Mary

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Which verse in the Bible supports the belief of "Mary's Assumption into Heaven".
Surely such an important event would at least be recorded in the Bible, John did say that not everthing was recorded, but what was recorded was that we should know that Jesus Christ is Lord. Basically, the important stuff.
Did the Holy Spirit, forget to mention this, or is this one of the church's many man made traditions.
Nolan

-- Nolan (nolannaicker@webmail.co.za), January 31, 2005

Answers

Since Mary was alive during the time the New Testament scriptures were being written, it is unlikely that the details of the end of her earthly life would be recorded there. What Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition do reveal is the underlying nature of Mary's role in salvation history which logically leads to the fact of her Assumption. The Church does of course have manmade traditions, as every church has, for example, genuflecting when entering a church or fasting during Lent. However, Mary's Assumption is a doctrinal issue, an element of Sacred Tradition, and therefore the Word of God. It is bound in heaven, as is everything the Church binds on earth. We know this because both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture state it clearly. Even you should be able to know this since it is so clearly stated in the Bible.
Incidentally, which verse in the Bible supports the belief that "every Christian truth is recorded in the Bible"? Oh wait. That couldn't be in there, could it, since the Bible didn't exist at the time the Apostles were writing their letters? That idea must be one of your manmade traditions.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 31, 2005.

Greetings my Brother Paul,
2 questions my brother, Surely if mary’s assumption was such an important event, there would have been at least 1 verse that talked about it, or 1 verse that would proclaimed/ predicted her assumption. I mean, the book of revelations speak about things to come...surely the God would wanted us to know the handmaid choosen to be used as a vessel for His Son’s birth, didnt die but assumed into heaven.
First, the assumption of mary's body into heaven was only declared in 1950, Pope Pius XII declared that Mary was taken up into heaven before her death. Why did the church wait so long to declare this.
Second, What “Sacred Scripture “ reveals “underlying nature of Mary's role in salvation history”
What your understanding of these;
1.All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God and useful for reproof and correction of error (2 Timothy 3:16). Since Scripture is used to correct and reproof then it must be the authoritative standard by which everything else is judged for its truthfulness.
2.Jesus said, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34). The character of God is on the line. "God is not a man that He should lie ... and hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good (Numbers 23:19). Submitting to the authority of God's revealed word will guide us in His perfect will.
3.Christ used the authority of Scripture to rebuke Satan's attempt to deceive Him (Matthew 4:1-11). He gave prepositional statements to accurately convey the truth that Satan attempted to distort. Jesus was our perfect model for rebuking deception.
4.Jesus used the authority of Scriptures to rebuke false teachers (Matthew 22:29). The only way false teachers can be confronted and exposed is in the power of God's Word.
5.Repented sinners are saved by hearing and believing the Word (Ephesians 1:13-14). The integrity of the Gospel must be maintained and proclaimed for true conversions.
6.Jesus prayed for Christians to be sanctified (set apart) by the truth of His Word (John 17:17). Christians must separate themselves from apostate churches and false teachers. God uses division to show those in His approval (1 Cor. 11:19).
7.One must continually submit to the authority of Scripture to be a disciple of Christ (John 8:31). Those who follow the traditions and teachings of men are often led astray.
8.Christ rebuked the religious leaders for nullifying the Word of God with their tradition (Mark 7:13). Any tradition that nullifies the Scriptures must be exposed and renounced so others will not be deceived.
9.The Scriptures were written to all Christians, not to popes and Magisterium to be interpreted for lay people. Anytime we allow others to interpret God's word for us, we leave ourselves open to deception.

-- nolan (nolannaicker@webmail.co.za), January 31, 2005.

Nolan,
My question for you is "why does it matter?" We know from scripture that Mose's physical body was taken up into heaven by an angel. We also know that Enoch and Elijah both were taken into heaven without even tasting death. So Biblical precedent is there. Why wouldn't God bring Mary's body up into heaven? She bore and raised God's only begotten Son, surely she above all others would warrant such grace.
Even as one who objects to many of the Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church, this is one in which I've never really objected to. I don't say that it happened as fact, nor do I say it didn't. In all honesty, I'd like to think that it did happen.
David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), January 31, 2005.

It is not so much about the Assumption of mary or not, rather than where does such belief comes from. Does the Word of God teaches us that, or maybe its whats the catholic church teaches. Just like the belief of purgatory, the catholic church proclaims it to be such an important dogma, so why didnt Jesus mention it, neither did peter, james or paul etc. And if you going to quote Mt 12:31, please do explain its link to purgatory.

-- nolan (nolannaicker@webmail.co.za), January 31, 2005.

OK, so this thread really isn't about Mary's assumption. You have an underlying question regarding Catholic traditions and how they are defined. I'll let others here address that. But I would pose you a question - what scripture teaches the church to conduct altar calls? Doesn't scripture teach that people who come to Christ are to be baptized? So where did the tradition of altar calls come from and why has it been used to replace baltism in many churches?
David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), January 31, 2005.

Oops, meant to say "So where did the tradition of altar calls come from and why has it been used to replace baptism in many churches?" And I also meant to clarify that this "tradition" of altar calls, is not a Catholic tradition. The point of my post is to point out that many non-Catholic churches have their own traditions that are not defined in scripture.
David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), January 31, 2005.

Historically speaking, Nolan, the Christians during the early times had a custom when one of its members were either martyred or died. That custom was that the precious body of the martyr or deceased loved one was coveted by churches in the region. There was high memorial celebrations at the death of the beloved. Polycarp's death and burial is a good one to look at historically to see how the early Christians honored one another in death. And yet there is no historical record of Mary's death or burial in all of the writings that we have from the Church Fathers, and the the writings are voluminous.
Furthermore, Mary was referred to by the Fathers as the "Ark of the New Covenant." She was referred to as such because she bore the "manna from heaven." Just as the Ark of the Old Covenant disappeared and has never, to this day, been found, so did the Ark of the New Covenant disappear. We see St. John in the Book of Revelations exclaiming "behold the heavens opened and there stood the Ark of the Covenant" and immediately following that scripture we have "and Behold a woman clothed with the sun." (Sorry I don't have time to look up the passages)
It goes without saying the Mother of our Lord was highly honored because of the unique role she played in salvation history. It is also inconceivable that her death and burial would NOT have been a BIG BIG deal. We have some indications from Church history concerning the deaths of Paul, Peter, James, John, but NOTHING concerning the most important woman who was ever born to man.
As to purgatory, 1 Cor 3:15 (I think) refers to a consuming fire that burns away the wood, hay and stubble. We also know from scripture that the Lord begins the process of "burning away the dross" when we begin our journey of faith. That process of purging continues throughout our lives. At our deaths, many of us are still very carnal, though we are Christians. That carnality must be purged if we are to "see God" for the Bible tells us that "without holiness no one will see God." We will certainly NOT bring our selfish sinful natures into heaven with us before the Lord of Glory.
Furthermore, to their peril, Protestants took out the book(s) of the Bible that pertained directly to purgatory after the Reformation; books that had been part of the canon from the beginning.
Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 31, 2005.

Nolan, you asked an excellent question ~~~~~~~
It is not so much about the Assumption of mary or not, rather than where does such belief comes from. Does the Word of God teaches us that, or maybe its whats the catholic church teaches?
Nolan, what you need to realize is that "the Word of God" is not restricted to the printed pages of the Bible. The truths contained in Sacred Tradition ARE "the Word of God," just as much as the Bible is "the Word of God." In fact, the oral form of Sacred Tradition as "the Word of God" PRECEDED the written form (the Bible), and only SOME of the oral Word of God got written down.
Therefore, no one can go by Scripture alone and expect to get the fullness of the truth. Only the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of the truth (plus zero errors), because she is informed by ALL of the Word of God, both oral and written. Sacred Tradition contains some factual truths, such as the Assumption, but it consists, to a much greater extent, in guidance as to the proper interpretations of complex teachings that WERE written down by the scriptural authors. As non-Catholics, you and Dave lack the interpreting guidance that is found in Sacred Tradition. Therefore you are both left partly in the dark, accepting some non-Catholic religious theories that are false and rejecting some Catholic doctrines, which cannot help but be true, since they were revealed by God. Fortunately, you are only partly in the dark.
Order in the court

-- Hearye (oyez@oyez.oyez), January 31, 2005.

Great replies, Friends.
Dear Nolan:
Christ's mother is HOLY; the holiest woman who ever lived. It seems strange how non-Catholics try to pick her apart almost every day; as if her holy person were getting ''too much'' attention. But why? Didn't an archangel call Mary ''Full of grace, and Blessed among women'', --???
Wasn't she suffering with her divine Son at the foot of His cross? --How come people other than Catholics have to be reminded of these events; among the most important events ever known? They're not secrets; God has wriiten them for you in His Holy Word.
Our place in this life is to humbly acknowledge before God HIS eternal power and wisdom in making Mary the holy mother of Jesus Christ. NOT weasel an explanation out of scripture to deny Mary that wondrous exaltation God has granted to her before men.
One final day, there's going to be HELL to pay: Many who have sought to diminish the Mother of God are coming face to face with her Son Our Lord; and He will not hesitate to vindicate her honor in heaven, on earth and under the earth. Before Him no weasels will open their mouths; and before her, there will be terror-- and hopeful weeping; ''Pray for me, Holy Mary! HELP ME!''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 31, 2005.

an interesting thing to note... Mary is the most blessed woman in all of human existance. whenever i hear protestants say that mary was just a human like everyone else and could have gone to hell, i always chuckle at the fact that if mary went to hell (being the most blessed and holy of all women) then no woman stands a chance at all of getting into heaven. you would think that protestant women everywhere would really push for the idea that mary is in heaven then.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 31, 2005.

Excellent answers guys. I would add that the Assumption of Our Lady is alluded to in St John’s Apocalypse (Revelation) Chapter 12 (which was probably written after the Assumption).
“the assumption of mary's body into heaven was only declared in 1950, Pope Pius XII declared that Mary was taken up into heaven before her death. Why did the church wait so long to declare this.”
The doctrine of the Assumption is part of the Tradition passed on from the Apostles. Pope Pius didn’t invent it, he just decided (after confirming that virtually everyone in the Church believed it) that it would be helpful to the faith of Catholics to have it formally declared as a dogma. When he did so, an Anglican bishop in England thundered in the press against the “new” dogma under the headline “NOW they have to believe THIS!” To his embarrassment it was then pointed out to him that the Assumption is pictured in a large medieval stained-glass window of his own cathedral (which his predecessors took from the Catholics in the 16th century).
The Church has made no dogmatic statement about whether or not Our Lady physically died before the Assumption of her body AND SOUL into Heaven. (The Orthodox say that she did not die, hence their name for this event is "The Dormition" i.e. "falling asleep" of Our Lady).
Another highly significant fact noted by secular historians, is that although there was fierce competition among the early Christian keepers of churches, monasteries and and shrines for the right to hold the remains of the saints (often several different churches or individuals claimed to have the remains of the same saint), there is no record of any Christian ever claiming to possess any remains of Our Lady. There were none.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 31, 2005.

Also interesting to note that Martin Luther, despite his adamant insistence on "The Bible alone" as the basis for all Christian beliefs, believed in the Assumption of Our Lady.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 31, 2005.

Where did that rascal go anyway? He just came and dumped his typical Protestant jargon and then flew-the-coup I guess. Very typical.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 31, 2005.

Maybe he can't rebuttal ther answers given

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), February 01, 2005.

Guess he isn't coming back after all that work we did!! What a chump.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 01, 2005.

Guess he isn't coming back after all that work we did!!
Don't worry Gail. Even if Nolan doesn't come back, there are many non-Catholics who will visit this thread over time that will perhaps allow them to open up more to the Teachings about our Blessed Mother.
i hear protestants say that mary was just a human like everyone else
Your right paul h. Mary, being "Full of Grace" is not like any other human.
Hail Holy Queen of Heaven!

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), February 01, 2005.

Hi Gail,
sorry guys my email was down...
The arguement that there was no mention of mary’s remains documented, implies she assumed into heaven is not only far fetched but also illogical.Its funny that one would believe the early church fathers, because they didnt make any documentation of mary death, therefore she assumed into heaven. Why not use that same logic and say, if the bible, the TRUE and ONLY Word of God, didnt mention such an “important event” , it just didnt happen. After all the bible did tell of elijahs and enoch’s assumptions into heaven...but nothing of mary’s assumption.
Revelation 12:1 [And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars]. A Catholic author writes: “Mary's coronation implies her preceding bodily assumption.” He wrongly assumes that this “woman” is Mary and ignores the problems of such interpretation. For example, the woman of Revelation, “being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered” (Revelation 12:2); whereas Catholics believe that Mary “gave birth to her Son without pain” (Pope Alexander III), because if she did gave birth with pain, it means that she was with sin, and thats something the catholic does not teach. now how would one explain that....
The Catholic Encyclopaedia admits that the first “genuine” written references to the Assumption come from authors who lived in the sixth to the eight centuries. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first.”2
St. Gregory lived in the sixth century, while St John Damascene belongs to the eight. Thus for several centuries in the early Church, there is no mention by the church fathers of the bodily assumption of Mary. Ireneus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose and the others church fathers said nothing about it. Writing in 377 A.D., the church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end.3
Here is the problem with, 2 Machabees 12. Here we have Judas Machabee offering money on behalf of his dead soldiers. Now notice that those same soldiers had been killed because of their idol worship, or idolatry. Idolatry was then and is now, a capital sin, or, as Rome terms it, a mortal sin. To support the fact that idolatry is a mortal sin, the Church quotes this Scripture:
"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Gal 5:19-21 KJV)
Think about this. First, Rome says that those who die in mortal sin go directly to hell. Second, the soldiers prayed for died in mortal sin. Third, Rome approves the action of Judas Machabee enough to base the doctrines of Purgatory, confession, and indulgences upon it. Fourth, Rome declares that the dead can have sins forgiven and be saved by prayers, indulgences and money. What is the logical conclusion here? Simple since Judas Machabee did the right thing (according to Rome), it must be possible for those who die in mortal sin to yet be saved! According to Rome, even those in Hell can go to heaven! See the inherent contradiction?
NB: The Apocrypha Books were “added on” at the Council of Trent in 1500’s after the reformation. I suggest your research this fact.
nolan

-- nolan (nolannaicker@webmail.co.za), February 02, 2005.

There are no apocryphal books in the Bible. Apocryphal writings are, by definition, non-Scriptural. The seven so-called "deuterocanonical books" however were among the 73 books of the Holy Bible from the moment the Christian Canon of Scripture was finalized in 394 A.D. at the Council of Carthage. Trent merely reaffirmed the canon of Carthage without adding or removing a single word. No Bible produced between 394 A.D. and the 16'th Century included anything other than the original 73 inspired books. And no complete Bible ever will contain anything other than the original 73 inspired books.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 02, 2005.

Yet Codex Vaticanus and Codex seniticus ar emising several books. ( Vaticanus deletes the entire book of revelaitons, and replaces it with "The shepard of Hermas".)
several Bibles appeared without the Additional 7 books till trent, when the matter was finalised. Until then, ther was always soem contestation.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 02, 2005.

no more!!! please?

-- html tags for (nomore@italics.off), February 02, 2005.

I'll loik intt he cannons of the ocounils, I have all on file and can read them at leasure.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 02, 2005.

Nolan thinks that those same soldiers (2Machabees) had been killed because of their ''idol worship'', or idolatry. Idolatry was then and is now, a capital sin,'' etc., (OH! IS IT??????)
Total distortion of the written scripture. The dead had taken spoils during the fighting, a few token figurines and other articles from the enemy. These had been found on their dead bodies. They didn't worship anything, or believe in idols. But by stealing them, a venial sin considering these battles and their lives being sacrificed for the Machabees, it was fitting that prayer should be offered up for their release from PURGATORY. --Hear that, Nolan???? PURGATORY!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 02, 2005.

I am presently reading the Macabbeas. These were some very God- loving men, Nolan. They loved the Lord unto death. Why you would call them idolators is just beyond me. Your standard Protestant anti- Catholic, anti-purgatory, anti-deuteros-rhetoric has been aired on this forum ON AND ON AND ON AND ON. Can't you guys ever some up with anything different?
As to Mary's Assumption, of course the Lord took his precious mother to heaven, bodily. Is there any woman that deserves this honor more than Mary? Is there any woman that delivered to the world the "Messiah"? Is there any mother who SUFFERED more than Mary? Was it not Mary to whom Simon said "And a sword shall pierce your heart so that the thoughts of many will be revealed"?
She is deserving of this honor, and the Lord Jesus, being the perfect SON, performed this very small thing for his mum.
It's the truth, and that's why we believe it, Nolan! If you have one shred of evidence to disprove this historical fact, speak now, or forever hold it!!
God Bless,
Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), February 02, 2005.

Nolan, you admit that not everything that Jesus did is recorded in the Bible. In revelations it says not to add or subtract from the Word of God. What is the Word of God? The Word of God is Jesus. Obviously not everything that he did is in the Bible, so where's the rest? It's obviously important. The rest is in the Sacred Tradition of the Church. You don't see something wrong with the system that says that if it's not in the Bible you can make your own decisions on what God wants? You are supposed to conform your life to God's will, not God's will to your own. That's what you are doing when you practice Sola Scriptura.

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), February 06, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ