Posted on 10/02/2008 9:37:15 AM PDT by Gamecock
Today's offering:
Assumption of Mary
The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was assumed bodily into heaven either shortly before her death or shortly after. The Catholics do not dogmatize when Mary was assumed but the Orthodox believe that the assumption took place three days after her death. Although this doctrine finds no biblical support and little support in early Church history, it was dogmatically and infallibly declared to be true by Pope Pius XII on 1 November 1950 in the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus.
Read the official pronouncement
Read a refutation of the Assumption by William Webster
TWOTD Ping List Ping
The TWOTD Ping list is published daily, except weekends. If you would like on or off of the TWOTD Ping List please FReepmail me.
“Assumption” is definitely the right word!
Dude! That sounds rash. Didn't you read the proclamation? It's clearly states that you're forbidden to oppose or counter the Assumption of Marry.
Oh well, I guess you'll be smitten now because it also clearly states that you "will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
That'll teach you not to post before reading the entire article.
That isn't correct. The Catholic teachings on Mary are based on the Bible, it's just that the Biblical references are somewhat veiled, as is proper in dealing with women generally and with the Queen of Heaven in particular.
In brief, we Christians look to the OT for things that foreshadowed the reality in the NT. For example, Adam foreshadowed Christ. Most relevantly to Marian dogma, Christ was foreshadowed by (1) manna, (2) the priesthood of Aaron, and (3) the Law.
These three things were contained in the ark of the covenant:
Hebrews 9:4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.
Thus, since (1) manna, Aaron's rod, and the tablets of the covenant foreshadowed Jesus, (2) these things were all contained in the ark of the covenant, and (3) Jesus was contained in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:44), then it would seem reasonable to hypothesize that Mary was foreshadowed in the OT by the ark of the covenant.
In testing this rather natural hypothesis, Biblical scholars often point to the parallels between 2 Samuel 6 (where King David dances before the ark of the covenant) and Luke Chapter 1 (where, for example, John the Baptist leaps in Mary's womb). Much has been written about this that we can go into if you're interested.
Perhaps the most direct Biblical proof that Mary is the NT embodiment of the ark of the covenant is contained in Revelation, beginning at Revelation 11:19:
And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. 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: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
I personally think it's rather clearly the case that the Mary is the NT embodiment of the OT ark of the covenant, but it's pointless to argue it since, as I said, this is a very subtle revelation as is befitting the dignity of women in general and the Queen of the Universe in particular.
Anyway, how does all of this relate to the Scriptural basis for the Catholic doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary? It's contained in Psalms in a passage that is usually seen by Christians as prophesying the Ascenion of Jesus:
Psalm 132:8 Arise, O LORD, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy strength.
Catholics believe that this passage foretold His glorious Ascenion, but also that he would not leave the sacred womb that contained Him, just as the ark contained those things that foreshadowed him, to Earthly corruption. He, therefore, assumed His holy, living Ark into Heaven with Him.
It seems at least like a plausible argument to me. My Protestant brothers and sisters may not believe it, but surely there is enough of a Scriptural foundation for the Dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary that we can agree to disagree about it while continuing to recognize each other as Christians.
While they're scratching their heads at that one, I beat a path out of there quickly!
Assumed after her death...orthodox...I didn’t know that.
Interesting.
Kolo, what differences does it make for you to believe in a post-death assumption of Mary?
An intersting side note, the Assumption Parish line is few miles north east of St. Mary Parish in Louisiana.
Why wouldn't someone reading this simply understand it to be speaking of, well, the ARK itself, meaning the ark of the testimony in the tabernacle/temple? Especially given all the corroborating New Testament theology surrounding Jesus as High Priest in heaven, who continually intercedes for His saints by sprinkling His blood upon the mercyseat (which was between the cherubim on the (ta da!) ark?
This verse is an OT prediction of Jesus' return to heaven, AND that of the ark of the testimony (without the disappearance of which, the Indiana Jones franchise would never have gotten anywhere).
(j/k of course)
Completely made up out of whole cloth by the early church. A medieval fantasy. No evidence for it whatsoever. As attractive as the Catholic Church is to me, at times, this is why I remain a Protestant.
Revelation chapter 12.
And Revelation Chapter 12 is not talking about Mary. It is a metaphor for Israel ("the woman clothed with the Sun"). That's what the 12 stars are over her head (the twelve tribes), and Israel brought forth the Messiah.
Don't you think if Mary were assumed bodily in to heaven one of the disciples, or John (whom she was living with in Ephesus) might have thought to jot that down? But the entire "tradition" is late, and comes from the medieval period and it has nothing to do with the early church.
I know. 'cept I'm not a Prod.
What's good enough for other folks aint good enough for me, 'cause I'm RC...
“Kolo, what differences does it make for you to believe in a post-death assumption of Mary?”
Absolutely no difference. The Assumption is not Orthodox dogma; it is a theologoumennon, a pious belief which is in no way mandatory. Personally, I believe she was assumed into heaven after she died but that’s because that’s what the Tradition says. Orthodoxy commemorates the “Dormition (Falling Asleep or Dying)of the Theotokos”, not the Assumption per se. Its the Latins, Padre, who felt compelled, for reasons best known to Pope Pius XII, to declare her assumption a dogma of the Roman Church. The Latins have declared a number of innovative and seemingly unnecessary dogmas since they broke with the rest of The Church in the 11th century, but that of course is another topic.
But the question posed by this thread is whether there is any Biblical basis for Catholic and Orthodox Marian theology, and the point I'm trying to make is that we on the more traditional side of things base Marian dogma on this reading of the Scriptures.
My Protetant brothers and sisters might not agree with the exegesis, my only point is that Marian dogma is in fact based on an interpretation - a rather elegant one, IMHO - of Scripture.
In other words, it simply isn't the case that Marian dogma is based on some un-Apostolic "tradition of men" or on the raw legislative claims of the Popes, it is rather based on a reading of the Scriptures from which all else flows.
To repeat, Christians generally look for OT things that foreshadowed the things that were revealed in the NT. The Israel of the OT wasn't just Israel, it rather foreshadowed the Church, for example. Adam wasn't just the first man, who also foreshadowed Christ, the New Man. Manna wasn't just bread from Heaven, it foreshadowed the Christ in the Sacrament. And so forth.
It seems clear to me that in the same way the Ark foreshadowed Mary, and it follows that OT prophecy such as Psalm 38 refer to Mary when they refer to the Ark. This seems clear to me to be at least one sound way to view the Woman in Revelation 11-12, and the references to the physical transport of the Ark to Heaven in Psalm 38.
I am so glad to know this about orthodoxy.
It gives me hope.
“It gives me hope.”
?????????????????????
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
??????????????
Because they didn't feel obliged to drink the kool-aid. Because Paul's efforts in Greece didn't pass away. Because there's no need to battle over an unbiblical teaching. Because I have always LIKED orthodoxy.
Do you want more? :>)
“Do you want more? :>)”
No, thank-you, Padre. As an aside, it has always fascinated, and frankly puzzeled, me why the West dogmatized so much. Certain truths needed to be proclaimed because the Faith was being challenged by widespread heresies and the 7 great Ecumenical Councils of the One Church dealt with those matters. There are, as you doubtless know, Padre, hundreds and hundreds of disciplinary canons enacted over the centuries by local councils. Some are valid today, many are not. They were declared to deal with specific problems of a specific time. Even then there were few if any attempts to provide a basis for those canons in either Holy Tradition or its child the Scripture. There certainly was no attempt to declare that they were rules binding on the whole Church. The West has been somewhat different in that regard, insisting that many of its counciliar declarations are binding on the whole Church and certainly that its dogmas, whether the product of one of its councils or mind of a Pope, apply everywhere and to all churches. This is not to say that the spiritual descendants of the reformers, either institutionally or individually, are not, in Orthodox eyes, equally if not more so, prone to a sort of dogmatic absolutism which is all the more strange to us since it tends to be so individualistic.
But...well no, we never did drink Rome’s green kool-aid, though may our Triune God forever bless the Church of Rome for being the bulwark of Orthodoxy for at least the first 800 years of the history of The Church. Without that very Orthodox Rome, I doubt we’d be Christians at all today.
The doctrine of Mary's entrance into heaven, body and soul. As defined by Pope Pius XII in 1950, the dogma declares that "Mary, the immaculate perpetually Virgin Mother of God, after the completion of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."
While there is no direct evidence of the Assumption in the Bible, implicitly the Church argues from Mary's fullness of grace (Luke 1:28). since she was full of grace, she remained preserved from the consequence of sin, namely corruption of the body after death and postponement of bodily happiness in heaven until the last day.
The Church dos not rely on the Scriptures for belief in Mary's Assumption. The doctrine is rather part of the oral tradition, handed down over the centuries. It was therefore certainly revealed because, in reply to the questions, the Catholic bishops of the world all but unanimously expressed the belief that this was part of the divine revelations. In explaining the grounds for the Church's belief, Pius XII singled out the fact that Mary was the Mother of God; as the body of Christ originated from the body of Mary (caro Jesu est caro Mariae); that her body was preserved unimpaired in virginal integrity, and therefore it was fitting that it should not be subject to destruction after death; and that since Mary so closely shared in Christ's redemptive mission on earth, she deserved to join him also in bodily glorification.
"Never apologize for the Blessed Virgin Mary!"
~~Mother Angelica
Not made up by the early Church. Remember that the Blessed Virgin Mary lived long after the death of Jesus on the Cross. Whether it was in Epesus or in Jerusalem, John was with her, as Christ asked him to be her son, and Mary our Mother as well as John’s mother.
So John definitely knew what happened. And he told others. No making up stories at all, but oral tradition passed down from person to person.
bump
The Early Church Fathers on the Assumption [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A BELIEF SINCE APOSTOLIC TIMES [Ecumenical]
August 15, Feast of the Assumption - Did Mary's Assumption Really Occur? [Ecumenical]
Assumption Sermon of Rev James Bartoloma 8/16/07 (on Summorum Pontificum)
Angelus - Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (2007)
In Charm City, 100K Have Seen the Light
Mary’s Assumption is hope for today’s society, says Pope
Meditations for this Feast Day of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
HOMILIES PREACHED BY FATHER ALTIER ON THE FEAST OF THE ASSUMPTION
Why Catholics Believe in the Assumption of Mary
St. John Damascene: Homily 3 on the Assumption/Dormition
St. John Damascene: Homily II on the Assumption/Dormition
St. John Damascene: Homily I on the Assumption/Dormition
Catholic Caucus: The Assumption of Mary - Marcellino D'Ambrosio, PhD
Today's the Feast of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven
Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, August 15th.
Maronite Catholic: Qolo (Hymn) of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
St. Gregory Palamas: On the Dormition of Our Supremely Pure Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary
Maronite Catholic: Qolo (Hymn) of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Catholic Caucus: A NOVENA OF FASTING AND PRAYERS/ASSUMPTION/DORMITION
St. Gregory Palamas: On the Dormition of Our Supremely Pure Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary
Archbishop Sheen Today! -- The glorious assumption
The Assumption Of The Blessed Virgin Mary Reflections For The Feast 2003
A Homily on the Dormition of Our Supremely Pure Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary
The dogma that Mary was the NT embodiment of the Ark is nothing new. Indeed, St. John makes the point explicity in Revelation 12, as alluded to above. That's right, and what's more is that St. Luke (according to Tradition) interviewed Mary herself while she lived with John. Mary is thus a direct source of the Gospel of Luke. Where else would Luke have gotten the beautiful Christmas story, or all the wonderful details about the pregnant Mary's visit to Elizabeth? For this reason St. Luke is sometimes referred to as the "iconographer of Mary."
Latin, assumere: “to life up” or sometimes translated “to take to oneself.” Catholic teaching does not specify whether the Mother of God physically died and then was taken to Heaven, or whether the Assumption occurred while she was still living. It’s not required to believe either way, just in the fact of the Assumption, which was confirmed by faith centuries before it was declared dogma. The tradition of belief in the Blessed Mother’s assumption can be traced to the fifth century, long before the middle ages. Mary was conceived without original sin, how could her body corrupt? What is so hard for a Christian to believe about the Assumption? Do you not believe Jesus was conceived in Mary’s virginal womb by the Holy Spirit? Do you not believe in Christ’s resurrection? Would it even make sense for the Mother of God, the only pure woman in the history of the world, to be left decaying in the earth rather than join her son, physically with the body that bore Him, as well as spiritually?
I did not know that (and you've boosted my vocabulary--yet again). Interesting.
You may also find it interesting that I, personally, have never met an Orthodox Christian who doesn't believe in the Assumption. It seems to me odd that a Christian wouldn't believe it, but I also think its odd (and more than a little sad) that the Pope felt compelled to dogmatize it!
When a belief in the Universal Church becomes Universal doesn’t it become de facto dogma?
I can appreciate the observations and the distinction. ‘Tis true.
“When a belief in the Universal Church becomes Universal doesn’t it become de facto dogma?”
Not at all; indeed I would think that dogmatizing everything we in The Church universally agree on would be a prescription for ecclesiastical disaster. Think for a moment on the implications for theosis of The People of God of a dogma as opposed to, say, theologoumenna. There may well be times when the force of a heresy’s onslaught requires that The Church declare The Truth on a specific subject finally, completely, absolutely and infallibly. I suggest, however, that that should be a last resort for Christians.
I have never understood why Protestants seem to take such joy in bashing Christ’s mother.
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.