On the website I linked–no need to give him free publicity–it talks about the Assumption of our Blessed Mother. Not the part about the Book of Revelation stuff. The quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia itself showing what looks like to me a very underwhelming historical case. Do not bite my head off
Mason, I see it this way.
The Assumption is a miracle, right? It’s the same type of miracle as happened to several people in the Old Testament, right?
Is there some reason that the Blessed Virgin might not qualify to have been assumed into heaven? I can’t find any, can you?
Weren’t there a lot of other miracles that happened to and around the apostles & the early church that we have extra-scriptural sources for believing? St. John’s rescue from being boiled in oil,
Polycarp’s martyrdom, and a host of other such things.
One thing that I have pointed out again and again is that second only to Our Lord Himself, Mary is the most unique person in all of human history, and the little that the New Testament tells us about her supports that IMO.
Compare her to the prophets that were also taken up by the Lord. Her place and function as the Queen Mother of the Messiah pretty much makes them all look like Ned in the first reader.
This is why the Assumption makes perfectly good sense to me, and why I could pretty much care less whether anyone else (especially those outside of the church), disagree.
The fact that the Bible nowhere teaches that everything that we believe and practice as believers has to have its basis in the Bible is the other reason I accept it.
IMO, these people who attack Catholic teachings based on that premise are themselves in error and their whole system of theology is (IMO) a house of cards built upon a fundamental error that ultimately invalidates nearly all their other doctrines.
Oh, they get a few things right, (or half right), but as they say, “Even a stopped clock is right twice a day”.

Hang in there my friend.
