The assumption of Mary

[mrS4ntA]

from another site,

“The Assumption is not an arbitrary presumption. It follows from Mary’s sinlessness. Since bodily decay results from sin (Ps 16:10, Gen 3:19), the absence of sin allows for instant bodily resurrection at death (i.e., the Assumption). Mary shared (in a secondary, derivative fashion) in her Son’s victory over sin, death, and the devil (Heb 2:14-15), as foretold in Gen 3:15. She was the “firstfruits” of Christ’s work on our behalf, which will eventually put an end to death and result in all saints having glorious, incorruptible bodies. It was proper and appropriate for Mary - since she was the mother of God the Son - to “prefigure” the redeemed world to come by means of both her Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Scripture speaks of occurrences similar to the Assumption: Enoch (Gen 5:24; cf. Heb 11:5), Elijah (2 Ki 2:11), St. Paul (2 Cor 12:2,4), the so-called “Rapture” (1 Thess 4:15-17), risen saints after Jesus’ Crucifixion (Mt 27:52-3). It is illogical and unacceptably dogmatic to assert that an event couldn’t have happened because it was not recounted in Scripture. This would be as foolish as saying that Jesus couldn’t have done any miracles other than those we find in the Bible (see Jn 20:30, 21:25). If the Assumption is not that radically different from many other occurrences in Scripture, flows from the interrelated theological notions explicitly found there, and is supported by the testimony of early Christian Tradition, it is neither “idolatrous” nor “unbiblical” to believe in it.”

 

[jimmy]

Kinsman

There is no reason why Pauls statements about tradition can not be used for the assumtion. All he is saying is that you should follow what the church teaches because not everything is written down. I am assuming that you are a protestant. I am not trying to be disrespectful but how can you talk about the tradition that Paul talks of if you are a protestant and you don’t follow tradition?

You also have to remember that the bible was not created until the 4th century and that the church that Jesus created was not a bible centered church but church centered. Why would he make a bible centered church when most of the people could not read until recently?

Here are some quotes from some of the early christians pertaining to the assumption of Mary.
“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have
been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her
crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to
what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine
gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared
blessed; for by her, did light come to the world.”
Epiphanius,Panarion,78:23(A.D. 377),in PG 42:737

“[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and
they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord
stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded
that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul,
[Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones…”
Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles,1:4(inter A.D. 575-593),inJUR,III:306

“As the most glorious Mother of Christ,our Savior and God and the giver of
life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an
eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up
from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.”
Modestus of Jerusalem,Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae
nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae(PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D.634) from Munificentis simus Deus

“It was fitting … that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body,
receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and
full glory … should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and
raised up toheaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.”
Theoteknos of Livias,Homily on the Assumption(ante A.D. 650),in THEO,57

 

[jimmy]

“You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body
is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dewlling place of God, so that it is
henceforth completely exempt from dissoultion into dust. Though still human,
it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and
glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life.”
Germanus of Constantinople,Sermon I(PG 98,346),(ante A.D. 733),from Munificentis simus Deus

“It was fitting that the she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth,
should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was
fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should
dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the
Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was
fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby
received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped when
giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father, It was
fitting that God’s Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that
she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid
of God”
John of Damascene,Dormition of Mary(PG 96,741),(ante A.D. 749) from Munificentis simus Deus

" ‘St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451),
made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess
the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the
Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas,
was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was
taken up to heaven.’ "
John of Damascene,PG(96:1)(A.D. 747-751)

“Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy
Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by
the bonds of death, who has begotten Thy Son our Lord incarnate from
herself.”
Gregorian Sacramentary,Veneranda(ante A.D. 795), from Munificentis simus Deus

“[A]n effable mystery all the more worthy of praise as the Virgin’s
Assumption is something unique among men.”
Gallican Sacramentary, from Munificentis simus Deus
“God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature.
As he kept you virgin in childbirth, thus he kept your body incorrupt in the
tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.”
Byzantine Liturgy, from Munificentis simus Deus
“[T]he virgin is up to now immortal, as He who lived, translated her into the
place of reception”
Timotheus of Jerusalem(6th-8th century),in OTT,208

 

[jimmy]

Martin Luther:

*Mary the Mother of God

*Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:

"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."1

*Perpetual Virginity

*Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary’s perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was “born of a woman” alone.

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."2

*The Immaculate Conception

*Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary’s divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin…"3

*Assumption

*Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption:

"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."4

*Honor to Mary

*Despite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."5

"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent’s head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."6 Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.

​

 

[jimmy]

John Calvin: It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was “Holy Virgin”.

"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."7

"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ."8 Calvin translated “brothers” in this context to mean cousins or relatives.

"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."9

"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."10

​

**

**

 

[jimmy]

Ulrich Zwingli:

"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."11

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."12 Zwingli used *Exodus *4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."13

"Christ … was born of a most undefiled Virgin."14

"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother."15

"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."16

​

We might wonder why the Marian affirmations of the Reformers did not survive in the teaching of their heirs - particularly the Fundamentalists. This break with the past did not come through any new discovery or revelation. The Reformers themselves (see above) took a benign even positive view of Marian doctrine - although they did reject Marian mediation because of their rejection of all human mediation. Moreover, while there were some excesses in popular Marian piety, Marian doctrine as taught in the pre-Reformation era drew its inspiration from the witness of Scripture and was rooted in Christology. The real reason for the break with the past must be attributed to the iconoclastic passion of the followers of the Reformation and the consequences of some Reformation principles. Even more influential in the break with Mary was the influence of the Enlightenment Era which essentially questioned or denied the mysteries of faith.

Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been “covered up” by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences. This “cover-up” can be detected even in Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, an Evangelical critique of Mariology. One of the contributors admits that “Most remarkable to modern Protestants is the Reformers’ almost universal acceptance of Mary’s continuing virginity, and their widespread reluctance to declare Mary a sinner”. He then asks if it is “a favourable providence” that kept these Marian teachings of the Reformers from being “transmitted to the Protestant churches”!17

What is interpreted as “Providence” by a Marian critic may legitimately be interpreted as a force of a very different kind by a Christian who has recognized the role of Mary in God’s plan.

 

[GoodME]

I did not read every post on this thread; sorry if this is a repeat.

Is there anything compelling about the fact that we have no earthly remains of Mary? I mean, if she lived and died, would she not have been buried “with honors” by Christians, and would not the place of her burial be a holy shrine of some kind?

It is very compelling in my mind that we have earthly remains of many of the early Church fathers and martyrs. And yet nothing remains of this most Holy Saint, the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Per Revelations, our being must be pure to be in heaven. If Mary “full of grace” was already in this state of purity, it seems a very logical and not too far-fetched conclusion that she must have been assumed.

Or, you are left with option of denying her existence altogether, in absence of any evidence (other than oral tradition/Scriptures) that she was here.

Not a logical option to a person of Faith.

What do you think?

 

[Shari]

Not to be rude, but it seems to me that Homer starts these threads and then can’t handle the answers so leaves. Although I am enjoying the answers and am learning a lot. Thanks for the threads you start Homer they are great. Also there was someone who said everyone was dogpiling on Homer, I just wanted to make a statement. This is not the first thread Homer has started like this, where he ups and leaves and also he really doesn’t want answers(just my opinion). It seems he just likes to try and start trouble, the little instigator . But it’s not working.

 

[Kinsman]

jimmy:

Kinsman

There is no reason why Pauls statements about tradition can not be used for the assumtion.

Here are some quotes from some of the early christians pertaining to the assumption of Mary.

All of your quotes directly about the Assumption are from the 6th cen. and beyond. That’s not the “early” church. You acually make my point.

First of all, I don’t talk about any Pauline “traditions,” I can only talk about what Paul wrote to the churches in his letters. Tell me, what are the oral “traditions” Paul talked about? Were you there? What we have passed down to us is only what was written in holy Writ. But I guarantee that what was orally taught was subsequently written for our benefit (for example, 2 Thess. 2:5).

The Bible was not “created” in the 4th century. The Old Testament had been around for centuries. Christ Himself quoted from it, as did Peter, Paul and the rest of the New Testament writers. The whole N.T. was written within the first century and all the so-called “church fathers” quoted liberally from those writings. Even Peter himself fully understood that the letters of Paul were in fact Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16). When Eusebius was ordered by Constantine to put together 50 Bibles for the churches of Constantinople, the books that constituted his New Testament were exactly the 27 Books we have now. The churches in the Roman Empire, collectively, understood which writings were divinely inspired. And the Council of Carthage in 397 a.d. simply ratified what was already a unanimous judgment by those churches.

Your claim that the Church Christ formed was “church centered” from the beginning is more rooted in propaganda than fact. Christ Himself proves your theory wrong: “And beginning with Moses and all the prophets he explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures” (Lk. 24:27; cf. vs. 32) “Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” (Lk. 24:45). And all the New Testament writers quoted freely from the Old Testament prophets to back up their message. Paul in 1 Cor. 15 twice repeats the phrase, "according to the Scriptures."

No my friend, like Timothy (3:15-16), the church from its infancy was nurtured on the sacred writings, and encouraged by Peter himself *“to long for the pure milk of the Word that by it you may grow in respect to salvation” *(1 Pet. 2:2). The introduction of extrabiblical doctrines that came later (like the Marian doctrines) are what caused the Church to veer off course and cause confusion regarding salvation and our eternal inheritance through Christ alone. This is the “leaven” Paul warned about (Gal. 5:9).

Your claim that the general population could not read is totally unfounded. You’re getting mixed up with the Middle Ages.

 

[Kinsman]

mrS4ntA:

The doctrine of assumption is not extrabiblical; it is tightly knotted and closely connected with the rest of Christological doctrines.

The term “extrabiblical” means that the doctrine of the Assumption can not be found taught in the Bible. The fact that all your quotes are from “extrabiblical” sources actually proves the point.

 

[1962Missal]

Kinsman:

What we have passed down to us is only what was written in holy Writ. But I guarantee that what was orally taught was subsequently written for our benefit (for example, 2 Thess. 2:5).

That isn’t what the early Christians thought.

Irenaeus, AD 189

“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” …

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” …

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”

continued in next post

 

[1962Missal]

Clement of Alexandria, AD 208

“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition”

Origen AD 225

“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition”

Basil the Great AD 375

“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term”

 

[1962Missal]

Epiphanius of Salamis, AD 375

“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition”

Augustine, AD 400

“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings”

“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation”

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church”

 

[1962Missal]

John Chrysostom, AD 402

“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further”

Vincent of Lerins, AD 434
"With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.

"I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

"Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .

“Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning”

Justin

 

[1962Missal]

That rather lengthy cut and paste job leads to another topic, entirely.

This one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2301

Kinsman, I encourage your participation in that thread, too.

Justin

 

[Paul_Pignal]

Revelations12:1-5

 

[_Christopher]

Kinsman:

The term “extrabiblical” means that the doctrine of the Assumption can not be found taught in the Bible. The fact that all your quotes are from “extrabiblical” sources actually proves the point.

True, but it doesnt matter much…the Bible itself says not everything is in the Bible.

 

[mrS4ntA]

Kinsman:

The term “extrabiblical” means that the doctrine of the Assumption can not be found taught in the Bible. The fact that all your quotes are from “extrabiblical” sources actually proves the point.

Well, if you accept the *biblical * authority of the Church and the *biblical * validity of Sacred Tradition, Marian doctrines, then, are based on the Bible after all!

Besides, the quotes from the Bible are there in the quotes I gave. Marian doctrines, although not explicitly stated in the Bible, are indeed *implicitly *contained therein, in many verses including the prefigurement and types from the OT prophesies.

The doctrine of Trinity, too, is nowhere in the Bible *explicitly *stated. By your own argument, suppose I’m not a believer of the Trinity (knock, knock, knock). I, too, won’t accept the doctrine of Trinity since nowhere in the Bible Trinity is mentioned!

Know it or not, to some extent Protestants, too, follow Church’s Tradition (capital T), albeit the old ones. Another example? worship on Sundays.

 

[Kinsman]

mrS4ntA:

Well, if you accept the *biblical *authority of the Church and the *biblical *validity of Sacred Tradition, Marian doctrines, then, are based on the Bible after all!

Besides, the quotes from the Bible are there in the quotes I gave. Marian doctrines, although not explicitly stated in the Bible, are indeed *implicitly *contained therein, in many verses including the prefigurement and types from the OT prophesies.

The doctrine of Trinity, too, is nowhere in the Bible *explicitly *stated. By your own argument, suppose I’m not a believer of the Trinity (knock, knock, knock). I, too, won’t accept the doctrine of Trinity since nowhere in the Bible Trinity is mentioned!

You keep missing the point. The Trinity IS explicitly taught in the Bible. That’s how we get the doctrine of the Trinity. It’s not a “tradition” or an extrabiblical idea formed in the minds of men centuries later. In the Bible the Father is presented as God, the Son is presented as God, and the Holy Spirity is presented as God. The Bible teaches three distinct Persons, but only one God. The “word” Trinity is not used in the Bible but it is explicitly taught.

That, however, is not at all the case regarding the “Assumption of Mary.” Not only her “Assumption” but her so-called “Immaculate Conception,” her “sinless life” and her position in heaven as “Queen.” These are ALL extrabiblical doctrines formed from in the minds of men, not God. Even “Purgatory” is an extrabiblical doctrine.

 

[Kinsman]

Paul Pignal:

Revelations12:1-5

This says nothing about the Assumption of Mary. The child the woman gives birth to is the one who is caught up to the throne of God - not the woman. The woman flees to the wilderness for 1260 days and is persecuted by the dragon (earthly). Nothing of the Assumption here.