The assumption of Mary

[bengal_fan]

Jude 1:9 talks about michael fighting satan over the body of moses. enoch and elijah also both died physically but were assumed (raptured, whatever) body and all into heaven. all of us will one day be taken the same way and our bodies will be made perfect, but these people (and according to the catholic church) have already experienced this. some people say mary didn’t die because she was sinless and wasn’t under the curse of adam and eve (these are the same proponents of her not experiencing pain in childbirth but the revelations image show us she does experience pain in chilbirth, that is if that passage really does point to her) but although she never experienced sin, she had the capability (just as Jesus did and was able to be tempted) and if she had this like Jesus she must have had the ability to die. heb. 9:27 says that we all die. if she were taken alive, why not immediately after Christ? i am fairly sure that the teaching has her dying and being assumed (body and spirit) into heaven. i am not sure whether they have ever said if she was raised from the dead first or not and i don’t think it really matters either way.

 

[quasimodo]

YinYangMom:

Ah, well I know I read elsewhere on this site and heard on Relevant Radio that Mary was definitely assumed by the power of God. But I’ve yet to hear or read whether it was in lieu of death or after. I had always thought it was in lieu of death.

As for the Moses story…that sounds really interesting…can you share the rest? I wasn’t aware Michael fought for him. I just knew he was taken into heaven…didn’t know he died first though.

The church is silent on whether or not Mary died prior to the Assumption.

 

[bengal_fan]

this is not from me:

*Although many theologians accept that Mary did die, the Church has not made a decision on the matter. Note the careful wording of Munificentissimus Deus, in which Pius XII promulgated the dogma of her Assumption:

“By our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” (emphasis added).

Complete freedom from sin meant that Mary was not subject to sin’s consequence of death, but it would have been fitting for her to experience physical death as did her Son who was also not subject to death but chose to accept it. In the Eastern rites of the Church, and in Eastern Orthodox churches, Mary’s death (or “falling asleep”), resurrection, and glorification is called the Dormition.*-Michelle Arnold

this is me:
i think it is safe to say that if many theologians say she died, the eastern church says she died, jesus died (and she would never put herself above her son), then she most likely died and was assumed.

 

[YinYangMom]

Thanks, BengalFan, that makes good sense.

Point being, I suppose, that her body is indeed in heaven already - she does not have to wait until the second coming as the rest of us do.

I wonder if that explains her ability to appear in various places over time (Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, Medjugorje) or if that makes no difference whatsoever?

 

[ralphinal]

I know that this really doesn’t help, but would it be fitting for Mary to have been raised from the dead and assumed into heaven? I mean would a son with the power have done that for his mother, whether we needed to know about it, or believe in it, at all?

 

[sleep_number]

Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified. (Psalm 131:8)

 

[_Christopher]

sleep number:

Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified. (Psalm 131:8)

Amen.

 

[shannin]

Homer, this is great. Reading the replies to your posts only makes me more aware that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.

Blessings to you,
Shannin

 

[1962Missal]

According to the Church, freedom from death and bodily suffering (impassibility) was not part of man’s original equipment by nature, but was a preternatural gift added to complete and perfect nature. Even if Mary was free of original and personal sin, that does not mean that she had the preternatural gift of impassibility granted to her. She could have been sinless, but still die.

Certainly, she would not have been given gifts greater than those of the human nature of her Son.

**The corporeal defects of Christ (defectus corporis)

Christ’s human nature was passible.** (De Fide.)

In His humanity [Christ] was made capable of suffering and was mortal by reason of the humanity [He] assumed.

Ott, p.173

Justin

note: This doesn’t mean that she could not have been assumed before she died, only that she would have certainly died if she had not been assumed.

 

[Katholikos]

bengal_fan:

i think it is safe to say that if many theologians say she died, the eastern church says she died, jesus died (and she would never put herself above her son), then she most likely died and was assumed.

The Church has not answered this question. Which means that the Holy Spirit has not revealed it to the Church. Otherwise, the Church would not be silent on the issue. But a Protestant can always be counted upon to provide this and other answers based on private interpretation since he enjoys the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit to “all truth,” whereas the Church founded by Christ (presumably) does not.

Pax et bonum, Jay

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

also, i should just tell you that the argument of catholics saying that if you believe in the bible alone you can’t believe in the trinity doesn’t hold water. it is a different issue than the doctrines of mary. the trinity (although the word is never used) is talked about repeatedly in the bible. over and over again the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are put on the same level as the same person. the marian doctrines however have to really be interpreted through allegory, symbolism, and the like. the trinity is explicit, marian doctrines are not explicit but (might be, i’m still researching) implicit.

What you said is true, in one sense, that the word trinity isn’t anywhere in the Bible, yet we believe it because it is mentioned implicitely over and over again, but the other opinion you gave about it “not holding water” is sincere, but sincerely wrong. The trinity is mentioned implicitely in the bible, but who gave the father, son and holy spirit the term “trinity”? The church did. The term was carried into protestantism, not because it was in the bible, but because the early church came up with the word and the early reformers didn’t really have the creativity or the will to come up with another term to describe the father, son, and holy spirit, so they just used the term that came from their former faith, the Catholic faith, trinity. Another word that did not come from the bible, yet started in our catholic tradition but were carried to protestantism is communion, which is reference to a wafer and wine/grapejuice. The terms ‘trinity’ may not be in the bible as the word ‘assumption’, but these terms still come from our catholic tradtion, and even though the beliefs of having ‘communion’ and the holy ‘trinity’ are observed by Christians in many denominations everywhere, the terms for these came from the Catholic church, so they should always be associated with the Catholic church along with other denominations that believe these things.

 

[Katholikos]

Homer, just answer a few questions. The Bible is not a continuous book, but a collection of writings. How do you know which writings belong in the collection? How do you know, for example, that Philemon is “inspired” but that the Didache is not?

Where is your God-given “inspired” list of the Scriptures that belong in the Bible? What did Christians rely upon as their authority when there was no Bible?

“To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant” - John Henry Cardinal Newman.

JMJ Jay

 

[Writer]

Okay… I have a bone to pick with this discussion. It was so interesting I didn’t notice that I was eating the rotten part of my apple. Yuck!

Think it was time for an injection of humor here. It seems like everyone is dogpiling on Homer. This has probably been one of the most challenging issues to face in my family’s start on the road to conversion to the Catholic Church from the Lutheran Church. Keep up the good discussions!

 

[prodromos]

Katholikos:

The Church has not answered this question. Which means that the Holy Spirit has not revealed it to the Church. Otherwise, the Church would not be silent on the issue.

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Eastern Patriarchates were celebrating the feast of the Dormition of Mary long before the schism. So certainly the church has answered this question but the West seems to have turned its back on the answer.

John.

 

[Eric_Goodrich]

As a Lutheran, I don’t have a problem with the teachings of the Assumption. It is a good tribute to the Mother of Christ. If it was a significant event, however, I think it would be in the Bible. I know that you point to the Revalations of John, but as I believe, this is a vision of the end of the world and of heaven, a look into the future, not proving that Mary is there right this minute.

As far as the Catholic Church believes, Mary was conceived without original sin and remained a virgin her entire life. Although Mary is not mentioned much in the New Testament (as I PRAY you all agree that she is not by ANY Means the central character) I have a difficult time believing that she did not have a family with her Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Would her having children as a married woman be a sin? I think that honoring her husband and her marriage would almost certainly mean that she would have had more children.

Please give me some biblical backup that she remained a virgin until her death and that Mary and Joseph had no children.

 

[1962Missal]

Eric Goodrich:

As a Lutheran, I don’t have a problem with the teachings of the Assumption. It is a good tribute to the Mother of Christ. If it was a significant event, however, I think it would be in the Bible.

Please remember that the historical narrative does not continue through the NT, but ends in with the Acts of the Apostles, which concentrates on Peter and Paul. And remember, that which was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was only those truths which God wished to see confided to Sacred Scripture. The veracity or importance of the Assumption of Mary may not have, in God’s wisdom, been the criteria that mattered. It may just not have been within the scope of those things that He wished to have included in the Sacred Scriptures.

Justin

 

[space_ghost]

there is no biblical reference for the Bible either… you won’t find the word Trinity in the Bible either…

remember there was no Bible for 300 years after Christ… I lot was said and done in those 300 years, much more than was recorded there… but go ahead and doubt… you don’t have to believe… Thomas didn’t believe because he didn’t see either…

 

[1962Missal]

Martin Luther, Founder of the Reform, Speaks on Mary

“There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.” (Sermon, Feast of the Assumption, 1522)

“The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.” (Sermon, September 1, 1522).

“[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.” (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

“No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity.” (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).

“One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God.” (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

"It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother "…. (Sermon, Christmas, 1522)

“Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother.” (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).

“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin” (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).

“She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.” (Personal {“Little”} Prayer Book, 1522).

"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. "

"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. "

"A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . . "

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . . When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”

“. . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.”

“. . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.” (Sermon on John 14)

“Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”

“Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees.” (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)

Justin

 

[MariaG]

Thanks Justin,

The inconsistency of protestant churches to follow the teachings of Christ as shown by church fathers or to even follow the beliefs of the Protestant church fathers is one of the things that brought me back to the Catholic Church. Thanks for posting those quotes from Luther.

God Bless

 

[Mathetes007]

homer:

There is no biblical reference to the assumption of Mary. The Gospel of John was written around 90 A.D., which is more than 100 years after Mary was born. (Surely Mary was more than ten years old when Jesus was conceived.) If Mary had been supernaturally assumed into Heaven, wouldn’t John (the disciple that Mary lived with) have mentioned it?

It is true, and even Catholic scholars will admit, that there is no direct or explicit statement in the New Testament regarding the Assumption. However, the Scriptures do presuppose it. As previously pointed out to you, the Church recognizes the Ark and Woman of Revelation as Mary (chapters 11 & 12). Other posts have shown the biblical connection between Mary and the Ark and I will not repeat that here.

This ‘woman’ can represent a collective group or an individual person. However, it is most natural to interpret the ‘Woman’ as Mary since the Son that is born of her is unanimously interpreted as being Jesus. Since the ‘male Child’ refers to an individual, then the ‘Woman’ should refer to an individual as well. For when one thinks of the mother of Jesus the Messiah, it is Mary that immediately comes to mind (not Israel or the Church). For the Scriptures in no uncertain terms describe her as such (Matthew 1:18; 2:11-21; 13:55; Luke 1:43; 2:33-51; Acts 1:14). Conversely Scripture never identifies the Church or Israel as the mother of Jesus Christ. Consequently, only an anti-Catholic or anti-Marian bias would preclude one from seeing Mary as them more plausible interpretation of the Woman of Revelation. With so many direct references in the Scriptures, and most assuredly in the Apostolic oral preaching as well, it does not seem conceivable that the early Christians saw no reference to Mary in this passage. Paul refers to Mary as the ‘woman’ in his preaching (Galatians 4:4). More importantly in his Gospel, John, the author of Revelation, exclusively refers to Mary simply as ‘woman’ or ‘mother’ but never by her name thus identifying Mary throughout his writings (John 2:1-5, 12; 6:42; 19:25-27; Revelation 12:1). Simply put, it would not be a stretch of the imagination to consider that the Mother of the Messiah (in Revelation) is the Mother of the Messiah (in the Gospels).

In this particular passage, the Woman is described by John as having a glorified and material body. When John speaks of disembodied souls in Revelation, he clearly indicates it (Revelation 6:9-11; 20:4). Here he describes the Woman using the celestial symbols [sun, moon, and stars] sometimes identified with bodily glorification at the end of time in Scripture (Daniel 12:2-3; Matthew 13:40-43; 24:29-31; Mark 13:24; Luke 21:25-28; 1 Corinthians 15:40-42; Revelation 1:1-17). John uses similar terminology to describe the body of the glorified and risen Savior (Revelation 1:12-16). This interpretation was found in the early Church. For example, Epiphanius mentions Mary being in heaven bodily and cites Revelation chapter 12 (Panarion, Book 78, II). Epiphanius specifically quotes the wings of an eagle given to the Woman to fly from the Serpent [which may be an allusion to the actual Assumption itself]. Thus if John recorded that Mary is in heaven bodily, it strongly suggests that she was assumed there by God. So, the disciple who cared for Mary, as Jesus commanded, did indeed leave us with a record of her final destiny.

Homer here’s some food for thought. Mary’s body was the Ark of the New Covenant according to Scripture. The ark is described as being “in heaven” by John. Where is Mary’s body according to John?