The Mother of the Son: The Case for Marian Devotion

Guess I forgot my sarcasm off there#195?

The is nothing about Timothy's death in the Bible, either. Was he "assumed" into heaven also..

I think you "Assume" too much.........

The Church Rocks, Mary rocks, this article is a great read.

I was referring to the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven. You werem't trying to misconstrue my words, were you?

Mary's Assumption--Additional information

But where is the biblical evidence?
Several Bible passages offer implicit evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven. Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven (Heb. 11:5, 2 Kgs. 2:11). Also, in Matthew 27:52-53 one can read about saints whose bodies left the grave after the Resurrection of Christ. The early resurrection of these saints anticipated the rising of those who die in faith, all of who will be assumed one day to receive their glorified bodies. Belief in the assumption of Mary is simply the belief that God granted her this gift early, as he appears to have done for others in Matthew 27:52-53.

The Scriptures also promise that those who suffer with Christ will be glorified with him (Rom. 8:17), so it is fitting that she whose heart was pierced through her Son's suffering would receive her glorification in a unique manner. Paul calls Christians "God's co-workers" (1 Cor. 3:9), and there was no co-worker of Christ who was linked so intimately in the work of salvation as was Mary.

But that's circumstantial evidence. Face it, the Bible never mentions Mary's Assumption.
Keep in mind that if Scripture does not record an event, it does not follow that the event did not happen. Scripture does not record Paul or Peter's journey to Rome, and they were both martyred there while the Bible was still being written. With this in mind, it would be unscriptural and unreasonable to conclude that the dogma of Mary's Assumption is false because it is not mentioned explicitly in Scripture.

There are numerous reasons why it is fitting that the Lord would assume Mary's body into heaven. By becoming man, Jesus was born under the law (Gal. 4:4) and was bound to obey the commandment to honor his mother. The Hebrew word for "honor" does not imply mere courtesy, but the bestowal of honor and glory. By preserving Mary's body from corruption, Jesus fulfills the command to honor his mother in a way that only a divine Son could. What person, if he had the power to prevent the corruption of his mother's body, would not do so? The love of Jesus for his mother seems to be the strongest argument for her Assumption.

It is useful also to examine how God calls people to treat holy things in the Old Testament. The holiest object for the people of Israel was the Ark of the Covenant, because it contained the bread from heaven, the staff of Aaron, and the tablets of the law. It was laden in and out with gold and could only be approached by sanctified priests. One unfortunate soul dared to touch it, and despite his good intentions, it cost him his life (2 Sam. 6:6-7). God's glory overshadowed this holy Ark, and Psalm 132:8 says of it, "Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place; thou and the ark which thou hast sanctified."

In the book of Revelation we read, "Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple" (Rev. 11:19). "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; . . . she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron" (Rev. 12:1,5). The arbitrary break here between chapters, done long after the Bible was written, makes it easy to overlook how John mentions the mother of the Messiah in conjunction with the Ark of the Covenant.

Considering God's reverence towards an inanimate Ark, St. Robert Bellarmine asked a fitting question: "Who could believe that the ark of holiness, the dwelling of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit [i.e., Mary], crumbled into dust? I shudder at the very thought that the virginal flesh of which God was conceived and born, which nourished him and carried him should have turned to ashes or been given as food to worms."

Doesn't all of the historical "evidence" for Mary's Assumption come from apocryphal stories?
Historians-Catholic and non-Catholic-agree that there is a great deal of ancient material on the Assumption that is unreliable. A prime example of this is the Transitus Mariae stories, which were written as homilies in the fifth and sixth centuries. These are often fantastic and legendary accounts, devoid of historical accuracy. Some examples include the Obsequities of the Holy Virgin, and the text of Pseudo-Melito. But these apocryphal writings have no bearing on the Church's dogma of Mary's Assumption.

The Church Fathers provide a much more balanced approach. Epiphanius said in A.D. 377, "Let them search the scriptures. They will not find Mary's death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried. More than that: John journeyed to Asia, yet nowhere do we read that he took the holy Virgin with him. Rather, Scripture is absolutely silent [on Mary's earthly end] because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy, in order not to shock the minds of men. . . . Neither do I maintain stoutly that she died. . . .

"Did she die? We do not know. At all events, if she was buried, she had no carnal intercourse. . . . Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires" (Panarion, haer. 78, nn. 10-11,23: G.C.S., 37, 461-462; 474).

Neither Jerome, Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, nor Augustine contested Epiphanius in what he had written regarding Mary's miraculous passing, and Ephraem (d. 373) described Mary as having been glorified by Christ and carried through the air to heaven (Cf. Ephraem, De nativitate domini sermo 12, sermo 11, sermo 4; Opera omni syriace at latine, Vol. 2, 415). Throughout history, there have been very few opponents in the Church of Mary's Assumption. No one seemed ready to claim that she corrupted. In fact, the first opposition to the Assumption cannot be found until Ambrosius Autpertus of the eighth century.

From this faith of the Church, Christians began to celebrate the feast of Mary's unique passing. Like the fruit from a tree, the liturgy is the result of doctrine, not the source of it. By the end of the fourth century, the feast of the Dormitio or Koimesis, which celebrated Mary's death, resurrection, and Assumption, was celebrated throughout the East. A feast celebrating Mary's entrance to heaven, "The Memory of Mary," also began around the fourth century. The significance of these early feasts cannot be overlooked, as they are testimony to the truths that the Church knew to be true. Christians would not initiate feasts throughout the Church that were ideas on the fringes of Catholic thought.

One reason why it is difficult to assess where Mary's last days were is because she left no remains. The early Church prized the relics of early Christians, as can be seen by reading The Martyrdom of Polycarp. However, no one claimed to have Mary's remains, which would have been prized above all others. There is no historical reference to the relics of Mary, the corruption of Mary, or the place where her body lies. A skeptic who denies Christ's Resurrection should be asked to find evidence of the remains of Christ, and the same challenge can be extended to whoever denies Mary's Assumption.

Here is part of a discussion with a (Anglican Catholic and, the evidence indicates, true Believer) friend, when I forwarded this article to her:

I think we have to believe that she is the Mother of God, since our Lord's own testimony proves He is God. Once when I was reading about the miracle of Cana it struck me full force that here God Himself has bowed to the whim of a woman. Wow, that is more than just respect for a parent!

[I liked this quote from post 35: She is the only person, human or divine, who could say to God the Father "Your son and mine."]

I have never remotely understood the Immaculate Conception; indeed I always thought it referred to the conception of Jesus and was amazed to learn it referred to Mary's conception. Since I believe that God hallowed all his creation (unglamorous though it may be at times) when He chose to be born of a woman, I do not find any necessity for Mary to have been without original sin or more than human. It seemed obvious to me that at the moment of conception Mary would be sanctified and purified in body and soul...how could it be otherwise with her union with the Holy Spirit and the Son? But with God all things are possible and he certainly COULD have prepared for an immaculate vessel ahead of time.

We are not surprised to know people who are devoted to St. Francis or to St. Benedict or to St. Paul but always a little bothered at those who are devoted to Mary. I have known a number of them in recent years and find they are primarily devoted to our Lord and view Mary as an intercessor to aid them in their prayer life. Most of us have grown up in a faith environment that really never discussed Mary. I remember many years ago when a rector, fresh out of seminary probably, preached a sermon on our need to look at Mary and appreciate her. You would have thought he had uttered profanity from the pulpit, so shocking it was to hear it. I thought the sermon was very good, right on target that we should come to know this very strong and fascinating female character who was the first called to serve the Lord in the New Covenant, to pay honor for her obedience and pity for her pain. There are good scriptural reasons for much of Marian doctrine but they are not clearly defined, as the Holy Trinity is not, but must be deduced from both the Old and New Testament allusions.

I continue in my personal prayers to address the Father, as Our Lord instructed, and to think of Christ as our only mediator and advocate. But since we believe that, especially in the Eucharist, our prayers are part of that great and continual stream of prayer that is always rising to join the praise and worship of those saints before the throne of God, I don't see how it could hurt to ask their assistance. I continue to wonder why the Fourth Century Church did not include this in our Creed if we were to be clear about it, but of course there are many faith issues not addressed in those ancient phrases.

I'm surprised to learn that Catholics would have difficulty with Marian dogma, even as I have.

I wondered for a while how a sinless Baby could be conceived (not merely stored in) a sinful womb. I postulated that perhaps Jesus' divinity was accomplished by John's baptism. It's possible, but it requires speculation, and it's all about denying what the Church teaches about Mary, which is probably the simplest and most obvious construction of the record.

In my "journey" back into the Church, I have seen one question after another answered, one doubt after another washed away. This has happened so often that I don't bother to doubt the 2000 year old Church any more.

By the standard you are foisting on us, the fact that nobody can find the remains of my great-great grandfather would then be "evidence" that he was assumed up into heaven. No proof of his death would be found, he would therefore be accounted worthy of beatification, worship and all the other nonsense accorded Mary.

Please......get over it already....SHE...IS...DEAD.

This is not to disgrace her. It is just a fact. Besides, John 14:6 nullifies Mariolatry.