired his human nature without diminishing or discarding his divine nature, which was retained in the Incarnation. Mary bore someone who was both divine and human, an so she is also the mother of the person with a divine nature: the Son of God. [Cf. Jn. 1:14] To say that Mary is not the Mother of God is to say that Jesus was not divine, but only human (Arianism) or that there were two distinct persons occupying our Lord’s body (Nestorianism). Our preoccupation with Mary helped us define the hypostatic union in Christ; yet Protestants charge she only serves to distract our attention away from him.

At the Incarnation, through the activity of the Holy Spirit, God the Word to “flesh” and “full humanity” from the Virgin Mary in union with his divine nature. If this were not the case, then Jesus could not have been our true Saviour. Moses or Mohammad could have been sacrificed by the Father just as well for our salvation. Jesus is one person with one consciousness, both fully God and fully man, who truly is both Son of God and Son of Mary (Son of man).

We find explicit scriptural support for the title “Mother of God” in the Gospel of Luke. Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth, proclaims:

“WHO AM I THAT THE MOTHER OF MY LORD (YHWH) SHOULD COME TO ME?”

Justask4it, I thought the bible was your only source of divine revelation, yet you ignore or reject this verse about Mary. I think you quote scripture (like Satan) only to serve your own wishes.

By the way, this verse also supports belief in the Assumption of Mary, for as St.Augustine said, our Lord would never allow the body of his Mother to see corruption.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Thank you!! Great post!!

 

[CWT]

I want to thank everyone for their comments concerning a Scriptural basis for the Assumption of Mary. I find it a little sad that we (Catholics and Protestants) have to disagree so vehemently, but, considering the subject matter, I suppose it can’t be helped. I also find it distressing that some seem to take this as such a personal attack. I do not hate Catholics. I spent twelve years in the Catholic school system. One of my sisters belonged to the Maryknoll order for six years. She quit because she came to believe the doctrines stemming from the Protestant Reformation. She no longer accepts many of the Roman Catholic teachings. Another sister belonged to the School Sisters of Notre Dame for fifteen years before she quit. She no longer goes to any Church, but when I speak to her about my faith she tells me that “I’ve done my time.”
We are products of what we learn during our lifetimes. But, I think that we have to examine what we learn from time to time because so much of it is incorrect. But, can we do this objectively? We don’t see things the way they are, we see things the way we are. And, it is very dangerous not to examine the means of our salvation. The Bible warns us of false teachers, doctrines of demons, end times delusions, etc. etc. etc. And, experience based religion or beliefs can be fatal.
The only way we can test anything that is supernatural is Biblically. If you can imagine just for a moment…What if the apparition that claims to be Mary is not actually Mary, but an impostor, a deceiver, and a demon. Can you see how these apparitions might bring about the false peace predicted in the Bible. Did you know, for example, that the Koran contains an entire book devoted to Mary and she is held in high regard in Islam. Could the New Agers respond to Mary as their Earth Mother Goddess?
The apparition claims that she will usher in the second coming of the Eucharistic Christ. Just what does that mean? If transubstantiation is true, is Jesus coming back only in the form of the Eucharist?
No one need respond to this. I don’t believe that I am going to change many minds here, although I would pray that I do, and I don’t believe that anyone here could change my mind. For truth to be true it has to correspond with reality. I came to a saving faith in Jesus Christ at the age of fifty-two. I was at the lowest point of my life when I prayed the sinners prayer and invited Jesus into my life as my personal Lord and Savior and I literally felt the Holy Spirit enter my body. This was a very powerful subjective experience. The changes that happened in my life after that, the 180 degree turn in the way I lived, the love I have in my heart for the Jesus of the Bible, all checked out with the objective Biblical examination that followed.
In closing I would like to ask all of you who read this to please look into the messages of the apparitions of Mary and to check out these messages Biblically for yourselves. Considering the problems with the clergy throughout history, do you really want the doctrines that they come up with to determine your what your salvation entails? And remember, this is not hatred, this is not an attack, it is merely concern.

 

[Zooey]

CWT:
Whatever you say, whatever you do, you are my brother in Christ, & as such, are in my prayers.
I, the Friendly Neighborhood Methodist, have come to believe that Mary’s assumption is the only way that I can understand the inspired words of God in the Bible. But hey, that’s me…
God bless you & yours,** Z**

 

[zemi]

to CWT:

I don’t want to derail the thread much but

thanks for your post , appreciate it

 

[Milliardo]

And, experience based religion or beliefs can be fatal.

I can’t take this seriously since by this notion, any religion is fatal, since all religions are based on experience.

The only way we can test anything that is supernatural is Biblically. If you can imagine just for a moment…What if the apparition that claims to be Mary is not actually Mary, but an impostor, a deceiver, and a demon. Can you see how these apparitions might bring about the false peace predicted in the Bible.

Apparitions are tested not on the Bible, since even Satan can quote Scripture, but the effect it has on people; whether it leads one to Christ or far from Him.

Did you know, for example, that the Koran contains an entire book devoted to Mary and she is held in high regard in Islam.

So? Jesus is also held in high regard in the Quran; does that make Jesus false then?

Could the New Agers respond to Mary as their Earth Mother Goddess?

No, since New Age has quite an animosity towards anything Christian.

Considering the problems with the clergy throughout history, do you really want the doctrines that they come up with to determine your what your salvation entails?

Remember that most clergy throughout history were faithful to Christ and His Church, so a very broad stroke would be unfair to them. With that in mind then, it is also notable that Jesus made a promise that His Church will not be prevailed upon by hell, so in answer to the question, we have confidence on the Church that Christ Himself founded.

 

[Good_Fella]

A missionary landed on an island in the South Pacific to distribute copies of the Holy Bible to the pagans. He decided that it was time they finally learned of God’s existence. He was a very active missionary, and so he had no time to preach to them. It was sufficient they had the Bible. Well, he would return to test their knowledge. And so, he did return. He gathered the people who had come to greet him on shore, where they had first met, for their village was centuries away for the missionary, who was in a hurry. Once all were settled, he asked the chief of the tribe to come with him to a lone spot, so that he could answer his questions beyond the hearing range of the others; for the chief might give the answers away. The missionary hoped that the chief would be fully enlightened by the Word of God and able to satisfy him. He kept his questions simple, for he knew the villagers had no one to teach them but themselves. So he asked the chief, “What do you know about God?” The chief eventually replied, “God is an Almighty Father. He has an only Son, eternally begotten from the Father,true God from true God. Through the Son all things were made.He came down from heaven for our salvation by the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. The Holy Spirit is the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. I believe God is three divine Persons in one.” The missionary was amazed. He thought, “How can this heathen chief get all the facts straight in such little time, especially since he hadn’t even heard about God until I gave him a Bible. This is miraculous! There must be a scriptural explanation for this.” After a short spell: “Of course,” he cried, “these verses say it all! What he just said was as inerrant as the Bible itself. Like I’ve always said, who needs a church when we have the Bible. It’s just a matter of understanding what it says, with the help of the Holy Spirit, that is.” Opening his Bible to the desired verse, he mumbled, "Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.” Turning to the chief, the missionary cried out in loud voice, "You get an A+! What you just told me about God is absolutely correct. I couldn’t have said it better myself. And I’ve been studying this book ever since Bible School.You know everything there is to know about the Holy Trinity found in this book. You know, I actually thought you were going to say something that could not possibly be found in the Bible, something stupid like there are three Gods, or that Jesus was just a blessed man and the Holy Spirit an impersonal spiritual force emanating from God. Yes, my good man, without the shadow of a doubt - you are a Rock! The chief quietly bowed in a gesture of gratitude for the missionary’s kind words.Having regained his breath, the missionary scrutinized the chief. He said to him, “I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s no need for me to test the rest of the villagers on their knowledge of the Bible. I’m sure that they haven’t got their facts straight like you have, and Matthew has just assured me that you’ve been enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Who else could’ve told you what you just said to me about God.? I tell you what. Why don’t you start a Bible school right here on your island? You can teach your people everything that the Spirit tells you and make sure they get all the facts straight. You can prove everything the Good Book says by pointing out where they must be wrong. This way I can move on to the next island where I have to hand out more bibles. What do you say to that?” The chief nodded meekly and silently. After having waved good-bye to the missionary, the chief and the villagers headed back to their village. As they were nearing the village, a vague figure appeared in the distance ahead of them. The chief and the villagers increased their step to greet this familiar and much loved person. He had arrived to these people as a complete stranger, but quickly captured their hearts because of his gentleness and kindness towards them. He had even given them something very special in their lives, a great treasure that no sea could ever contain. A voice greeted the villagers as they drew near to this man: “Where have you been? It is time for Mass. Come now.” Everyone followed the priest to the village chapel, except the chief. There was something he had to do first. His memory was not as strong as it used to be because of his advanced age.The chief was aware that it was not a question of getting his facts straight; he knew that what he was about to recite during Mass had to be pronounced accurately in keeping with what he was told and believed. After entering his hut, he went to a corner casket situated on the floor and opened its lid. He removed his Catechism and turned to the page he sought for a quick, appreciative glance at the Nicene Creed.

Good Fella

 

[guanophore]

Read the piece, a pretty fair piece of work. I didn’t come here to fight or argue, quite the opposite, but I do feel obligated to give voice to the truth, my responsibility as a Christian. You may be right and I wrong, but here’s the deal.

It’s never a good idea to argue from silence. I know that the Bible does not hold everything that was said or done, the story ends rather abruptly in fact. Most Protestants hold that the Bible is the only authority. I do not accept that, but am dogmatic that any other source must supplement, not conflict with the Bible.

I have a degree in European History, but Biblical History, archeology, etc is more of a by-line to me. My read on the first 200 years or so after the crucifixion, is that the Church was far from united in it’s beliefs. Just coming to terms with what they had experienced took time for the apostles. The understanding of the Trinity was not immediate. What’s more, there was a lot of “creative writing” that took place. Just look at The Gospel of Judas, stories about Lillith, stories about Mary’s childhood etc, that only the “Church of Dan Brown” accepts. So just finding a document isn’t real impressive by itself. Read the Nag Hammadi joke-O-Rama about Mary, Jesus, etc? Not real impressive.

Why weren’t stories of Mary’s assumption included in the Bible if the Church believed, or agreed on this?

The only book of the NT that was written after her dormition was Revelation, and John DOES write about her there.

 

[jburgherr]

The only book of the NT that was written after her dormition was Revelation, and John DOES write about her there.

…Which makes total sense that John would know about her dormition as he was given charge for her care for the rest of her earthly life by Jesus as he hung on the cross.

(Joh 19:26) When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
(Joh 19:27) Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

 

[Good_Fella]

…Which makes total sense that John would know about her dormition as he was given charge for her care for the rest of her earthly life by Jesus as he hung on the cross.

(Joh 19:26) When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
(Joh 19:27) Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

How true. And we should note that in this passage it is recorded Jesus gives his mother to the world first. Only then does our Lord give custody of his mother to his beloved disciple. Jesus had the spiritual welfare of all believers in mind when he presented to us his mother. Mary’s Assumption is necessary for her to pray and intercede for us before her Son. She truly is the Mother of the Church and we, the brethren of Jesus, her children.

In fact, Mary is our Queen Mother, in Aramaic ‘Gebirah’. The Queenship of Mary finds support in the Old Testament. Look at it this way: Jesus is the Messianic King, prefigured in the ancient and holy Kingship of David and Solomon. In the historic period of ancient Israel there was a second throne next to the throne of the king. This second throne was not occupied by the king’s wife - but by his mother. The ‘Gebirah’ was a position of high honour, authority, and privilege for a woman, since she gave birth to the king of Israel. Her roles were advisor to the king and advocate of the people. Anyone who had a petition or sought an audience with the king did so through her (Mediatrix). This was the case when Adonijah sought a high-ranking bride from Solomon:

So he continued, “Please ask King Solomon - he will not refuse you - to give me Abishag the Shunamite for my wife.” “Very well,” Bethsheba replied, “I will speak to the king for you.” When Bethsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand. [1Kings 2:17-21]

The special and unique status of the Queen Mother remained throughout the time of the Kingdoms of Israel.

When John envisioned the woman in Revelation 12, he must have recognized her for who she is, ‘Gebirah’. The crown of twelve stars on her head surely allude to her queenship over the twelve tribes of Israel in the Davidic royal lineage. And she presents herself as the mother of the King of kings and as the mother of the Church, the Kingdom of God, which was visibly established by the twelve apostles who themselves represent the twelve tribes of Israel.

The Queenship and Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary attests to her Assumption. The Old Testament makes it clear that her role is exercised at the right hand of her Son, the King of kings. Bethseba serves to prefigure this divinely ordained role of the Mother of God revealed to us in John’s vision of the woman. And the gesture of King Solomon foretells her Assumption and Coronation (1Kings 2:21):

HE HAD A THRONE BROUGHT FOR THE KING’S MOTHER, AND SHE SAT DOWN AT HIS RIGHT HAND.

The title of Mary invoked as Queen and Mother, ‘Gebirah’, does not originate from the pagan religious cults of ancient time. It comes to us from a royal institution divinely established in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Hence, in scriptural context, Jesus’ Messianic Kingship is prefigured in the role of King of Israel, and so Mary’s role is prefigured in that of ‘Gebirah’. The existence of this royal institution in Israel and Judah is providential. It reflects and prefigures the Messianic order of the House of David. Mary is our heavenly Queen Mother, for her son Jesus is our heavenly king. What more “proof” do we need to get our “facts” straight in order to believe that the Assumption of Mary and her Coronation in heaven actually took place?

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can bear now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” [John 16:12-13]

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[zemi]

Excellent post, Good Fella!

 

[Good_Fella]

Excellent post, Good Fella!

My pleasure, Zemi. Anything for our ‘Gebirah’.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Markway]

There are some confusing and troubling thoughts/fact/historical conjecture about Mary that deserve to be dealt with.

First: In the Bible, Scripture portrays Mary as a human, but a very “good” woman, as measured in human standards, a mother of a number of children, presumably fathered after Jesus. The Bible makes no special effort as it does on other points to indicate that these other children were anything other than Mary and Joseph’s natural children. Mary is handed into St John’s hands at the crucifixion to be cared for.

Second: The early church was not especially cohesive. I’m talking now about the first 50 years or so. It appears from historical evidence that new Christians clustered around individual apostles, not too surprising considering that they were all missionaries working at large removes from each other.

Third: At least one of the early factions seems to have been clustered around Mary? Was she actually teaching? Was there some early tradition of an assumption or whatever?

Fourth: Most of the early writings that I know of that discuss Mary are at heart highly heretical and are either Gnostic or pagan in object and philosophy. There was a tendency, not unlike that we see today in the RCC, to create, a “Holy Family”. Father, Mother and Son, the Trinity.

As a non RC I would like answers form the RCC why they elevate Mary in the way that they do, and had hoped that they were aware of documents that I was not aware of. This is looking less and less likely. Still, if Mary was assumed into Heaven, I would not find it surprising, nor would I feel more inclined to direct prayers towards her, accord her outrageous titles, or what-not.

I am still thinking about the whole idea of “extra curricular” prayer. By this I mean enlisting Mary saints or whomever to pray with me to God. Prayer for me has always meant communion with God. Spiritual Communion is or should be the nature of prayer. Is it appropriate to direct this to anyone other than God? If they don’t hade Godly powers,can they even hear me?

 

[Markway]

It’s interesting how you try to avoid mentioning the Catholic Church when it concerns who compiled the Bible; why is this so? I wonder what Church you’re even thinking that made the final compilation at the Council of Carthage in 419 A.D.?

Many writings never made it into the final canon; early Christians never assumed them to be unimportant or unclear or false. Conversely, many Christians were unsure of such writings as Jude and Revelation to be inspired, and quite a number never as much as included them in their own canons, yet the Councils of Hippo and Carthage they were included.

I am careful with my FACTS. When the Bible was compiled the Church could still claim to be ONE Church. It would be as accurate to say that the Baptists were responsible for the cCanon of scripture as the Roman Catholics. Frankly, I have always wondered if Revelation merited inclusion into the Canon, but bow to the power of God. No more powerful single tangible expression of God’s will exists than the Bible, and it is hard to believe that God did not have a hand in it’s formation. If Revelation was included what was left out was almost certainly not worthy of inclusion.

 

[Mannyfit75]

There are some confusing and troubling thoughts/fact/historical conjecture about Mary that deserve to be dealt with.

First: In the Bible, Scripture portrays Mary as a human, but a very “good” woman, as measured in human standards, a mother of a number of children, presumably fathered after Jesus. The Bible makes no special effort as it does on other points to indicate that these other children were anything other than Mary and Joseph’s natural children. Mary is handed into St John’s hands at the crucifixion to be cared for.

The Bible also called Mary, Blessed. Elizabeth called Mary, “Blessed are you amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” Gabriel called Mary, “Hail, full of grace” (Luke 1:28) In Latin Vulgate, it is translated as “gratia plena.” In Greek it is “Kecharitomene.” This word is formed from the same root (charitoo) as a word used in one of the great early Christian hymns. Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians.

Second, Mary herself said this. “All Generation will call me Blessed.”

We know that Mary is always faithful to the Lord. In fact, Jesus said, "Blessed is she who hears the word of God, and keep it. Mary is not your ordinary Jewish girl who dwell in the city of Galilee. It is her relationship with her so, why the Catholic Church and the Orthodox venerate and honor the Mother of God.

The majority of Christianity honor Mary and the Protestants are the only one who are way behind in honoring Mary.

Second: The early church was not especially cohesive. I’m talking now about the first 50 years or so. It appears from historical evidence that new Christians clustered around individual apostles, not too surprising considering that they were all missionaries working at large removes from each other.

It was cluster around Christian community who was headed by Apostles and their disciples. When the number of Christians grow, they ordained priests to assist them. This we see when Paul tutor Timothy, and Luke, who would soon succeed him.

You can do research on Early Church Fathers, especially the Apostolic Fathers like St. Clement, St. Polycarp, and St. Ignatius who knew the Apostles themselves.

Third: At least one of the early factions seems to have been clustered around Mary? Was she actually teaching? Was there some early tradition of an assumption or whatever?

The early tradition regarding the Assumption is the Dormition (falling asleep of Mary; which is still being honored by Eastern Christians). This tradition was handed down from the un-written Tradition of the Early Church. It took a while develop because the Early Church were challenged about the true nature of Jesus Christ rather than Mary. Since Jesus Christ is the center of Christianity, Christian leaders needed to combat heresy like Arianism, and Nestorianism, as well as Gnosticism.

The nature of **Jesus Christ took more precedence **over Marian doctrine. Marian doctrine develop later and many of the Marian has its origins in Christ, and in fact they do point to Jesus himself and our relationship with him…

 

[Mannyfit75]

Fourth: Most of the early writings that I know of that discuss Mary are at heart highly heretical and are either Gnostic or pagan in object and philosophy. There was a tendency, not unlike that we see today in the RCC, to create, a “Holy Family”. Father, Mother and Son, the Trinity.

Well, none of the Early Church Fathers or doctors of the Church have said that Mary’s Assumption was heretical. The Church did condemn Gnostic Gospels that contain the death of Mary, and her assumption into heaven. That doctrine itself was not condemned. You cannot find a ECF saying that Mary assumed into heaven is heretical. You will find the Gnostic Gospel itself condemned.

As a non RC I would like answers form the RCC why they elevate Mary in the way that they do, and had hoped that they were aware of documents that I was not aware of. This is looking less and less likely. Still, if Mary was assumed into Heaven, I would not find it surprising, nor would I feel more inclined to direct prayers towards her, accord her outrageous titles, or what-not.

I am still thinking about the whole idea of “extra curricular” prayer. By this I mean enlisting Mary saints or whomever to pray with me to God. Prayer for me has always meant communion with God. Spiritual Communion is or should be the nature of prayer. Is it appropriate to direct this to anyone other than God? If they don’t hade Godly powers,can they even hear me?

The Catholic Church and the Orthodox honor Mary more than any other saint, because she is the only saint who have the closest relationship with Jesus Christ himself. For the first 30 yrs of Jesus’ life, Mary breast feed God, teach him obedience to the Law, read him Scripture, and much more. She gave Jesus everything that any mother would her own son.

Mary also remain faithful at the cross while all the others Apostles except John fled when Jesus was left hanging at the Cross. Mary is the great Exemplar of all Christians, and we should follow her since she is the first Christian. For without Mary’s consent. Jesus would not become flesh. I tell you my friend, Jesus’ flesh, blood, and bone is not from any man, but from that of a woman. That woman is Mary.

Second, since Catholics consider Mary as the Mother of the Church, we Catholics rightly call her Our Mother. Just as one of the Ten command says, “Honor your Mother and Your Father.”

Where is the Honor in Protestants who do not give honor to Jesus’ mommy? They don’t know what they are missing.

 

[guanophore]

There are some confusing and troubling thoughts/fact/historical conjecture about Mary that deserve to be dealt with.

This has certainly become evident in you posts!

First: In the Bible, Scripture portrays Mary as a human, but a very “good” woman, as measured in human standards, a mother of a number of children, presumably fathered after Jesus.

No, scripture does not say that Mary had other children.Furthermore, scripture states that Mary is “full of grace”. Now we know that sin cannot exist where there is fullness of grace.

The Bible makes no special effort as it does on other points to indicate that these other children were anything other than Mary and Joseph’s natural children.

That is because the authors already knew that Mary had no other children.

Mary is handed into St John’s hands at the crucifixion to be cared for.

Why do you suppose that is, if she had other children?

Second: The early church was not especially cohesive. I’m talking now about the first 50 years or so. It appears from historical evidence that new Christians clustered around individual apostles, not too surprising considering that they were all missionaries working at large removes from each other.

And this relates to Mary how? Mary is always found with the disciples, and therefore, the people were clustered around her too!

Third: At least one of the early factions seems to have been clustered around Mary? Was she actually teaching? Was there some early tradition of an assumption or whatever?

There were no “factions” in the church. The Church was one in faith and practice. Conflicts were resolved in Council, just as Jesus commanded. Jesus lived in Ephesus with John. No doubt she was teaching, and leading others to her Son, as she had always done. Yes, there was an early tradition of her assumption, called the “dormition”.

Fourth: Most of the early writings that I know of that discuss Mary are at heart highly heretical and are either Gnostic or pagan in object and philosophy. There was a tendency, not unlike that we see today in the RCC, to create, a “Holy Family”. Father, Mother and Son, the Trinity.

The RCC does not “create” doctrine. The teachings are revealed by God, and the Church defines and passes them on.

As a non RC I would like answers form the RCC why they elevate Mary in the way that they do,

The Church did not “elevate” Mary, God did that. the Church recognizes what God has done, and values this. and had hoped that they were aware of documents that I was not aware of. This is looking less and less likely. Still, if Mary was assumed into Heaven, I would not find it surprising, nor would I feel more inclined to direct prayers towards her, accord her outrageous titles, or what-not.

I am still thinking about the whole idea of “extra curricular” prayer. By this I mean enlisting Mary saints or whomever to pray with me to God. Prayer for me has always meant communion with God. Spiritual Communion is or should be the nature of prayer. Is it appropriate to direct this to anyone other than God? If they don’t hade Godly powers,can they even hear me?

Praying with others does not take anything away from God. We belong to a Body, and He is lifted up on the praises of His people. Those that have left the veil and have passed on are no less a part of the communion of Saints. All those who are “in Christ” are members of His body.

Saints, whether on earth or in heaven, have no power other than that which comes from God. You can read in Revelation that those who have passed present our prayers to God.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I like to quote Pope Benedict XVI, great theologian of our time from his Book, Mary: The Church at the Source.

The Church invented nothing new of her own when she began to extol Mary; she did not plummet from the worship of the one God to the praise of man. The Church does what she must; she carries out the task assigned her from the beginning. At the time Luke was writing this text** (Gospel of Luke), the second generation of Christianity had already arrived, and the “family” of the Jews had been joined by that of the Gentiles, who had been incorporated into the Church of Jesus Christ. The expression “all generations, all families” was beginning to be filled with historical reality. The Evangelist would certainly not have transmitted Mary’s prophecy if it had seemed to him an indifferent or obsolete item. He wished in his Gospel to record “with care” what “the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” (Lk 1:2-3) had handed on from the beginning, in order to give the faith of Christianity, which was then striding onto the stage of world history, a reliable guide for its future course.

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/ratzinger_hailgrace_dec05.asp

Just like what Pope Benedict XVI, what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary is not New.

 

[guanophore]

I am careful with my FACTS. When the Bible was compiled the Church could still claim to be ONE Church. It would be as accurate to say that the Baptists were responsible for the cCanon of scripture as the Roman Catholics.

It would not, because the canon was created and closed by those to whom Jesus committed His authority, and the Baptists rejected that authority.

Frankly, I have always wondered if Revelation merited inclusion into the Canon, but bow to the power of God. No more powerful single tangible expression of God’s will exists than the Bible, and it is hard to believe that God did not have a hand in it’s formation. If Revelation was included what was left out was almost certainly not worthy of inclusion.

There were many early fathers who wondered about Revelation also. There are many very valuable writings from the early Fathers that were read in services. They were not considered inspired on the same level as the canonical books, but valuable none-the-less

 

[Mannyfit75]

I like to make a correction from the previous thread. I mispelled son and by the time I tried to edit it, the thread itself could no longer be corrected. The correction is colored red.

We know that Mary is always faithful to the Lord. In fact, Jesus said, "Blessed is she who hears the word of God, and keep it. Mary is not your ordinary Jewish girl who dwell in the city of Galilee. It is her relationship with her son

, why the Catholic Church and the Orthodox venerate and honor the Mother of God.