Replies

As I understand it, the Assumption of Mary is based on the fact that, since no one knew where she was buried, she must have been assumed directly into heaven.

"Way to argue from a position of ignorance."
" With logic like this it's no wonder there are protestants in the world."

Hey, if you guys don't believe your own stuff, how do you expect to convince anyone else?

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."

Hey, if you guys don't believe your own stuff, how do you expect to convince anyone else?

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."

Oh, so we are to believe that the apostles saw Jesus' empty tomb, to which the Scriptures ably testify, but then they failed to record anywhere (except in the mythical infallible church tradition) that they also found Mary's empty tomb. This is remarkable.

Perhaps if true it shows they didn't have such a high view of Mary after all.

Or perhaps the good partiarch was a bit tipped.

The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."

Bet that sets off the RCs. Their Assumption dogma insists that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven without dying.

The EO's and RCs can hash that one out.

As I understand it, the Assumption of Mary is based on the fact that, since no one knew where she was buried, she must have been assumed directly into heaven.

***************8

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."

Read much? It's not that no one knows where she was buried, but rather that her tomb was found empty.

Not an insiginficant difference, and one you should observe.

Considering how much we love relics and how much we love Mary, you'd think the greedy evil Catholic Church would have made good use of the bones of Mary. Instead, we believe they are not on earth at all. I guess we missed the money-making potention on that one.