Posted on 06/10/2007 7:18:10 PM PDT by markomalley
Protestants as well as Catholics believe that the Body of Jesus Christ is now in heaven. This doctrine is called the Ascension and is explicitly revealed in the Bible. All Christians believe, too, that the bodies of the just will be united to their souls at the end of the world and be glorified in heaven after the manner of the Risen Body of Christ. This is also revealed explicitly in the New Testament. It follows, therefore, that the bodies and souls of the departed saints are now separated, that their souls are in heaven and their bodies in the grave. Christians of every conceivable denomination are agreed on these two dogmas. After that, however, Protestants and Catholics part company, for Catholics believe that the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary is also in heaven. We call this doctrine the Assumption. By it we hold that the glorification of the flesh, which will take place for us only at the end of time, was granted to Mary at the end of her earthly life. We believe, therefore, that the bodies of both Jesus and Mary are now in heaven. There is, however, this difference: Jesus arose from the tomb and ascended into heaven by his own power, whereas Mary's body was taken up to heaven by the power of her Son. For that reason we use two different words: the Ascension of Christ and the Assumption of Mary. Historical Data
There is no positive historical data in proof of the historical fact of the Assumption. "It is impossible to accept the popular and late legend, according to which the Apostles, having been present at the Virgin's death, later found her tomb empty or saw her body wafted away by angels" (Jean Guitton). There are however, negative historical conditions which are quite impressive. Among others are these:
"From the earliest ages of the Church the faithful venerated the remains of the Saints, and in instances even strove for the honor of possessing them. Relics of the Apostles and of thousands of martyrs are preserved in richly adorned shrines and caskets. The sacred remains of Mary could not have been lost or neglected; that is a hypothesis which it would be impossible to entertain" (Father Canice, OFM Cap.).
Implicit in Bible The Bible nowhere mentions explicitly this glorification of Mary's Immaculate body. That it has been revealed by God is nevertheless certain; otherwise it could not have been defined as a dogma of faith, A public revelation of the Assumption must have been made to the Apostles, or at least to one of them, because public revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle. There are, however, several implicit revelations of the Assumption in the Bible. The most important texts are: Gen. 3:15; Lk. 1:28; Apoc. 12:1-2.
Reasons for the Assumption Ancient belief in the Assumption was based on the Christian conviction that Christ willed his holy Mother to participate in all his prerogatives. Therefore he associated her in his own glorification by an anticipated resurrection.
The corruption of the grave is a punishment for sin (Gen. 3:19). Our flesh is a "flesh of sin" (Rom. 8:3). Through the desires of this flesh the majority of our sins are committed. In Mary, however, there is not the slightest stain of sin. By her Immaculate Conception and fulness of grace she was entitled to immunity from corruption in her body. The principle of corruption which we bear within us did not exist in her. "Flesh and blood," says the Bible, "cannot possess the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 15:15). Even the bodies of the saints do not deserve to enter the kingdom of God. They must first be renewed by the hand of God. But Mary's body — Immaculate, pure, sinless — is consequently incorruptible.
From the first moment of her conception the state of the Blessed Virgin Mary was analogous, but superior, to the state of Adam and Eve before the Fall. Had they not sinned they would not have heard the divine malediction: "Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return" (Gen. 3,19). Doesn't justice therefore demand that Mary be preserved from a malediction never merited by her?
Mary's Immaculate Body was, in a sense, the origin of sanctification of all mankind. Her flesh was used to form the flesh of her Son; the flesh which he used on the Cross to destroy death and sin, and which he gave to us that we might rise from the dead. Was this flesh, Mary's flesh, Christ's flesh, the instrument of our redemption and resurrection, to be subject to the corruption of the grave? "The womb that bore Jesus Christ, the hands that caressed him, the arms that embraced him, the breasts that nourished him, the heart that so loved him — it is impossible to think that these crumbled into dust" (Father Canice, OFM Cap.). Christ's perfect victory over Satan included victory over sin and death. But Mary, the Mother of God, was most intimately associated with Jesus in his victory over Satan. She not only furnished the flesh which Christ sacrificed for our Redemption, but she also had a definite role of cooperation in this Redemption. She was associated with him in the different parts of his triumph. Hence she was associated with him in his victory over death by her anticipated resurrection and Assumption. This argument is used by Pope Pius IX in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus.
In the virginal conception and birth of his Son, God performed an absolutely unique miracle. This miracle was an act of divine respect for the flesh of the Mother of God. Against all the laws of nature he preserved the corporal integrity of his Mother. Would he later allow that Immaculate flesh to suffer the immeasurably greater lesion of the corruption of the grave?
It is a basic principle of Catholic teaching that all the prerogatives and glories of Mary are because of Jesus Christ. His divine dignity presupposes and demands such perfection in his Mother. The flesh of Mary was the Flesh of Christ; and Christ owed it to himself to preserve from dissolution the body that had served to form his own Body. Mary's body, like her soul, had to be sinless and undefiled. The humiliation of the Mother would have been the humiliation of the Son. Silence of Early Centuries The first person known to have asked what happened to Mary's body was St. Epiphanius. He was a 4th century Bishop, close to the scene of events, who had devoted himself seriously to the study of Mary's death. On the occasion of the controversy against the Antidico-marianites, opponents of Mary's virginity, he apparently had no knowledge of even the existence of a tradition concerning the end of Mary's life. In fact, he seemed to be of the opinion as are many mariologists today, that Our Lady did not die. Here are his exact words:
"The Sacred Scriptures do not say that Mary remained in the house of St. John, and the probable reason for the silence of Holy Writ concerning Mary's later life may be found in the fact that her life was so completely heavenly and wonderful that mankind could not possibly have borne the spectacle. Perhaps the Apocalypse (12,13) would show by the woman who was snatched from the dragon, that Mary escaped death. If she did die, her death was kept hidden, that people might not think too carnally about Mary." Origin of Feast From the middle of the 5th century a feast called "Commemoration of the Mother of God" was celebrated on August 15th in a shrine located near Jerusalem. Near the end of the 6th century this became a feast commemorating the end of Mary's sojourn on earth and was called the "Dormition of Our Lady." In the beginning of the 8th century Pope Sergius introduced the feast into Rome together with three other feasts of the Blessed Virgin. From Rome it spread rapidly throughout western Europe. It was Pope Hadrian who, at the end of the 8th century, gave it the name of the "Assumption of St. Mary." The Greek Church became interested in this question long before the Latin Church did. Both Greek and Latin writers, however, readily acknowledged their ignorance of the way in which the Blessed Virgin Mary had left this world.
Development and Definition When Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, it drew attention to the possibility of a dogmatic definition of the Assumption. Both are truths not found explicitly in the Bible. Many began to petition the Apostolic See for its immediate definition. Between 1849 and 1940 more than 2,500 such petitions were received from bishops and superiors of religious orders. These represented 73% of the Catholic hierarchy. On May 1st, 1946, Pope Pius XII sent an Encyclical Letter ("Deiparae Virginis") to all the bishops of the world asking them to make known to him the belief and devotion of themselves, their clergy, and their people regarding the Assumption. 1185 bishops answered that the dogma could safely be defined, and only 16 questioned the advisability of the proclamation at that time. It was therefore a quasi-unanimity. On November 1st of the Holy Year, 1950, the day after the closing of the 8th International Marian Congress, held that year in Rome, Pius XII solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven. This great event took place in the Piazza of St. Peter's in the presence of 40 Cardinals, 500 bishops, thousands of priests, and close to one million lay persons. The exact words of the dogma of faith definition, extracted from the Bull "Munificentissimus Deus," were:
"Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." Just as Mary received Christ on earth, so Christ in turn received Mary in heaven. Having deigned to descend to her, it was fitting that he should raise her to himself in his glory. The place of the Mother of God is in the splendors of eternal glory and not in the gloom of the sepulchre.
"The Virgin, who gave history its impetus, was herself soon detached from it, to become instead an emblem of history's goal." — Jean Guitton • "O Immaculate Virgin, Mother of God and Mother of Men, — we believe with all the fervor of our Faith in your triumphal Assumption, both in body and soul, into heaven where you are acclaimed as Queen of all the choirs of angels and all the legions of the Saints; and we unite with them to praise and bless the Lord Who has exalted you above all other pure creatures, and to offer you the tribute of our devotion and our love." (from the Assumption Prayer of Pope Pius XII)
Prayer of Pope Pius XII
No, that's not the definition of "fact."
How would you define “fact”, TC?
> No, that’s not the definition of “fact.”
Sorry, it actually *is* the definition of “fact”.
See here: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861610193/fact.html
Ergo, if you can’t prove it, it ain’t a “fact”.
*DieHard*
A statement that must be either true or false, even if you can’t identify its truth or falsehood by available means. The alternative to “fact” is “opinion.”
Different sources, different definitions. Cebu.
************
I see, I think.
It was part of elementary school English.
“The sky is blue” is a fact statement. “The sky is green” is a fact statement. “The sky is striped red and purple with gold accents” is a fact statement. Each of these statements is either true or false.
“The Virgin Mary was assumed, body and soul, into Heaven” is a fact statement. It must be either true or false. We simply can’t prove the truth or falsehood of the statement with the available information. “The earth is billions of years old.” “The earth is thousands of years old.” Both are fact statement, although they can’t both be accurate.
“The red and purple sky is beautiful” is an opinion statement.
I see the light. :)
Good - this will be on the test.
LOL!
There’s nothing in a secular dictionary or even a Biblical dictionary that gives the meaning for "pagan" or "heathen" as a catholic.
If you came up with that interpretation that’s your own.
Just as well, my post contained no hatred towards any one let alone catholics.
As I said, my post was not directed to any Catholic or any particular denomination.
My post was directed to YOU, and to YOUR STATEMENTS !!
It seems the pattern of people who get caught making unbiblical statements and have no understanding of what they typed, respond with personal attacks followed by statements of redirection and misdirection.
Once again my post was directed to YOU, and to YOUR STATEMENTS !!
Now to help you keep on topic I will pull together three statements you wrote in post #7 ....
"If there is no proof then it can hardly be called a fact. At very best The Assumption of the Virgin Mary is an article of Faith amongst Catholics."
"So, perhaps for Catholics the Assumption can become an even more powerful thing, as it can only be an Article of Faith and therefore would carry a specific blessing from Christ Himself."
"For non-Catholics, they miss out on nothing by noting that, for them, there is no "substance of things hoped for" with the Assumption, and thus no need for them to have "Faith" in this particular matter. For them it is neither Fact nor Faith, merely a matter of Opinion or at worst a Fable."
Now in your first statement you correctly point out ...
"If there is no proof then it can hardly be called a fact."
In your third statement you also correctly point out that it is...
"merely a matter of Opinion or at worst a Fable."
Yet in your second statement you say it ....
"therefore would carry a specific blessing from Christ Himself."
My question to you is, How could Christ bless something that as you state has no proof, can hardly be called a fact, merely a matter of opinion or at worst a Fable ??
How could you possibly state that it "therefore would carry a specific blessing from Christ Himself."
How do you reconcile all of that?
How could you possibly take it for granted that it "therefore would carry a specific blessing from Christ Himself."
If that isn’t bad enough, you try to take it all back in your post #19 where you wrote ...
"I’m certainly not in a position to "grant" anybody anything so far as Jesus blessing goes."
Now for an "Article of Faith" to be true it must be of sound doctrine - it must be in the scriptures.
If it is not in the scriptures, it is not a sound doctrine - it is a false doctrine.
You agreed with me when I wrote it is not in the scriptures.
Yet you attack me in your post #19 when you wrote ....
"Equally, I’m not about to go calling the Assumption of the Virgin Mary "False Doctrine" ....
Well, let’s see what God says in His scriptures ....
2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Mat 15:9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Notice Jesus stern warning ....
Matthew 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
The blind allowing the blind to lead them is not the only danger.
The greatest danger within the above verse is Jesus saying He will "let them alone" (abandon them).
Therefore, we are to promote sound doctrine, also ward off and hold back the flood of false doctrine.
Including fables which are false doctrine.
Note: All verses are KJV
> Your post is nothing but a rant that is entirely off topic.
Physician, heal thyself!
> As I said, my post was not directed to any Catholic or any particular denomination.
My post was directed to YOU, and to YOUR STATEMENTS !!...
> Yet you attack me in your post #19 when you wrote ....
“Equally, I’m not about to go calling the Assumption of the Virgin Mary “False Doctrine” ....
Calm down, stop ranting, climb off your pulpit and take a valium or three.
If I were interested in being preached at by you, I would join your church. Clearly I haven’t done that because I don’t believe the same as you do, and have no interest in doing so. And no, I do not want one of your tracts, thanks.
And I have no interest in the theosphological remifications of your arguments: I have a Faith, not a Religion.
I have no need to understand how many angels may dance on the head of a pin: you seem to think this sort of discussion is important. I don’t. I find it a bore, actually, and an unprofitable waste of time.
If you have quibbles with the Catholic faith, take it up with the Catholics. If you have difficulty with anything I’ve posted, well, talk to the hand: Hippocleides cares not.
Your time would be better spent knocking on doors and peddling your tracts to someone else.
*DieHard*
Since Jesus words conflict with what’s in your mind, it’s undoubtedly because your understanding came by human wisdom and human philosophy. And worldly wisdom and worldly philosophy.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,
after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Cor 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1 Cor 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1 Cor 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1 Cor 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Rejecting Jesus words can also happen by conforming to the world.
Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Hippocleides ?? I don’t see him in the Bible. Oh wait, I looked him up at Wikipedia. He was a drunk at a Greek party.
In a discussion about Jesus and His words you interject a drunk at a Greek party ??
To do such is to make a mockery of Jesus and His words.
It seems you have lost your mind - your mind of Christ that is.
Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
After I posted Jesus own words, you followed up with attacks and derisive comments.
Well, the comments are meaningless to me, but certainly are rebellious towards Jesus and His words.
You have to take responsibility for whatever you post.
Your pattern is to consistently blame your error on the catholics.
Keep in mind that every time you post you reveal the true nature within.
Your words are a mirror of what’s within your heart.
Anything you write should be to glorify Jesus.
With your reference to a drunk, an urge to study evolution, and having a human philosophy regarding Jesus, your posts are more fitting for the Philosophy Forum rather than the Religion Forum.
You have the persistence of a Jehovah Witness with his foot in the front door, I must admit.
I say again, I have no interest in debating the rights-or-wrongs of the Assumption with you, or whether I am right or wrong in being tolerant of other Faiths such as the Catholics, or my rationale for being so, or to be preached at, thankyou.
I do not want your brand of religion, thanks. I have a Faith which I have pondered for many years and am content with. I encourage you to enjoy your own Faith, and to work these matters out to your own satisfaction: after all, you will need to put your Faith into practise for yourself. As I must do, mine.
You are unfamiliar with Herodotus and Hippocleides: perhaps you need to read wider.
*DieHard*
> KenTone
> Since May 24, 2007
One more thing: Welcome to the Free Republic.
Will you be surprised if you get to heaven and Mary is already there in body?
Will that be fact enough for you.
“Never apologize for the Blessed Virgin Mary!” ~~Mother Angelica
> Will you be surprised if you get to heaven and Mary is already there in body?
I believe we may all be surprised who is accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven, and who is turned away: we are told as much by Our Lord. However, I have no doubts that Mary will be there in body, as will Christ.
> Will that be fact enough for you.
When the time comes, it will, and I hope that I am there to see it.
"I say again, I have no interest in debating the rights-or-wrongs of the Assumption with you,"
You seem to be a very, very confused person.
Not once in any of my previous posts did I ever discuss or ever mention the Assumption.
Show me in any of my posts where I discussed the Assumption with you or anyone else !!
"or my rationale for being so,."
So you’re saying you can make unsubstantiated claims and no one has the right to question you ??
"or to be preached at, thankyou"
Oh you can be assured if you come into the Religion Forum and say that Jesus will bless a false teaching, I or someone else will be giving you Jesus words regarding the matter.
"I do not want your brand of religion"
I don’t have a brand of religion. Jesus dislikes religion.
I'm merely a Christian, a follower of Christ.
"You are unfamiliar with Herodotus and Hippocleides: perhaps you need to read wider."
No thanks. I put my faith in Jesus, the Son of God, and God Himself.
Not into any mere mortal man.
One question for you ....
Is your faith in Hippocleides and Herodotus ??
That’s the second time you’ve mentioned Hippocleides.
Wikipedia says Hippocleides was a drunk who stood on his head at a Greek party.
My goodness.
I think it’s time you define to all of us exactly what your faith or religion is.
I’ll betcha Freepers would be curious as to what it is.
"One more thing: Welcome to the Free Republic."
Thank you !!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.