Posted on 01/18/2015 8:33:58 AM PST by ADSUM
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary CUF
Issue: What does the Church teach concerning the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
Response: The teaching is aptly summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 974:
The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up [“assumed”] body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she already shares in the glory of her Son’s Resurrection, anticipating the resurrection of all members of His Body.
(Excerpt) Read more at cuf.org ...
What do you think the ‘Immaculate Conception” is?
Thanks and I understand your comments.
I feel that it may be helpful to others to see and read about Catholic Church teachings. Even if there are disputes by some. Each individual can examine the logic and reasons for the Church teachings. And it is even possible for the Holy Spirit to inspire those who do not believe.
And it helps me when I do research to better understand the teachings of the Catholic Church. I hope that I am doing a little to spread God’s word and the teachings of the Catholic Church.
I try to post in a factual and positive way, but please advise me if there is a better way.
Who was Jesus’s Mother?
We’ve heard all the arguments for it.
It still isn’t found in Scripture and just because Scripture doesn’t specifically say something didn’t happen doesn’t give anyone license to make it up and pass it off as truth.
There are a lot of things Mormons claim and they can use the same argument.
Does that mean they’re correct as well?
But you can bet that Mary’s body will NEVER be found.
If it is, it would destroy the entire belief about Mary being assumed.
Then they’d have to deal with what to do about their official declaration that she was.
So much for “infallibility”, eh?
Nobody will find her body and if they do, they will meet some unfortunate “accident”.
Because God didn’t tell us it happened.
Just because it maybe could have, doesn’t mean it did and doesn’t give anyone license to make it up and teach it as truth binding on a believer.
>>The key Scripture verse is Genesis 3:15, in which the Lord says that He will put enmity between Satan and the “woman,”<<
Just who was this "woman" that verse is referring to? The "woman" is Eve not Mary. The offspring is Jesus who will crush Satan's head not Mary as the Catholic bible states. Inserting Mary in that verse is fiction and corruption.
>>Therefore, Mary, who shared in her Son’s victory over Satan<<
Not once in all of scripture does it teach of Mary sharing in her Son's victory. To give the glory that belongs to Christ alone is blasphemy.
>>By a special favor granted to her by her Lord and Savior, Mary indeed did triumph over sin in her Immaculate Conception.<<
Once again giving attributes to Mary that belong to Christ alone. Blasphemy!
>> there is Luke 1:28, since her bodily assumption is a natural consequence of her being “full of grace.”<<
The problem is that Luke 1:28 does NOT say that Mary was "full of grace" as has been shown many times in these threads.
>>Already in the sixth century there were liturgical feasts dedicated to Mary’s Assumption.<<
Unbelievable!!! Already in 96AD when John wrote Revelation we see that 86% of the churches included error that Christ said would cause Him to reject them. Invoking age of belief surely is no assurance of correctness of belief.
>>Some maintain that she did not die, because her Immaculate Conception freed her from the effects of original sin, including death. Others maintain that it would have been fitting for her to die, so that she could be fully conformed to Christ her Son. Thus she freely accepted death in order to more fully associate herself with her Son’s redemption<<
They can't even agree on whether they believe she died or not!!!
The entire beliefs of the Catholic Church regarding Mary are established on corruption of scripture, adding to scripture, and created fiction.
The account of Elijah is recorded in scripture. The assumption of Mary is NOT and the apostles did not teach it. Per Paul that makes those who teach the assumption of Mary accursed by God.
You again make blanket statements as your opinion.
Your statement: “It is RCC fiction and an unfounded hope in an unprovable myth...until Christ appears again and sets matters straight.”
You shouldn’t call the teachings of the Catholic Church “fiction” if you can not prove it incorrect. I do think that your statement’s intent is to mislead others. I have not tried to pass judgment on others, only on their misleading statements.
I understand your passion, but I do think your statements are wrong and you respond in general blanket comments without fully addressing the reasoning behind the Catholic Church teachings.
Your comment: “Yes. We know. They had many “heretics and schismatics” murdered. Many. A lot.”
Again you make a blanket statement without any factual support. As I indicated, we will be held accountable to Jesus for our actions or false statements.
A totally made up belief by the Catholic Church. Not once in all of scripture does it say Mary was born sinless. Jesus was the only sinless person to walk this earth. To believe otherwise is to blaspheme Him.
Oh yes.....His Mother was an awful sinner!! I will pray for you all.
One day you may understand that God the Holy Spirit inspires the Catholic Church and that is in the Bible.
Many beliefs of the Catholic Church are fiction and that has been proven many times in these threads. Catholics just take the word of the Catholic Church over what scripture teaches.
Just as all of mankind is other than Jesus.
No, Catholics take Scripture verses for what they actually say versus what you “interpret” them to say. See John chapter 6 as a prime example.
Wrong. The word for "full" is not even there, and your NAB recognizes that and says “Hail, favored one!"
Your argument is based upon the refuted premise that Lk. 1:28 says Mary is full of grace (and uniquely so), but which it simply does not say. Kecharitomene (one form of the verb "charitoo") in Lk. 1:28, is never used for "full" elsewhere, but Lk. 1:28 simply says she was graced, favored, enriched with grace, as in Eph.1:6.
Much more technical here :
And evidently the translators of the official Catholic NAB Bible also render Lk. 1:28 as "Hail, favored one!"
Nor does kecharitomene being a perfect passive participle translate into meaning a "a perfection of grace," or distinctively a past action, in distinction to echaritosen (another form of the verb "charitoo") used in Eph. 1:6, as there also it refers to a present state based upon a past action, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted [echaritosen] in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:6) More at source.
,In contrast, the only one (though Stephen in Acts 6:8, in some mss) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth." (Jn. 1:14) The reason "plērēs" is not used in Lk. 1:28 is because plērēs actually does denote "full" 17 other places in the NT., and thus it is used of the one who was/is unmistakably full of grace and Truth. If Mary was perfectly full of grace as bearing Christ then it would say she was full of grace, but it does not.
And Swan stated ,
I was though pleased recently to hear Roman Catholic Magisterium interpreter Jimmy Akin say of Luke 1:28 on the word kecharitomene: "This is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn't immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense." He then gives the example of using the term of Mary's grandmother. He also stated, "This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together." This is a frank admission that the text does not plainly support the Roman Catholic interpretation and needs to be supplemented by another ultimate authority. In other words, the IC must be read into Luke 1:28.
However, seeking to compel Scripture to support her tradition of men, Lk, 1:28 was wrongly rendered "full of grace" in the DRB, rather than "highly favored" or similar, as in Rome's current official New American Bible, “Hail, favored one!" (http://usccb.org/bible/luke/1) Yet the DRB translates Eph. 1:6 as "in which he hath graced us."
Moreover, while Mary is highly blessed among women, and is to be honored according to what is written, this does not translate in the type of supererogation of praise seen in Catholicism, in which humble holy Mary is made into an almost almighty demigoddess, etc. .
The Assumption is also witnessed by sacred Tradition
Which oral form can consist of variant stories and fables, but based upon her fallacious novel premise of perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, Rome can declare something as binding belief, which does not mean it was believed everywhere and by all, and this one lacks early testimony. But Rome can just claim to remember what she "forgot."
Listen to Ratzinger explain the Assumption, which is lacking in early evidence:
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative...
Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared. This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts…
But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word,” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.
Yes, tradition certainly was conceived to teach this, "remembering" what was is wanted, making it a binding doctrine no less, but to attribute this to the Holy Spirit is blasphemous and makes Rome a false teacher, teaching for doctrines the traditions of men. For which she will suffer.
In contrast is true doctrine ,
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. (2 Peter 1:16)
We have also a more sure word of prophecy...Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation [which does not refer to understanding it, as RCs imagine, but to its writing]. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:20-21)
Book, chapter and verse please.
Just your personal opinion. No proof.
In addition to what i just provided,
The Assumption Of Mary In The Earliest Sources
Many people are aware of the evidence pertaining to the assumption of Mary in the later centuries of the patristic era. They've heard of the apocryphal literature in which the concept first appears, they've heard of Epiphanius' comments about how nobody knows what happened at the end of Mary's life, etc. I'll be addressing that later evidence in a future post, but in this post I want to address the earlier evidence, including some that isn't often discussed.
The conservative Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott, when discussing the concept of Mary's bodily assumption, acknowledged that "Direct and express scriptural proofs are not to be had." (Fundamentals Of Catholic Dogma [Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974], p. 208) Passages like Psalm 132:8 and Revelation 11:19 are sometimes cited in support of the doctrine, but the ark in both passages can reasonably be seen as some entity other than Mary, and neither passage would require a first century bodily assumption of Mary even if we did conclude that the ark is Mary. If Mary is spiritually in Heaven, her presence there wouldn’t prove that she was bodily assumed in the first century. Even if Psalm 132 and Revelation 11 were referring to Mary being bodily in Heaven, how would we know when it occurred? No Evangelical denies that Mary is currently spiritually in Heaven and that she’ll someday have a resurrected physical body. There isn’t any way to arrive at a first century bodily assumption of Mary as a probable conclusion to any passage of scripture.
A group of some of the leading Roman Catholic and Lutheran scholars in the world concluded:
"Furthermore, the notion of Mary's assumption into heaven has left no trace in the literature of the third, much less of the second century. M. Jugie, the foremost authority on this question, concluded in his monumental study: 'The patristic tradition prior to the Council of Nicaea does not furnish us with any witness about the Assumption.'" (Raymond Brown, et al., Mary In The New Testament [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978], p. 266)
People often argue that we would know where Mary's bodily remains are, and that early sources would have claimed more Marian relics, if she had remained in the grave, since she's such an important person. But did the earliest Christians think Mary was as important as some people suggest? David Farmer comments:
"in the early church, as in Christ's ministry, she [Mary] remained so much in the background that it is difficult to know where she lived or even where she died. Both Ephesus and Jerusalem claimed to be the place of her death, with the Eastern Fathers generally supporting Jerusalem." (Oxford Dictionary Of Saints [New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], p. 336)
And the claim that early sources would surely have discussed Mary's grave and relics if she hadn't been bodily assumed is dubious. There are many well known Biblical figures and figures of later church history whose graves and relics aren't discussed much or aren't discussed at all in the earliest sources. Concern over such issues increased over time, as concepts such as the veneration of relics developed into their later forms, but even somebody living as late as John Chrysostom could comment:
"Tell me, are not the bones of Moses himself laid in a strange land? And those of Aaron, of Daniel, of Jeremiah? And as to those of the Apostles we do not know where those of most of them are laid. For of Peter indeed, and Paul, and John, and Thomas, the sepulchers are well known; but those of the rest, being so many, have nowhere become known. Let us not therefore lament at all about this, nor be so little-minded. For where-ever we may be buried, 'the earth is the Lord's and all that therein is.'[Psalm 24:1]" (Homilies On Hebrews, 26:2, v. 22)
It doesn't seem that John Chrysostom thought that every significant figure of Christianity had a known grave site and known relics. It's understandable that people would refrain from making claims about Marian relics in later centuries, when the concept of a bodily assumption began circulating. A bodily assumption would be one possible explanation for a lack of claims about Marian relics, but other explanations are plausible, and the other evidence involved is contrary to the concept of an apostolic tradition of a bodily assumption.
If the early sources were refraining from mentioning Marian relics because they thought she was bodily assumed to Heaven, then why didn't they ever mention that bodily assumption? Wouldn't they be likely to mention such an unusual occurrence, especially if they held as high a view of Mary as the groups arguing for her assumption tend to?
Dionysius of Alexandria, a bishop of the third century, wrote:
"Chaeremon, who was very old, was bishop of the city called Nilus. He fled with his wife to the Arabian mountain and did not return. And though the brethren searched diligently they could not find either them or their bodies." (cited in Eusebius, Church History, 6:42:3)
This passage illustrates some points relevant to an assumption of Mary. First, it's an illustration of the absurdity of the idea that Christians for hundreds of years would have known about a bodily assumption of Mary, yet would never have said anything about it in their extant writings, even when they're commenting on Mary. If both Dionysius and Eusebius thought it significant that this bishop and his wife couldn't be found, that their bodies were missing, don't you think a bodily assumption of Mary would have seemed even more significant to them? Don't you think it would be mentioned sometime in these early centuries?
Secondly, this passage from Dionysius illustrates the absurdity of concluding that a bodily assumption has occurred just because the whereabouts of a person's body aren't known. What if we were to conclude that Mary's remains weren't kept by the early Christians, that her tomb was empty, etc.? Would such evidence, by itself, prove that an assumption occurred? No. It would be consistent with an assumption, but it wouldn't, by itself, prove an assumption.
The church fathers of the earliest centuries repeatedly cite Enoch and Elijah as examples of people who didn’t die, were translated to Heaven, etc. (Clement of Rome, First Clement, 9; Tertullian, A Treatise On The Soul, 50; Tertullian, On The Resurrection Of The Flesh, 58; Tertullian, Against Marcion, 5:12; Methodius, From The Discourse On The Resurrection, 14), yet they never say any such thing about Mary or include her as an example. Irenaeus, for instance, writes about the power of God to deliver people from death, and he cites Enoch, Elijah, and Paul (2 Corinthians 12:2) as illustrations of people who were "assumed" and "translated", but he says nothing of Mary (Against Heresies, 5:5).
People claim to see references to an assumption of Mary in Biblical passages like Revelation 12. Yet, Hippolytus, Methodius, and other early fathers comment on such passages without saying anything of an assumption.
How likely is it that all of these writers, commenting in so many different contexts, would all refrain from mentioning Mary’s assumption, even though they knew of it? Though Roman Catholics give Mary so much attention and claim that Mary is God’s greatest creation, the apocryphal assumption of Moses receives more attention among the ante-Nicene fathers than Mary’s assumption (which isn’t mentioned at all).
You mean verse 63 where He explained that His words were spirit and that He was not talking about the physical flesh?
Perhaps you forgot about the fact that to eat blood would have been a sin. Especially for Jesus and the apostles who were still under the old laws. That would have made Jesus a sinner by eating blood.
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.