The assumption of Mary

[1962Missal]

The author of Hebrews was quoting Scripture and in context he is not referring to Jesus Christ but the O.T. Scriptures he quotes. Yes, to be sure J.C. is the living Word of God, become flesh, but not in this context. It is before God Himself, the Originator of those Scriptures, that no creature is hidden.

12: For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Lets look at that with a little find and replace and see just how weird it sounds:

12: For the [Bible] is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

If you really think that the Scriptures discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart then, you, quite simply, have personified them. I really don’t know what to say.

Justin

 

[Delgadoajj]

Kinsman:

1. Please show me where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the sole source of Truth and authority.
2. The biblical reference used earlier about the Sacred Scriptures being “profitable” refers to the Old Testament writings, for the most part. Most of what we know to be the New Testament did’t even exist when this descriptor (profitable) was used. So, let’s assume that “profitable” means “only”. Then you’re saying that none of the subsequent New Testament writings are inspired. Have you ever considered this?
3. The Bible is a result of the Tradition of the Catholic Church. Without the Catholic Church, there would be no Bible. Both the Bible and the Magisterium (Tradition) of the Church go hand-in-hand, and have the same weight and authority. Christ’s Church decided which books were inspired, and which books were not. Because of this is that now a days you have the Sacred Scriptures in front of you, but you need the Authority of the Church to interpret these Sacred writings for you, so you don’t fall into error.

I pray that you will come back home to Rome. :bible1:

Your brother in Christ,

Jorge.

 

[DianJo]

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.

This is uncanny - I’m listeneing to Catholic Answers live on the radio now and this issue was just addressed!

The church does not teach that Mary died first and then was assumed nor does she teach that Mary was assumed before she died. We are allowed to view that either way.
It was my understanding that Mary died and when her family went back to prepare the body for burial - she was gone - assumed into heaven.

And the part about her not dying because she had no sin doesn’t hold either because Jesus did not have sin either and his body died. The human body naturally breaks downs over time (unless preserved supernnaturally) and will eventually quit working all together. So, it is probable that she died first and then was assumed body and soul into heaven.

 

[DianJo]

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.

You don’t need biblical back-up. You need to be familiar with Jewish Temple tradition (there’s that word, again!)

Mary was promised to the Temple as a virgin by her mother Ann (as was Samuel) before her birth. This meant that she would never marry.
As she was consecrated to the temple (to GOD) this meant she was a “bride” of God and she was never to marry another man for she was already God’s bride.
This was taken very seriously by the devout Jewish man - you were not allowed to take another mans wife as your own (adultery).
The temple elders wondered what to do with her because her "time " was approaching so she was given a guardian - Joseph. When it was found that she was pregnant, the elders called Joseph and asked him aobut it - remember? If he had gotten her pregnant, he would have been guilty of defiling a temple virgin and essentially another mans wife. She could no longer be in the temple so she was married to Joseph who was only to serve as guardian. Remember his dream? The angel told him to take her in marriage for she was to give birth to the one who would save Isreal from it’s sins - the Savior, in other words.
As a devout Jewish man, would you defile the temple of God? Would you have intercourse with the Mother of the Savior? or would you promise to protect the temple? How do you think he felt about being the guardian of the Son of God? Do you think he thought he had a traditional Jewish marriage? I do not think so!

 

[hawkeye]

The Assumption > catholicapologetics.org/ap080500.htm

 

[DianJo]

No, according to the silence and teachings of Scripture, Mary is not in heaven. She, like all who have since died in Christ, is waiting the “first resurrection” (Rev. 20:5-6;1 Cor. 15:22-23). At that time Mary will be bodily resurrected and will receive her reward along with the rest of us who have believed and eagerly wait Christ’s return. Mary was an obedient vessel that the Son might be born into this world as a Man (the God-Man, Jesus Christ), to be a substitutionary sacrifice for man’s sins. Scripture takes her no further, nor should we (Gal. 5:9).

I hope Mary is the one who comes to take you to her Son when you pass from this life into the next! Wouldn’t that just take the cake!!:dancing:

 

[DianJo]

No, according to the silence and teachings of Scripture, Mary is not in heaven. She, like all who have since died in Christ, is waiting the “first resurrection” (Rev. 20:5-6;1 Cor. 15:22-23). At that time Mary will be bodily resurrected and will receive her reward along with the rest of us who have believed and eagerly wait Christ’s return. Mary was an obedient vessel that the Son might be born into this world as a Man (the God-Man, Jesus Christ), to be a substitutionary sacrifice for man’s sins. Scripture takes her no further, nor should we (Gal. 5:9).

TO KINSMAN:

I hope Mary is the one who comes to take you to her Son when you pass from this life into the next!
Wouldn’t that just take the cake!!:dancing:

 

[hawkeye]

DianJo:

No, according to the silence and teachings of Scripture, Mary is not in heaven. She, like all who have since died in Christ, is waiting the “first resurrection” (Rev. 20:5-6;1 Cor. 15:22-23). At that time Mary will be bodily resurrected and will receive her reward along with the rest of us who have believed and eagerly wait Christ’s return. Mary was an obedient vessel that the Son might be born into this world as a Man (the God-Man, Jesus Christ), to be a substitutionary sacrifice for man’s sins. Scripture takes her no further, nor should we (Gal. 5:9).

TO KINSMAN:

I hope Mary is the one who comes to take you to her Son when you pass from this life into the next!
Wouldn’t that just take the cake!!:dancing:
Hello there, do you believe in the Immaculate Conception ? do you believe that Mary was free from original sin?

 

[DianJo]

Now put your thinking cap on. According to Roman doctrine Mary was free from original sin, nor did she sin during her earthly life. And since death is an immediate consequence of sin (Rom. 5:12), she herself would not have been subject to physical death. So now realizing this, recent claim is that she never did taste of physical death but was taken up alive, like Enoch and Elijah. So the story keeps changing and building! I don’t doubt that we’ve not yet heard the end of this story.

TO KINSMAN:
Mary’s body like Jesus’ (since both were sinless) did not see corruption! The human body will breakdown and quit working naturally (unless supernaturally preserved). They’re bodies were allowed to die but their bodies did not see the corruption of the grave. Corruption of the grave (death) are the consequences of sin.

 

[hawkeye]

Hello DianJo, do you believe in the Immaculate Conception ? Do you believe that Mary was preserved from Original sin ?

 

[DianJo]

hawkeye:

Hello DianJo, do you believe in the Immaculate Conception ? Do you believe that Mary was preserved from Original sin ?

I most certainly do.

 

[hawkeye]

Now put your thinking cap on. According to Roman doctrine Mary was free from original sin, nor did she sin during her earthly life. And since death is an immediate consequence of sin (Rom. 5:12), she herself would not have been subject to physical death. So now realizing this, recent claim is that she never did taste of physical death but was taken up alive, like Enoch and Elijah. So the story keeps changing and building! I don’t doubt that we’ve not yet heard the end of this story.

TO KINSMAN:
Mary’s body like Jesus’ (since both were sinless) did not see corruption! The human body will breakdown and quit working naturally (unless supernaturally preserved). They’re bodies were allowed to die but their bodies did not see the corruption of the grave. Corruption of the grave (death) are the consequences of sin.

Hello sorry another question, you don’t have to answer, but do you say the Rosary ? and in the Glorious mysteries we have Jesus Crowning Mary as queen of Heaven, just wondering how he could put a crown on a spirits head, surley it would fall to maybe to Earth, who knows.
Anyway if you do include the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, do you think this is a little contradictory ?

 

[jimmy]

Hawkeye, what do you believe? Earlier you posted the link to the catholic apologetics but now you are contradicting your self eith the last couple posts. Unless you are being sarcastic.

 

[hawkeye]

jimmy:

Hawkeye, what do you believe? Earlier you posted the link to the catholic apologetics but now you are contradicting your self eith the last couple posts. Unless you are being sarcastic.

Actually jimmy I posted that link, and to tell you the truth I didn’t say I believed in it, actually I wish you could explain it to me.
I think it’s a poor explanation, and I would need to read it many times before it would enter this block of wood (brain).
I believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, now if we say the Rosary and we believe in it, then in the Glorious Mysteries, (last two) we have the Assumption of Mary, then we have the Coranation of Mary, Crowned by her son Jesus.
Now if we have Jesus in body in Heaven crowning a spirit, then that makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Unless Jesus is only in Heaven in spirit, then we only have 2 persons of the Blessed Trinity in Heaven.
Actually when I saw the ladys question, I had no answer for it, but I usually pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance before I give an answer, I was actually stumped, when that Rosary thought came to me.
I don’t have the answers, I’m only dust, but I was reading a book about the messages of Carmela Carabelli and in it Jesus recommended that we Conscrecrate ourselves to the Holy Spirit, I have only been saying the Consecration for a few weeks, when ever I think of it.
Please don’t think I’m trying to get one up on anybody, but I do try to come at it in a different angle, as the other arguments are old and tired.
Anyway what is faith ? is it believing something we don’t fully understand ? I think it is, if we fully understood everything then there would be no need for this forum.
Anyway in the Rosary we are praying mysteries, and thats what it boils down to for me, a mystery, a 2000 year old mystery, like a 2000 peice jig-saw puzzle.
Will we unravel it in this world, or in the one to come, I don’t know.
Anyway back to your original question, I do believe in the Rosary and all the mysteries, including the Assumption, do I fully understand it ? no.

 

[DianJo]

hawkeye:

Hello sorry another question, you don’t have to answer, but do you say the Rosary ? and in the Glorious mysteries we have Jesus Crowning Mary as queen of Heaven, just wondering how he could put a crown on a spirits head, surley it would fall to maybe to Earth, who knows.
Anyway if you do include the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, do you think this is a little contradictory ?

It is our belief that Mary is in heaven - body and soul, therefore the crown would not be placed on a spirits head.
Historically, it was proper to have the mother of the king crowned as “Queen Mother” of the kingdom.

Kinda short and sweet answer but I’m in a bit of a hurry. I’ll check back later. Don’t worry about questions - that’s why we are all here - to learn ( and I certainly don’t have all the answers!)

 

[hawkeye]

Anyway I have nothing more to say on the subject, I’ve said too much already, so it’s over to someone else, apart from leaving you with this picture.

http://www.christinagallagher.org/en/photo.jpeg

 

[Mathetes007]

Previously, in post #97, I stated that I would answer earlier posts from Kinsman. Well, my week is up and without going into too much depth, here are a few observations:

Regarding John 20:30, 31 and 21:25, Kinsman writes:

Kinsman:

John was referring to Christ’s earthly ministry and the “signs” which testified to whom He was/is, God the Son and Israel’s Messiah. This passage in Scripture gives absolutely no support to the so-called bodily assumption of Mary. Notice, John said Jesus performed other signs in the presence of his disciples. In other words, they were eyewitnesses (cf. 1 Pet. 1:16; 1 Jo. 1:1). That is hardly the case with Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven.

Does John 20:30, 31 and 21:25 deal with the Assumption? In this case Kinsman is correct, the answer is no, at least not directly.

In context John closed by saying that he wrote only a fraction of what Jesus did so that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ. John recorded many miracles of Jesus that proved he was the Messiah. Yet if he were to record them all, the world would not be able to contain the books that would be written. Logic would tell us that this is also true of the other Gospels (since neither Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark wrote books that filled the whole world but each wrote only short histories). The remaining corpus of inspired Scripture (epistles, etc) is even less detailed than the Gospels. Scripture is attesting that it does not contain everything only enough to know that Christ is the Son of God, the long awaited Messiah.

Now what does “signs” mean? Throughout his Gospel, John uses this term to mean a miracle of Jesus (John 2:11, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37). However, through miracles, Jesus used such occasions to explain a truth of the faith (salvation is not just for the Jews but many will come from the East and the West: Matthew 8:5-13; 15:21-28; authority to forgive sins was given by God to man: Matthew 9:1-81; Mark 2:1-12; there is no excuse to not do good works: Matthew 12:9-14; Mark 3:1-6; those who attribute the power of the Spirit to the evil one will not be forgiven: Matthew 12:22-32; Peter was specifically chosen from among the twelve to walk with the Lord: Matthew 14:22-33; with faith nothing is impossible: Matthew 17:15-21; etc.). Viewed in this context, we can surmise that Jesus both “taught” and “did” many other things that were not written down as well. This fits well with the following passage in Luke which we will now be considering.

continued. . .

 

[Mathetes007]

Luke records that, “beginning with Moses and all the prophets, [Jesus] interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Jesus revealed to the two woman on the road to Emmaus every type and prophetic text that dealt with Himself in the Old Testament. Yet we have no exhaustive record in the New Testament that starts from Moses through the prophets that reveal all the texts concerning Jesus. Therefore we know that not everything that Jesus “taught” was put down in Scripture. The only writing that we know for sure that Jesus did was not even included in the Bible (John 8:6). How then does Luke 24:27 relate to the Assumption?

Now, if as Luke explains, Jesus revealed the entire Old Testament in relation to Himself, He must have discussed the topic of the Ark of the Covenant. For Mary was the fulfillment of the Ark, that carried the Manna from heaven, the Word of God in stone, and Aaron’s rod in its interior (Hebrews 9:4). Such a revelation would clearly make known His true identity. Scripture reveals that Jesus was indeed the fulfillment of these types. Jesus Himself states that He is the True Bread from Heaven more so than the manna (John 6:31-35). As to being the Word of God, John clearly teaches it in his works (John 1:1; 1 John 1:1; Revelation 19:13). The book of Hebrews goes through lengths to show Jesus as our High Priest which was represented by the rod of the priest Aaron (Hebrews 2:17; 3:1; 4:14, 15; 5:5, 6, 10; 6:20; 7:11-28; 8:1-4; 9:11; 10:21). Let’s look at some clues that indicate why Jesus would speak of the Ark.

We can see from Jesus’ teaching that this is strictly in line with how throughout His ministry He used symbols and types to establish His identity and His work (Jonah’s story [Jonah 1:17] refers to his 3 day stay in the tomb: Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29, 30; the temple [John 2:14] was a symbol of His Resurrection: John 2:18, 19; the bronze serpent [Numbers 21:8, 9] signified His crucifixion: John 3:14, 15; the Manna [Exodus 16:4] signified the sacrifice of the true Bread of Life: John 6:31-35, 48-51; just to name a few). The case becomes stronger when we notice, more importantly and with no surprise, that Luke portrays Mary as the Ark of the Covenant in his very own Gospel. For a somewhat good analysis see stmargaretmary.com/rcia/Hahn/17-AnsweringCommonObjections-MaryArkOfTheCovenant.html

continued. . .

 

[Mathetes007]

The theme of the Ark would be taken up later by John in Revelation 11:19 as being in heaven. The Fathers of the Church also from the second century onward held Mary as the Ark of the Covenant and began to apply Psalm 132:8-18 to her and the Lord.

Let’s go back to Kinsman. He is correct in stating that the passage in John does not suggest the Assumption. But why should it? All the Gospels center themselves around the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. All of them finish their accounts with the Resurrection or Ascension of Jesus. We cannot expect for an evangelist to throw in an event that happened decades after the fact of the Resurrection. Such would not be in keeping with how the writers reported their story. Therefore it would be ridiculous for Protestants to require that the Assumption be part of the Gospels in order for it to be true. We can now see that John 20:30, 31 and 21:25 have additional teachings in view that were not written down. These teachings center on Jesus Christ but may contain additional and implicit Mariological principles. Both John and Luke, however, due provide a basis through the imagery of the Ark from which to derive the teaching of the Assumption.

Side note: Although Mary is the Ark of God par excellence, those who endure with Christ will also be arks of God carrying the hidden Manna and the laws of God in our bosom (Revelation 2:17; 2 Corinthians 3:1-6; Hebrews 10:15, 16). As Mary was the physical and spiritual Temple of God, so we are also called to be spiritual and physical temples of God (1 Corinthians 3:16, 17; 6:19, 20; 2 Corinthians 6:16-18; Revelation 3:12). This is to be expected since Mary is the icon and image of the Church without wrinkle or stain already assumed and crowned in glory.

 

[Mathetes007]

Kinsman:

Others here argue that “it only makes sense.” That Jesus would want to have His mother in heaven with Him. But the true Christian faith is not based on what “makes sense” to men, but what God has accomplished among men through Christ and what He has revealed concerning Him in Scripture. The Bible does not teach that the Creator of this world came into this world in order to gain a mother from His own creation, and then take her back with Him that He might exalt her in heaven. Such an idea is well rooted in pagan religions and the fables surrounding their finite gods. But no hint of this idea is found in God’s written Word which reveals the only true, infinite God and creator of this universe and His redemptive purposes for mankind.

But the Scriptures do. God ordained that Mary would be the Mother of the Son at the Incarnation (Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 7:14; Jeremiah 31:22; Micah 5:2). The Scriptures also teach that God became man so that He could gain a mother and brothers and sisters and exalt them in heaven as children of God (Galatians 4:4-7; Hebrews 2:10-3:1). Many non-Catholics have a problem believing that Mary has been highly exalted by God. Yet they have no quandaries in believing that they themselves will be glorified (1 Corinthians 15:51-57; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 3:20, 21; 1 John 3:2, 3), assumed (1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17), and exalted on royal thrones in heaven (Revelation 20:4; 2 Timothy 4:8; James 1:12; 1 Peter 5:4; Revelation 2:10, 26-29; 3:11, 21).