Where was *Mary* assumed to? (Heaven is not a *Place*)

http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/08/where-was-mary-assumed-to.html ^ | August 15th, 2010

[TaraP]

The Assumption is not a metaphor...

We must be very clear on this point: The Assumption is not a metaphor. The Blessed Virgin Mary was really taken up, her physical body was transformed. Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus (1950) declared that Mary, “after the completion of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.” Both BODY and SOUL!

This means that her physical body was transformed and glorified (in a manner identical to Christ’s after his Resurrection), her soul was perfected with the Beatific Vision, and she was taken up.

Is heaven a place? In the General Audience of 21 July 1999, Pope John Paul II stated that heaven “is neither an abstraction nor a physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with the Holy Trinity.”

In this statement, as (almost) always, the great Holy Father was in perfect accord with St. Thomas Aquinas – “Incorporeal things are not in place after a manner known and familiar to us, in which way we say that bodies are properly in place; but they are in place after a manner befitting spiritual substances, a manner that cannot be fully manifest to us”.

What John Paul II wished to stress, and what is especially important to consider today, is that heaven is not to be understood in terrestrial terms.

Heaven is primarily a state of being and is certainly not a ‘place’ in the worldly sense of the term. Nevertheless, we come to a difficulty when we ask:

Where did Mary’s (and Christ’s) body go?

The simplest answer is: Heaven! But then we wonder: If heaven isn’t a place in the ordinary sense of the word, how could there be real human bodies present there?

The words of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (who taught John Paul II and oversaw his doctoral work) are most helpful: “Heaven means this place, and especially this condition, of supreme beatitude. Had God created no bodies, but only pure spirits, heaven would not need to be a place; it would signify merely the state of the angels who rejoice in the possession of God.

But in fact heaven is also a place. There we find the humanity of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the angels, and the souls of the saints. Though we cannot say with certitude where this place is to be found, or what its relation is to the whole universe, revelation does not allow us to doubt of its existence.”

Now do not think that John Paul II had contradicted his teacher when he said that heaven is not a physical place in the clouds! Garrigou-Lagrange and the great Pontiff are both getting at the same point: Heaven is first and foremost union with God; secondarily, heaven is the place where the bodies of Jesus and Mary abide, but this ‘place’ is not like every other place we think of – its relation to our universe is not clear.

Glorified bodies are very different than non-glorified bodies (though they are essentially the same). A glorified body does not move and take up space in exactly the same way as a non-glorified body does. Still, the glorified bodies of Jesus and Mary are somewhere, but this ‘somewhere’ will necessarily be a ‘place’ which is ‘glorified’ – just as the glorified body is different from non-glorified body, it resides in a ‘glorified place’ which is different from a non-glorified physical place.

Where is heaven? The simple answer is: This has not yet been revealed to us. However, we can say that it is certainly not on earth. Neither is it within the earth. It is not in clouds either. Heaven may be somewhere in our universe, far off – though we must be careful not to fall back into our terrestrial categories of space, distance, and location.

Perhaps it is most likely that heaven is outside the universe in what some Thomists have called “uncontained place”. In ST III, q.57, a.4, ad 2 (which is not in the oldest and best manuscripts) we read: “A place implies the notion of containing; hence the first container has the formality of first place, and such is the first heaven. Therefore, bodies need themselves to be in a place, insofar as they are contained by a heavenly body. But glorified bodies, Christ’s especially, do not stand in need of being so contained, because they draw nothing from the heavenly bodies, but from God through the soul.

So there is nothing to prevent Christ’s body from being beyond the containing radius of the heavenly bodies, and not in a containing place. Nor is there need for a vacuum to exist outside heaven, since there is no place there, nor is there any potentiality susceptive of a body, but the potentiality of reaching thither lies in Christ.”

This argument from the Summa claims that, because the glorified body in no way relies upon the non-glorified world, neither does it need to be contained in the universe. Thus, the bodies of Jesus and Mary may in fact be outside of the universe, outside of space and time, no longer contained by place. There is no space or place outside of the universe, but this is where the bodies of Christ and Mary are; since they need not be contained by physical place.

Therefore, it seems most likely that heaven is outside of our universe. It is not a ‘place’ as we usually think of ‘place’, but is a ‘non-containing place’, a ‘glorified place’. The glorified physical bodies of Jesus and Mary reside there

[fightingirishthomas]

Without Biblical evidence there can be only one conclusion ... Mariology is false doctrine propogated by false teachers whose purpose is to mystify Christian soteriology into another gospel.

The first significant scripture about Mary, Luke 1:28, in the traditional translation “Hail Mary full of grace,” echoes John 1:14, “full of grace and truth.” Only Jesus was God or “Truth” but Mary was also “full of Grace,” sinless. And does not Luke 1:45-55 indicate something special, Mary being completely humble, yet stating that because “the Almighty has done great things for me,” that “all generations will call me blessed.” Of course, many Protestants go against scripture by calling her things far less than “blessed,” but it is there in scripture.

Mary was with Christ at his first miracle Cana, and at the foot of the Cross when He told John, ”behold your mother,” and Mary, “behold your Son,” giving her a significant place in the early Church indeed. Mary IS in Revelation, “The woman clothed with the sun.” Rev. 12:1 has always been identified with Mary until the Protestant reformation and many of the original reformers still agreed this passage referred to Mary. Mary wasn’t necessarily assumed into heaven before Paul died (so it wouldn’t have made it in the early New Testament books). But tradition has always held it to be true. As St. John said, “if everything Jesus did [let alone Mary or the Apostles] had said or done was written down, the whole world would not have room for the books (John 21:25). On the one hand you argue Sola Scriptura about Mary (when every denomination has rituals NOT recorded in the Bible) and on the other you ignore the extremely significant things (or their traditional interpretations) written in the Bible about this holy and humble woman, a woman who stayed in the background but helped Jesus every step of the way by nurturing, prayer, or just having the courage (example: at the foot of the cross) to be there.

[Kolokotronis]

“However this doctrine did not become an article of faith until recent times, when Pope Pius XII declared it a dogma of the Catholic faith....”

Further nonsense. For reasons best known to Pius XII, he dogmatized the belief in 1950. It has been held as a “theologoumenon” and celebrated as a feast in the East since the 5th century. In the East it has been called the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos, in the West the Assumption. Orthodox Christians couldn’t possibly care less what the Pope of Rome did in 1950. We have been celebrating this feast and proclaiming this belief for 1500 years. In the West it is over 1000 years old. When Pius XII declared the assumption dogma in 1950, he didn’t change the ancient belief, he just made it an excommunication offense for Latins if they didn’t believe it.

Just a tip, when you are dealing with ancient Traditions of The Church which are Eastern in origin, try to find an Orthodox source. Latin sources are often wrong and almost always confusing unless you understand the terminology they use.

[Persevero]

“And you know this to be true for sure on what basis? Does the Bible say “no exceptions, not even Jesus’ Mother”?”

No, it just says all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. It lists no exceptions. So I think it means that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

[Persevero]

“Exactly when did Jesus authorize you to interpret his Holy Word authoritatively and to tell his authorized interpreters they are wrong?”

He has not named me or anyone else. He had his Word written down for us to read. He commends the Bereans for searching the Scriptures to see if certain claims are so.

“All have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” is not a hard sentence to understand and really doesn’t require some special authorized interpreter.

It doesn’t say “some” have sinned or “most” have sinned or “all but Mary” have sinned, it says “all,” which is an easily understandable concept.

[Persevero]

“Yes but Elijah was not sinless as well and he ascended.”

Absolutely agreed. One does not need to be sinless to ascend, obviously. We have the examples of both Elijah and Enoch.

Mary is not listed as having ascended, however.

You can convince me easily that Elijah and Enoch ascended. You can’t convince me that Mary did.

[Raider Sam]

Your tagline prayer does not make sense. You are praying to Mary, and with the commas, you state that Mary was conceived without sin. Whats up with that?

[Scythian]

Look, this is all for not, you could easier convert a muslim than pry a catholic away from his superstition. Mary is not important to your salvation.

[TaraP]

This is my only questions about *mary* the Mother of GOD.

Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, now that would of changed her body chemistry and DNA. If her body was now a house for the Divine and the Flesh what would that mean, about her as she would age?

Did her body return to a human flesh *state* without the Divine? Or was her body still Divine as giving birth to the Flesh and the Spirit of GOD?

[Grizzled Bear]

I cannot find a clear picture in scripture of where Mary went....If Elijah and Enoch were taken in there (Body) maybe we are to assume Mary was as well...

There's no scripture described Mary as ascended into heaven, yet Catholics "assume" she ascended. One reason given for this belief is no one knows where her body is buried. Therefore, by the same logic, we should assume Jimmy Hoffa was taken bodily to heaven.

[Persevero]

I don’t think being impregnated by the Holy Spirit would change Mary’s body chemistry or DNA.

I do believe it would have an effect on the newly conceived Jesus, who, as we both confess, is indeed both God and man.

[0beron]

“You realize how stupid you sound, right?”

Ic....

[TaraP]

She had to be impregnated other than the seed of a MAN which her body would have had to adhere to....

[TaraP]

I don’t know what happened to her, after the Death and resurrcetion of Jesus, as the Bible does not tell us.

I will say when Jesus was on earth, after the resurrection before he ascended to heaven, he would of had to go through some chemical changes that we as human beings cannot and do not understand. Jesus has a physical ascension and he also had a Physical body before he ascended to the *Father*

Did that happen to Mary by Jesus commmand? I just don’t think we can know, at least not now.

[smvoice]

Exactly. My question to Catholics is simply, which heaven is Mary in right now? If she is, as you believe, seated next to Christ, then she is in the third heaven. Does she travel back and forth between the third heaven and the first heaven, the area that we on earth see? Because that's where the "visions" of Mary occur. She is either traveling back and forth or she is in the earth's first heaven..

Of course, we all know, according to Ephesians 2:2, that SATAN is the prince of the power of the air, which does NOT bode well for Mary also being part of this first heaven...

You cannot have it both ways. Either she is in the third heaven, and what you are seeing in the air above is a manifestation of Satan, or she is in the first heaven, Satan's domain...

[panzerkamphwageneinz]

Catholics routinely preach prayer to saints, and other mortals.

They may call it intercession, but there is but one intercessor.

This is where Catholic doctrine hits the brick wall.

Jesus is the only intercessor for our sins.

Vast expanses of Catholic doctrine flies in the face of scripture and God’s kingdom.

[Houghton M.]

The scriptures the Bereans were searching were the OT scriptures. That's all that existed for Christians then. I'm glad to know that you limit yourself to the OT for your doctrine.

If "all have sinned" is so clear, why did YOU feel the need to add a human gloss to it saying that it has no exceptions?

Seems to me that you yourself realize that the three words "all have sinned" by themselves could admit of an exception or ten or maybe fifteen or they might admit of no exceptions.

But the three words themselves by themselves are not clear with regard to exceptions. Period. They are not clear. They would be clear if they were five words instead of three. "All have sinned, no exceptions." Or maybe six words, "All have sinned, absolutely no exceptions."

But Jesus forgot to tell St. Paul to add those two words. Silly Jesus. He let Paul leave it at three words and now you feel a need to clarify by adding, by yourself, before anyone even raised it on this thread, "no exceptions."

Well, brother, if you can add a clarifying gloss, so can someone else. Like a lot of bishops and teachers of the Church for centuries. Of course they might all be wrong in their clarifying gloss and you might be right. On the other hand, they might have been authorized by Christ as successors to the Apostles he singlehandedly as note IN SCRIPTURE chose by name to add this gloss. Either way, it's your gloss against their gloss.

But who are you and who sez your gloss is right and the other guy's gloss is wrong?

One thing's darn CLEAR: the three words are not clear in and of themselves or you would not have felt the need to clarify them yourself.

Gloss away, my friend. Gloss away. Just don't tell me the passage is clear and then tell me that it has to have your clarifying gloss. Man up. Own up to the fact that you added to Scripture here. Little old you, you added to Scripture. "No exceptions" is not found in the original Greek nor in the KJV not, even in Pastor Billy Bob from the Church down the Road's Bible, though I suspect you may have learned it from Pastor Billy Bob's lips--but if so, then it's his gloss. It's not in Pastor Billy Bob's Bible, that much is for sartin.

[Kolokotronis]

“Look, this is all for not, you could easier convert a muslim than pry a catholic away from his superstition. Mary is not important to your salvation.”

I am not “a catholic” as that term is defined on the FR religion board. I am an Orthodox Christian. I have no interest in prying “catholics”, Latin or otherwise, away from any belief. I do have an interest in correcting misstatements, like yours, about the beliefs of The Church.

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

Hey give me a hand!

I am trying to find in the bible where it says ‘the bible alone’ and where the official list of the books to be included and the history of the canon in the bible.

Thanks!

[TaraP]

I believe the *Third Heaven* is Paradise.

I think Jesus went to Paradise before he ascended to the Father.