Then would you please show us from scripture proof of the bodily assumption of Mary? Maybe you could show us any positive comments from scripture about a “vicar” or “substitute” of Christ.
Cynical Bear: You asked a question so I am going to answer. I have not got into these same debates over and over again with you fundie Protestants but the tone of your statement and question sort of motivated me to jump in again. My post is somewhat long, but believe answers your question and clearly shows that The Catholic Church’s teaching on the Assumption is in line with Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and supported by the teachings of the orthodox Early Church Fathers, who btw, defined the NT canon.
Is there direct statements saying “Mary was assumed into Heaven”? No, is the doctrine contradictory to Sacred Scripture? No. Is it consistent with Sacred Scripture and has as its foundation, a Christological Reference? The answer is absolutlely yes.
With respect to the Assumption,The OT calls Eve the Mother of the Living (Gen 3:20). However, we also know that threw Adam and her sin, death came to all her descendants. In the second century, Church Fathers began to see that the Eve-Mary parallel which suggests that Mary and a role in salvation history in relation to Christ, just has Eve had a role in the fall of the human race in relation to Adam. St. Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho [circa 155 AD] is the first to actually propose the Doctrine of Mary as the New Eve. Fr. Luigi Lamberto in his work Mary and the Fathers of the Church, published by Ignatius Press notes that Justin wanted to show how the Lord had decided to accomplish the salvation of man by following the same procedure by which sin had been committed and caused the downfall of man (p. 47). He points out that the Eve-Mary parallel had its foundation in the Pauline doctrine of Christ as the second Adam (1 Cor 15: 21-22). St. Justin Martyr writes
“The Son of God became man through a Virgin, so that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed in the same way it begun. For Eve, who was virgin and undefiled, gave birth to disobedience and death after listening to the serpent’s words. But the Virgin Mary conceived faith and joy; for what the Angel Gabriel brought her the glad tidings that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, so that the Holy One born of her would be the Son of God, she answered, ‘Let it be done to me according to your word’ (Lk 1:38). Thus was born of her the Child about whom so many Scriptures speak, as we have shown. Through him, God crushed the serpent along with those angels and men who had become like the serpent.” (Dialogue with Trypho 100)
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, the great defender of orthodoxy against the Gnostic Heretics of the 2nd century, further develops the idea of Mary as the New Eve, which again St. Justin Martyr began to develop in 155. Fr. Matero notes that St. Irenaeus first recapitulated salvation history in Christ by appealing back to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans 5: 12, where it states the whole human race fell into sin because of the man Adam, and then it was necessary that God’s son should become man and thus become the foundation of a new humanity. He then provides the following two quotes from Irenaeus, 1) that recapitulates Christ as the new Adam and 2) that recapitulates Mary as the new Eve.
(1) Irenaeus writes “When the Son of God took flesh and became man; he recapitulated in himself the long history of men, procuring for us the reward of salvation, so that in Christ Jesus we might recover what we had lost in Adam, namely, the image and likeness of God. For since it was not possible for man, once wounded and broken by disobedience, to be refashioned and to obtain the victor’s palm, and since it was equally impossible for him to receive salvation, as he had fallen under the power of sin, the Son of God accomplished both of those tasks. He God’s Word, came down from the Father and became flesh; he abased himself even unto death and brought the economy of our salvation to its completion.” (Against Heresies 3, 18)
(2) After recapitulating Christ as the new Adam, Irenaeus writes “Even though Eve had Adam for a husband, she was still a virgin….By disobeying, she became the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race. In the same way, Mary, though she also had a husband, was still a virgin, and by obeying, she became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race…The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience. What Eve bound through her unbelief, Mary loosened by faith.” (Against Heresies 3: 22)
St. Irenaeus further writes and points out that only the Gnostic Heretics ignore God’s economy of salvation, in which Mary had a unique role in playing since she gave birth to Christ, the word made flesh. Irenaeus writes:
“Eve was seduced by the word of the [fallen] angel and transgressed God’ s word, so that she fled from him. In the same way, [Mary] was evangelized by the word of an angel and obeyed God’s word, so that she carried him [within her]. And while the former was seduced into disobeying God, the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve. And just has the human race was bound to death because of a virgin, so it was set free from death by a Virgin, since the disobedience of one virgin was counterbalanced by the Virgin’s obedience.
If then, the first-made man’s sin was mended by the right conduct of the firstborn Son [of God], and if the serpent’s cunning was bested by the simplicity of the dove [Mary], and if the chains that held us bound to death have been broken, then the heretics are fools; they are ignorant of God’s economy, and they are unaware of his economy for [the salvation of’ man.’ (Against Heresies 5: 19)
Finally, St. Irenaeus develops the recapitulation theme to its fulfillment when he writes:
“Adam had to be recapitulated in Christ, so that death might be swallowed up in immortality, and Eve [had to be recapitulated] in Mary, so that the Virgin, having become another virgin’s advocate, might destroy and abolish one virgin’s disobedience by the obedience of another virgin.” (Proof of Apostolic Preaching 33)
In summary, there was a well developed doctrine of Mary’s unique role in salvation history way before the New Testament Canon was settled in the 4th century Church Councils at Hippo and Carthage, 393 and 397, respectively. The second century testimony of two of the greatest orthodox Church Fathers, Justin and Irenaeus support the position that Mary was chosen by God to be the means through which the word became flesh and made his dwelling among us (c.f. John 1:14).
The Catholic Church states “Mary, in whom the Lord Himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the Ark of the Covenant, the place where the Glory of God dwells. She is the “dwelling of God...with men” [CCC #2676].
Now, where did the Catholic Church get this notion of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, looking at the OT through the correct scriptural interpretation perspective of “Typology”, signs and events of the OT prefigure Christ and events in the NT. So, in Exodus 40: 34-35, the Ark is stated to be the dwelling place of God’s presence which prefigures the Angel Gabriel stating that the Holy Spirit would overshadow Mary and her Womb is the the place of the presence of God in the Flesh, i.e. Christ. [Luke 1:35].
Continuing this theological connection, the Ark contained the 10 Commandments, the Manna and Aaron’s rod that came back to life [Duet 10:3-5, Hebrews 9:4] which of course prefigures the Incarnation of Christ, the Word of God in the Flesh, the Bread of Life [See John Chapter 6] and the branch that would come back to life [Resurrection of Christ] [c.f. Luke 1:35]
The connection between the Ark travelling to the coountry of Jodah [2 Samuel 6:1-11] and Mark traveling to Hill Country of Juda to see Elizabeth [Luke 1:39], King David jumped for Joy when the Ark arrived [2 Samuel 6:1-11] prefigures John the Baptist leaping in the womb of Elizabeth [Luke 1:43] when Mary carrying Christ in her womb appeared, David shouts for Joy in the presence of the Ark, Elizabeth does the same [cf. 2 Sam 6:15; Luke 1:42], David asks how is it the Ark should come to me, Elizabeth asks a similar question “Why is it that the Mother of my Lord Should come to me? [cf 2 Sam 6:9, Luke 1:43], the Ark remains with David for three months, Mary with Elizabeth for 3 months [2 Sam 6:11; Luke 1:56]
Psalm 132:8 states “Arise Lord, come to your resting place, you and your majestic Ark” and Revelation 11:9 indicates that John sees the Ark in Heaven, which of course follows into Revelation 12 which speaks of a Woman in Heaven”
Now, there a consensus among the Early Church Fathers that clearly interpreted Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, consistent with the CCC statement above which is consistent with the Assumption of Mary. I have attached the links which cleary show Mary as the Ark and thus her Assumption into Mary, rather than contradicting Sacred Scripture, is entirely consistent with it.
In what way is the Assumption inconsistent with Scripture? Elijah apparently was so assumed, as was Enoch, and perhaps Moses. Burial sites were important even to the Jews, and no place has ever claimed to have the grave of Mary. That even though she was already very important to the early Church as the Virgin Mother of Jesus.
I said that Catholics derive their teaching from Scripture, not only from Scripture. The fact that there are some teachings that flow from an Apostolic Tradition outside of Scripture does not negate the fact that the great majority of Catholic teaching is derived from Scripture. Some here often imply that Catholic teaching has no connection with Scripture when what we are really disputing it the interpretation of Scripture.
Maybe you could show us any positive comments from scripture about a “vicar” or “substitute” of Christ.
"Substitute" of Christ is a clever but misleading translation of Vicarius Christi. No Catholic believes that the pope is a substitute for Christ. Vicarius (vicar) is the office of a subordinate who exercises the authority in behalf and in the name of his superior. As to the Scriptural basis for the office of the Vicar of Christ:
Jesus said to [Simon Peter] in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”The mention of the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" is a reference to Isaiah:
(Matt 16:17-19)
Thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts: Up, go to that official, Shebna, master of the palace, “What have you here? Whom have you here, that you have hewn for yourself a tomb here, Hewing a tomb on high, carving a resting place in the rock?” The LORD shall hurl you down headlong, mortal man! He shall grip you firmly, And roll you up and toss you like a ball into a broad land. There you will die, there with the chariots you glory in, you disgrace to your master’s house! I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station.The keys are the symbol of the office of Master of the Palace, i.e. the one who exercises the royal authority on behalf and in the name of the king. The name we give to this office is not important. It could be translated by various terms: prime minister, chancellor, vizier, delegate, viceroy, etc. It ancient Rome the equivalent term was vicarius (vicar). Thus the Petrine office of Vicar of Christ is indeed found in Scripture.On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, gird him with your sash, confer on him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; what he opens, no one will shut, what he shuts, no one will open. I will fix him as a peg in a firm place, a seat of honor for his ancestral house; On him shall hang all the glory of his ancestral house: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.
(Isaiah 22:15-24)
Now I do not want to be sidetracked by discussion of whether this is the correct interpretation of Scripture. I would like to keep the discussion limited to the topic of this thread: Church infallibility. I am sure that you would take exception to this interpretation of Scripture but note that we would be debating the interpretation of Scripture not whether one is following Scripture versus anti-Scriptural human traditions. You can argue that Catholics are wrong in their understanding but it must be admitted that Catholics honestly believe that the concept of the pope as the Vicar of Christ is derived from Scripture.