Posted on 08/21/2015 6:36:53 AM PDT by NYer
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I will keep this very brief, with the help of my column this month, at The Catholic Answer:
For most of my life, the assumption of Mary existed as little more, for me, than a head-scratcher of a dogma.
I understood that Elijah and Enoch had been assumed into heaven, so if I considered Mary’s assumption at all, it was simply to shrug it off: “Mary was assumed into heaven. Sure, why not?” The whys and wherefores of the matter were so far above my paygrade that they didn’t seem worth pondering.
All of that changed for me when I took a class in anatomy and physiology. As marvelous as it was to learn about how “wonderfully and fearfully” we are made — what with blood cells forming and fading, and bones and tissue becoming oxygenated and cleansed via blood and breath — nothing presented in the class coaxed an audible reaction from me until we studied the process of microchimerism. As soon as the professor introduced the process, my Catholic bell was rung: “But that completely explains the Assumption!” I said aloud in the midst of my startled classmates. The professor stared at me for a moment with a puzzled expression and said, “Oka-a-ay, anyway, the thing about microchimerism…”
The thing about microchimerism is that it so profoundly explains and justifies our dogma that it should be included in our Mariological catechesis, where people can both appreciate a demonstration of how science and religion can complement and complete each other, and marvel in awestruck wonder that our Church had reasoned out this reality long ago and without the aid of microscopes. In the simplest of terms, microchimerism is the process by which a smattering of cells live within a host body but are completely distinct from it. In human fetomaternal microchimerism (or “fetal cell microchimerism”), every child leaves within his mother a microscopic bit of himself — every pregnancy, brought to delivery or not, leaves a small amount of its own cells within the body of the mother — and those cells remain within her forever.
As the only practicing Catholic in the classroom mentioned above, can you blame me for my gratified outburst? Microchimerism explained for me the very whys and wherefores of a dogma that had previously seemed like little more than piety on a sentimental rampage, leaving me too cowed to care. Suddenly, it all made sense: A small amount of Christ Jesus’ cells remained within Mary, for the whole of her life. Where we Catholics have a limited experience of Christ’s flesh commingling within our own upon reception of the holy Eucharist, Mary was a true tabernacle within which the Divinity did continually reside.
In the Book of Psalms we read about how the Holy One will not undergo corruption (see 16:10). Christ’s divine body did not undergo corruption. It follows that His mother’s body, containing cellular traces of the Divinity (and a particle of God is God, entire) could not be permitted to decay, either. The science makes the theology accessible, because, suddenly, there is no need for guessing: at her Dormition, Our Lady’s body, holding Christ within it, could not remain on earth; of course, it would have to join itself to Christ in the heavenly dimension.
You can read the rest, here. Also check out Max Lindenman and Dave Armstrong for precisely the sort of “different perspectives” on this Dogma, as well as Tom Zampino, who writes on the Assumption while celebrating his first year at Patheos.
Catholic ping!
Microchimerism does not so much mark an argument in favor of the Assumption as it does the fact that we altogether are members of His Body, the Church, namely those who believe and are baptized, catechized, and participate in the Eucharist. We are partakers, as is Mary, of that perfection given from Above to make atonement of sin and be raised up incorruptible.
“. . . [W]e are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.”
I would prefer to have some clear word of Sacred Scripture if I were to confess the Assumption, but I am not inclined to begrudge those to whom this teaching brings comfort.
Plus if she had been buried. We’d know exactly where! But cool article. Thanks for posting. I love logic!
In case anyone misses it: Science here does not provide direct evidence that the Assumption DID happen, but that it HAD to happen.
I never understood Protestant argument which to me sound like pure bibliolatry. All Protestant arguments against Catholic dogma rely on the formula - it’s not (expressly) in the Bible + an irrelevant quote from the Bible + an explanation that is not found in the bible. Makes no sense. As I have told many Protestants, the Bible is not God.
It is not so much a matter of turning the biblical texts into an idol as it is having a firm standard from which to draw and judge teaching in the Church. I suppose there is a stricter sense in which some people are reticent to accept the wider scope of teaching and tradition within the Church. I do not find the Assumption to be entirely beyond the analogy of Faith, but it would be foolish to insist that every believer confess it.
Respectful and thought out answer. I have the same need for a firm source and for me it’s the Church not a parchment.
This is a fascinating topic. Question for theologians....does the divinity of Christ inhere in those cells that are separated from his integral body?
I suppose if the Eucharist does, chimerical cells would too, but I can’t wrap my brain around it.
“It is not so much a matter of turning the biblical texts into an idol as it is having a firm standard from which to draw and judge teaching in the Church.”
Okay, let’s test that. The Church teaches that the Gospel of Matthew was inspired by God. Where in the Bible do you see that said about Matthew’s gospel?
The establishment of the canon has been the work of the Holy Spirit through the Church as she accepts what was written by the prophets, apostles, and evangelists. Matthew happens to be counted among the latter (thanks be to God!). The Church does not seek a specific biblical text to govern what constitutes the canon. The biblical texts, as accepted by the Church, are the norm whereby teachings in the Church are governed. Obviously there has been some disagreement over time as to what is accepted into the canon, and to what extent this or that text establishes what is to be taught in the Church. One thing the Church is not obligated to do however, is place a limit on when, where, and how God reveals Himself, but we test what is taught in the Church against what has been revealed in the biblical texts. The Sacred texts are simply the most sound basis for hearing and believing the Gospel, and to the extent these are faithfully preached and taught, men will come to the knowledge of the Truth when and where it please God to work faith. Again, I do not see the Assumption of Mary as particularly contrary to the analogy of Faith. Nor, however, do I see it as a doctrine essential to the Church.
Good name.
John 1:1. Check it out.
“The establishment of the canon has been the work of the Holy Spirit through the Church as she accepts what was written by the prophets, apostles, and evangelists.”
Post a verse that says exactly that then.
“Matthew happens to be counted among the latter (thanks be to God!).”
Where in the Bible is a verse that says that about Matthew?
“The Church does not seek a specific biblical text to govern what constitutes the canon.”
Show a verse that supports your claim there.
“The biblical texts, as accepted by the Church, are the norm whereby teachings in the Church are governed.”
Do you have any verses for that?
“Obviously there has been some disagreement over time as to what is accepted into the canon,”
Show a verse that says such “disagreement” over something as important as what is and what is not inspired is permissible.
“and to what extent this or that text establishes what is to be taught in the Church.”
Again, post a verse for that.
“One thing the Church is not obligated to do however, is place a limit on when, where, and how God reveals Himself, but we test what is taught in the Church against what has been revealed in the biblical texts.”
Again, no verse? And please don’t post anything about the Bereans. They were not in the Church so that can’t work.
“The Sacred texts are simply the most sound basis for hearing and believing the Gospel,”
So illiterate people are doomed?
“and to the extent these are faithfully preached and taught, men will come to the knowledge of the Truth when and where it please God to work faith.”
Oh, so it’s really about preaching and teaching and not so much the texts themselves? So you just contradicted yourself.
“Again, I do not see the Assumption of Mary as particularly contrary to the analogy of Faith. Nor, however, do I see it as a doctrine essential to the Church.”
But if the Church teaches differently than you do you’ll assume you’re right because of some feeling or whatever, right?
You didn’t post a single verse. It was inevitable.
I am not sensing that you accept the authority of biblical texts in the first place, nor that somehow you would be persuaded that the biblical texts have always served as the foundation from which the Church teaches. I also doubt that you are currently under the care of a pastor or priest, or that you would accept either of these as having authority to teach. Do you want me to cite verses of Sacred Scripture for that, too? BTW, Where in the Bible does it say your screen name is vladimir998?
“I am not sensing that you accept the authority of biblical texts in the first place,”
That’s rich considering you just defended an unbiblical doctrine like sola scriptura without citing a single verse in your last post.
“nor that somehow you would be persuaded that the biblical texts have always served as the foundation from which the Church teaches.”
So there was no teaching about New Testament events BEFORE the New Testament was written?
“I also doubt that you are currently under the care of a pastor or priest, or that you would accept either of these as having authority to teach.”
Well, you’re wrong - again. And it amazes me how now you are trying to make this personal. Is that because you can’t find even a single verse to prove what you’re saying?
“Do you want me to cite verses of Sacred Scripture for that, too?”
You can’t, because I do accept the authority of my pastor. So you will fail on that just as you have failed at providing verse so far.
“BTW, Where in the Bible does it say your screen name is vladimir998?”
Apparently, as you’re proving by your continual failure, it is right next to the verse that proves sola scriptura or shows that Matthew wrote an inspired book.
There is no need to cite a verse of Scripture to teach or accept that the Gospel of Matthew is Scripture. Your request for such a verse is juvenile, as are all your other caustic demands and remarks. And yes, that’s personal.
“There is no need to cite a verse of Scripture to teach or accept that the Gospel of Matthew is Scripture.”
There is no need to cite a verse of Scripture to teach or accept that the Assumption of Mary happened.
See how that works?
“Your request for such a verse is juvenile, as are all your other caustic demands and remarks.”
No, actually my request for a verse shows that sola scriptura is not workable according to scripture. It also shows that Protestants believe in things which never show up in scripture and are either too ignorant to realize it or are too intellectually dishonest to see how their own beliefs don’t square with scripture.
“And yes, that’s personal.”
And what I said isn’t personal. It’s just irrefutably true.
That is true. No need to accept the teaching or reject it where the biblical texts are silent. See how that works?
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.