Support for the last two Glorious mysteries in the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRKH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JRKH

Guest
I once heard Fr Corapi expounding on the mysteries of the rosary and he said, to the effect that, all of the mysteries are directly seen in the bible, except the last two which can be deduced from the Bible.

I am currently in a discussion on another forum concerning the rosary and this question may well come up. I’d like to have something to answer with.

What is the biblical support for the Assumption and Crowning?

Peace
James
 
I would really like some help with this actually. Those are the two mysteries I struggle the most with. Usually I end up skipping them :\ which leads to an incomplete rosary on those days but I just have a really difficult time with it because I have been unable to truly understand these two things.

I’m new though so… 🙂
 
JRKH said:
I once heard Fr Corapi expounding on the mysteries of the rosary and he said, to the effect that, all of the mysteries are directly seen in the bible, except the last two which can be deduced from the Bible.

I am currently in a discussion on another forum concerning the rosary and this question may well come up. I’d like to have something to answer with.

What is the biblical support for the Assumption and Crowning?

Peace
James
Click to expand...
What is the Biblical support for the Catholic Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity? Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, and that God the Father are all separate persons in One God? If you only are willing to take as doctrine that which appears explicitly in the Bible, then you are a born-again Christian. But even they ASSUME some doctrines that do not appear in the Bible, such as their doctrine that all doctrine is explicitly taught in the Bible, or that the Bible is the sole source of Doctrine. IOW, the Bible will not contradict Catholic doctrines that are only alluded to in the Bible, perhaps in only a tangential or oblique way.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
What is the Biblical support for the Catholic Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity? Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, and that God the Father are all separate persons in One God? If you only are willing to take as doctrine that which appears explicitly in the Bible, then you are a born-again Christian. But even they ASSUME some doctrines that do not appear in the Bible, such as their doctrine that all doctrine is explicitly taught in the Bible, or that the Bible is the sole source of Doctrine. IOW, the Bible will not contradict Catholic doctrines that are only alluded to in the Bible, perhaps in only a tangential or oblique way.
Click to expand...
None of this is of any help. I will not attack their questioning in such a manner. If these teachings are based soley upon extrabiblical tradition, so be it. - BUT -
Fr Corapi made the statement and and I am asking upon what it is based. I am asking this in anticipation of needing to defend these to non-catholic persons. I don’t expect to convince them you understand, but I would like to have some biblical foundation, oblique or not, tangential or not.

You seem to be under the impression that I am asking for direct proof. I am not.
I am sure that some or all of the appropriate passages are seen in revelation and that others might be found in the OT prophets. Both areas that I am gravely unfamiliar with.

Peace
James
 
Mary crowned in heaven is in Revelation 12. See Jimmy Akin’s article The Woman of Revelation 12. :o

As for the Assumption, I’ve heard John Martignoni argue for it also with Revelation 12 because the woman is described with body parts (i.e. head, feet), but I don’t think that’s entirely compelling because others in Revelation are described with physical attributes.

What Father Corapi meant may have had to do with typology, that as Adam died, so did Eve, and Christ as new Adam ascended, so Mary as the parallel type of the new Eve, would have assumed (because ascension requires one’s own power, only Jesus can do this). And since there is Biblical precedent for assumptions in Scripture, like with Elijah, and since the Bible teaches the Church is the pillar of truth and that we are to adhere to tradition, then that’s one way you can deduce the Assumption from Scripture.

At the end of the day, I don’t think you need to shy away from citing Tradition as evidence for this teaching. After all, if divine revelation flows from both sources, then it’s erroneous for your colleague to demand you prove something only using part of it. It would be like you demanding they prove the Trinity but they can only use the book of Philemon.
 
40.png
JRKH:
None of this is of any help. I will not attack their questioning in such a manner. If these teachings are based soley upon extrabiblical tradition, so be it. - BUT -
Fr Corapi made the statement and and I am asking upon what it is based. I am asking this in anticipation of needing to defend these to non-catholic persons.
Click to expand...
No, you should actually question their questioning! If you probed properly, you (and maybe them too) would realize that they are deliberately questioning a doctrine that has NO explicit mention in Scripture. That is a prelude to their own line of reasoning that concludes that therefore the Church is non-Scriptural, and worse puts itself above Scripture. You should instead question them on where their authority to interpret the Bible comes. How are they in a position to judge such matters? Ultimately the question of Authority will make them hem and haw, because in Scripture there is no doubt where the authority lies. 😉
 
AmbroseSJ said:
No, you should actually question their questioning! If you probed properly, you (and maybe them too) would realize that they are deliberately questioning a doctrine that has NO explicit mention in Scripture. That is a prelude to their own line of reasoning that concludes that therefore the Church is non-Scriptural, and worse puts itself above Scripture. You should instead question them on where their authority to interpret the Bible comes. How are they in a position to judge such matters? Ultimately the question of Authority will make them hem and haw, because in Scripture there is no doubt where the authority lies. 😉
Click to expand...
Sorry, it iis not good to go on the attack. It is of no apologetic use. Explain to them what the sources of the Traditions are, and then go on to explain why tradition is to be accepted.
 
On the topic there is explicit Scripturl support for the last Mystery. This can be found in Revelation 12:1-2

As for the Assumption, though it is not explicitly in the Scriptures, people have been assumed into heaven (Enoch and Elijah). If these two were, why not the Mother of God?
 
CWBetts said:
Sorry, it iis not good to go on the attack. It is of no apologetic use. Explain to them what the sources of the Traditions are, and then go on to explain why tradition is to be accepted.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you don’t understand. To question someone’s questioning is not “going on the attack.” :rolleyes: I also used words like “probing properly.” That too is hardly “going on the attack.”

You don’t understand apologetics very well, if you can’t grasp the significance of digging for the truth that is being sought by the questioner. You just don’t rattle off your explanations and hope you’ll be understood. Not at least if you have any sensitivity to the other person doing the questioning. 😉

Sometimes a question is itself probing for a direction. For a non-Catholic to wonder about the Scriptural proof of last two mysteries of the Rosary is singular indeed, as there are usually so many other more obvious difficulties for which they might have questions. That is why, if it was me, I would try to discern what really prompted this question. Is it a disingenuous attempt to lead into the Church being non-Scriptural, or is it in fact an altruistic question, based on the non-Catholic’s wish to understand the Rosary. You see the difference?? One needs to understand the root of the question, before one can give a really helpful answer.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Sorry, but you don’t understand. To question someone’s questioning is not “going on the attack.” :rolleyes: I also used words like “probing properly.” That too is hardly “going on the attack.”

You don’t understand apologetics very well, if you can’t grasp the significance of digging for the truth that is being sought by the questioner. You just don’t rattle off your explanations and hope you’ll be understood. Not at least if you have any sensitivity to the other person doing the questioning. 😉

Sometimes a question is itself probing for a direction. For a non-Catholic to wonder about the Scriptural proof of last two mysteries of the Rosary is singular indeed, as there are usually so many other more obvious difficulties for which they might have questions. That is why, if it was me, I would try to discern what really prompted this question. Is it a disingenuous attempt to lead into the Church being non-Scriptural, or is it in fact an altruistic question, based on the non-Catholic’s wish to understand the Rosary. You see the difference?? One needs to understand the root of the question, before one can give a really helpful answer.
Click to expand...
You own posts here show that your knee-jerk response is to attack. You are taking an adversarial approach but attempting to discredit my methods. You actullly defend your position with an ad hominem, which is never useful in apologetic discussion. If you would have taken time to read and grasp the full implications of my previous post (specifically where i said “explaining why tradition is to be accepted”) you would understand the failinfs of Sola Scriptura would be part of that explanation. It is possible to practice apologetics without being a pit bull.
 
To all who have so far responded, Thanks very much.

I’m still not clear on all of this, and just to clarify, this specific issue has not come up yet. However I did supply links to websites about praying the rosary and should anyone choose to look that far into it, they will udoubtedly come up against these last two mysteries.

Right now the stumbling block remains on a very superficial and common level (the Hail Mary, "vain and repetitious etc). These I have no problem handling, but I had never really considered or looked into the last mysteries, hence my need/desire to gain some additional information.

Ambrose,
Thanks for clarifying your reasoning. While it still is less helpful than some other responses, I now understand better what you were driving at.

Everyone, please keep the answers coming.

Peace
Jame
 
I just thought I’d pipe in and say that while Revelation 12 seems clear cut to those who trust the authority of the Church it might not be helpful when discussing this with non-Catholics. When I was Protestant I always interpreted that scripture very differently and I was, in fact, shocked when someone pointed out the woman was Mary.

Further this line:
*What Father Corapi meant may have had to do with typology, that as Adam died, so did Eve, and Christ as new Adam ascended, so Mary as the parallel type of the new Eve, would have assumed (because ascension requires one’s own power, only Jesus can do this). *

Made more sense then most things I’ve read about this subject. 🙂 Gotta love Father Corapi!

Anyway, that’s just my two cents.
 
I just thought I’d pipe in and say that while Revelation 12 seems clear cut to those who trust the authority of the Church it might not be helpful when discussing this with non-Catholics. When I was Protestant I always interpreted that scripture very differently and I was, in fact, shocked when someone pointed out the woman was Mary.
Click to expand...
Thank you for giving us the Protestant viewpoint on the Catholic Scriptural basis for the last two Glorious mysteries. This is at the root of my own reasoning that it is not necessarily wise to simply quote Scripture as some sort of self-evident proof. As you very helpfully pointed out, it is only when one believes in the Authority of the Church in Interpreting Scripture, that such Scriptural underpinnings make sense.

I’m still not sure if the OP is anticipating questions regarding his explanation of the Rosary, or if he actually has been questioned in this regard. But the admonition of not casting pearls before the swine should be given due weight. The shallow in this thread may consider this an attack of some sort or an “ad hominem,” but it is not. It means that one should not be placing such mysteries before persons who need more basic instruction, or understanding first.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
But the admonition of not casting pearls before the swine should be given due weight. The shallow in this thread may consider this an attack of some sort or an “ad hominem,” but it is not. It means that one should not be placing such mysteries before persons who need more basic instruction, or understanding first.
Click to expand...
With all respect, this is incorrect. It was a straightforward question by the OP, (I was told these mysteries were based on scripture, where are they in scripture?), and there is no reason not to give a straightforward answer. To be fair, I know different people have different writing styles, but many of the responses to this question seem to be a defense of holy tradition, or a passive-aggresive attack on “scripture only”…and neither of these responses are appropriate for the question as asked.

If there are other points that must be grasped before the main answer can be revealed, then I think a more appropriate response would have been “First understand point A, then point B, and now we can see point C, the answer.”
Another appropriate response, based on what I’ve read so far, could have been “this mystery is based on scripture, but I believe this one is tradition.”

I mean this in all charity! I’ve just been following the discussion, was frustrated by some of the responses, and wanted to chime in. 🙂 I hope you all have an awesome day, and a great Friday. 🙂
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Thank you for giving us the Protestant viewpoint on the Catholic Scriptural basis for the last two Glorious mysteries. This is at the root of my own reasoning that it is not necessarily wise to simply quote Scripture as some sort of self-evident proof. As you very helpfully pointed out, it is only when one believes in the Authority of the Church in Interpreting Scripture, that such Scriptural underpinnings make sense.

I’m still not sure if the OP is anticipating questions regarding his explanation of the Rosary, or if he actually has been questioned in this regard. But the admonition of not casting pearls before the swine should be given due weight. The shallow in this thread may consider this an attack of some sort or an “ad hominem,” but it is not. It means that one should not be placing such mysteries before persons who need more basic instruction, or understanding first.
Click to expand...
This is the second time you have insulted me. Both have been reported
 
For the Crowning the Woman from Revelation is the obvious citation. Psalm 45 has also been read as describing the woman who is the Daughter, Spouse and Mother of the Triune God.

For the Assumption one passage that has always seemed to me to be connected is I Cor. 15:51, which is of course the beginning of Paul’s wonderful discourse on the Resurrection of the Body - “BEHOLD I tell you a Mystery - we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.”

I think that St. Paul is writing this at least in part as a result of Mary’s Assumption - that either he himself or, more likely, St. Luke had witnessed that event and found in it the evidence for the promise that “we shall be raised incorruptible.” (Note that this could actually be read as being in conflict with Jesus’ remarks on the resurrection “you misunderstand - they will be like the angels”)
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Thank you for giving us the Protestant viewpoint on the Catholic Scriptural basis for the last two Glorious mysteries. This is at the root of my own reasoning that it is not necessarily wise to simply quote Scripture as some sort of self-evident proof. As you very helpfully pointed out, it is only when one believes in the Authority of the Church in Interpreting Scripture, that such Scriptural underpinnings make sense.

I’m still not sure if the OP is anticipating questions regarding his explanation of the Rosary, or if he actually has been questioned in this regard. But the admonition of not casting pearls before the swine should be given due weight. The shallow in this thread may consider this an attack of some sort or an “ad hominem,” but it is not. It means that one should not be placing such mysteries before persons who need more basic instruction, or understanding first.
Click to expand...
I thought I was being quite clear in my questioning. I have not been questioned on this as of yet.
My post is anticipation of the possibility of a question AND for my own edification.
Are we clear now?

Peace
James
 
Okay, since I do need to understand this better I decided to do a little research on my own instead of just letting everyone do my research for me. 🙂

First off here is a link to the wikipedia article about the assumption of Mary:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary

And then I found this site:
ewtn.com/library/answers/aofmary.htm

Which states:

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven.”

Which I, personally, found interesting. 🙂

As to the Coronation of Mary.

First the wikipedia article:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_of_the_Virgin

which cites these biblical passages as support:
Song of Songs (4.8), Psalms (44.11-12) and Revelation (12.1-7).

There is some interesting information on this site:
campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/crowning.html

This is an anti-Catholic site that has some objections of Mary’s coronation that you might actually find helpful:
jesus-is-lord.com/mary.htm

If you know the objections it’s easier to combat them right?

Anyway, that’s what I could find. The Assumption is easier to find information on then the Coronation… and these are just a few links from a google search but it’s what I’ve unearthed.
 
nickybr38 said:
Okay, since I do need to understand this better I decided to do a little research on my own instead of just letting everyone do my research for me. 🙂

First off here is a link to the wikipedia article about the assumption of Mary:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary

And then I found this site:
ewtn.com/library/answers/aofmary.htm

Which states:

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven.”

Which I, personally, found interesting. 🙂

As to the Coronation of Mary.

First the wikipedia article:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_of_the_Virgin

which cites these biblical passages as support:
Song of Songs (4.8), Psalms (44.11-12) and Revelation (12.1-7).

There is some interesting information on this site:
campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/crowning.html

This is an anti-Catholic site that has some objections of Mary’s coronation that you might actually find helpful:
jesus-is-lord.com/mary.htm

If you know the objections it’s easier to combat them right?

Anyway, that’s what I could find. The Assumption is easier to find information on then the Coronation… and these are just a few links from a google search but it’s what I’ve unearthed.
Click to expand...
Bless you for your effort. It is greatly appreciated.

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top