At best, the only relic connected with the Assumption is the purported belt or sash of Our Lady (aka the Cincture of the Theotokos) still kept at the Vatopedi Monastery in Mount Athos. Supposedly her shroud was even kept at Mary’s Tomb in Gethsemane once.
So when Jesus says, “this generation shall not pass away” and “some standing here will not taste death” until the end of the world, that isn’t evidence enough for you that one of them did in fact not die. Wow. Then how about this:
Can we be certain that St. Mary was in the crowd Jesus was addressing, though?
In my eyes, Revelation chapter twelve by itself is pretty decisive scriptural evidence for the assumption of St. Mary. But I’ve read that the few Early Church Fathers who commented on this material (the book of Revelation received little attention because of its obscure nature) saw St. John as referring to the Church.
But Revelation 12:5 cannot refer to the Church.
The man child brought forth the Church.
She probably was, but I don’t see why She would have to be in that crowd to be the fulfillment of the prophecy. Jesus is speaking of the generation standing before Him and not necessarily those who happened to be physically closest to Him. A lot of scholars think that the Olivet Discourse also pertains to the destruction of Jerusalem, and many people fled Jerusalem before that happened–lending credence to a generational interpretation. However, the destruction of Jerusalem cannot be the only subject of the Discourse because the judgment does not occur then. Much like the Book of Revelation, it is a prophecy that has both immediate and future ramifications.
I think that Jesus is deliberately obfuscating here (as all of His prophets did before Him to some extent in order to preserve free will). He has already told us that He is not at liberty to disclose the time of the end of the world. If He were to throw out specific numbers regarding people and dates, then He would be giving us clues to try and figure out when the end will come; thus He would be contradicting Himself. And that’s precisely why the only thing that makes sense here is for someone in that generation to be immortal. If Mary was not assumed without dying, then the End must have occurred within that generation–which it did not. So because She did not die, that leaves the date of the End indeterminate without making nonsense of the Scripture (which interpreting “this generation” as being in the future does; how can someone be standing there if they don’t yet exist?)
She probably was, but I don’t see why She would have to be in that crowd to be the fulfillment of the prophecy. Jesus is speaking of the generation standing before Him and not necessarily those who happened to be physically closest to Him. A lot of scholars think that the Olivet Discourse pertains to both the end of the world and the destruction of Jerusalem (see e.g. the Catena Aurea), and many people who weren’t standing near Jesus at that time fled Jerusalem before the latter happened–lending credence to a generational interpretation. However, the destruction of Jerusalem cannot be the only subject of the Discourse because the judgment does not occur then. Much like the Book of Revelation, it is a prophecy that has both immediate and future ramifications.
I think that Jesus is deliberately obfuscating here (as all of His prophets did before Him to some extent in order to preserve free will). He has already told us that He is not at liberty to disclose the time of the end of the world. If He were to throw out specific numbers regarding people and dates, then He would be giving us clues to try and figure out when the end will come; thus He would be contradicting Himself. And that’s precisely why the only thing that makes sense here is for someone in that generation to be immortal. If Mary was not assumed without dying, then the End must have occurred within that generation–which it did not. So because She did not die, that leaves the date of the End indeterminate without making nonsense of the Scripture (which interpreting “this generation” as being in the future does; how can someone be standing there if they don’t yet exist?)
I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that John wasn’t ordered to write everything je saw down. His orders were to write everything down except what the seven thunders said (Rev. 1:11, 19, 10:4). So he wrote down everything he actually saw and experienced. Nowhere in Revelation is the “rapture” or sound of trumpets/catching up of Christians recorded. That’s the event that Jesus said some would happen (not merely be seen) before they died. John didn’t see it in his visions, much less participate in it.
It is in the Bible (as all Catholic doctrines are), so whether or not the dormition/assumption debate was settled in the early church or not is irrelevant.
I am afraid you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Catholic claims of tradition. To be Tradition something doesn’t need to necessarily be taught
Jehovah’s Witnesses would disagree with you.
So in your world, the Church would be unable to formulate a dogmatic response to abortion, euthanasia, contraception, communism, secularism and other evils of the 20th-21st century because that would be “development of Tradition.”
I guess you want us to just ignore all of this, then.
That’s a major oversimplification of what Bl. John Paul II said, here are his actual words. As for Benedict XVI, I’ve yet to see anything where the current Pope has said anything like this.
Has the Catholic Church dogmatically stated that being anti-contraception and anti-communist is necessary for salvation?
Can you state the obvious?
Oh, very good. As far as “experiencing” the rapture, is this the one many (if not the vast majority) of Protestants are expecting and promoting, or is this the actual event as outlined in Scripture (not by Jesus, but by Paul)? Since John’s vision covers everything up to Satan and Death being cast into the Lake of Fire, I would say those things were included in his vision. BTW - you still haven’t explained why you think the verse for Matt 16 is connected to the verse in Matt 24 (I suspect I may not be the only one interested in that answer).
The assumption is not in Scripture. Hijacking the woman of Rev 12:1-5 as an “indication” is a cheap parlor trick that I just don’t accept. I know you do (as well as most Catholics), not because it’s true, but because the allegedly infallible magisterium of the church as declared it to be so. Bottom line, you believe because your “infallible” magisterium tells you to.
You’re reading into the Bible something that isn’t there on the basis of necessity. The Assumption must be there out of necessity as well (lest the Lord be making a false statement about people still being alive), and yet you apply a different standard to the Assumption than to the rapture simply because the Assumption is Catholic. And unlike the rapture, the Assumption actually is there in Rev. 12 (I know you dispute that but we’ll get there in a moment.)
Well, look at them.
Who do you think that Woman is, then? Israel? I don’t see the Woman turning around and crucifying the man-child, which is exactly what Israel did. Or are you going to say that John saw the Woman crucify Jesus in his vision on the same basis of necessity with which you write the rapture in there? Then why didn’t he write it down (unlike the Assumption), and why did he issue this warning:
