Theological Word Of The Day: Assumption of Mary

TWOTD ^ | 2 October 2008

[Kolokotronis]

“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.

[Salvation]

ASSUMPTION

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.

All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.

[Salvation]

"Never apologize for the Blessed Virgin Mary!"

~~Mother Angelica

[Salvation]

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.

[Salvation]

bump

[Salvation]

Lots of additional information on these FR threads. I invite you all to explore.

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

The Assumption of Our Lady

Solemnity of the Assumption

Solemnity of the Assumption

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

The Fourth Glorious Mystery

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 Assumption Of Mary

[Erskine Childers]

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.

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."

[baa39]

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?

[bdeaner]

For those who deny the Assumption, there is a lot of implicit Biblical evidence for it, but no explicit evidence. Not everything that is undeniably true in revelatory history is explicitly in the Bible, including the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, for example. That's why sola Scriptura is rejected by Catholics. The Bible is neither self-authenticating nor can it be interpreted without ambiguity unless there is some final authoritative role that is iself founded in Scripture by which it can be authenticated -- and, for Catholics, that authorative role is filled by the Church. I doubt this will convince the Protestants, but there you are.

But, with that said, I think one can make a very convincing argument for the Assumption using only references to Scripture in combination with sound, deductive logic. To see an extremely powerful argument in favor of the Assumption and the Virgin Mary's status as the Queen of Heaven, see Hail, Holy Queen: The Mother of God in the World of God by Scott Hahn -- a former Protestant pastor who converted to Catholicism. I defy anyone to refute his arguments.

In a subsequent post, which I will write when my son is not screaming his head off in the background, will give you the nutshell of this argument, and some other scripture-based arguments in favor of the Assumption. Until then, God bless.

[Petronski]

The Assumption is not Orthodox dogma; it is a theologoumennon, a pious belief which is in no way mandatory.

I did not know that (and you've boosted my vocabulary--yet again). Interesting.

[Kolokotronis]

"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!

[narses]

When a belief in the Universal Church becomes Universal doesn’t it become de facto dogma?

[Petronski]

I can appreciate the observations and the distinction. ‘Tis true.

[Kolokotronis]

“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.

[bdeaner]

Here is a Catholic argument for the Assumption

First of all, Enoch and Elijah were both assumed into heaven. See Heb. 11:5 and 2 Kgs. 2:11. Other saints were assumed from their graves. See Matthew 27:52-53. If God received the glorified bodies of other saints, why would he neglect to assume the body that of His mother, whose virginity and purity would have made her incurruptible? It wouldn't make sense to argue otherwise. The alternatives are even more inconcievable when we consider that Christ promised to glorify all those who suffered with Him (see Rom. 8:17), or would suffered more than Mary, our Lord's mother, as she watched her son die an agonizing death?

The above argument is strengthened if we consider that Christ was born under and bound to the law (Gal. 4:4) to honor his father and mother. What kind of honor would it be to allow His mother's body to rot in the earth rather than to assume Her into Heaven to be with Him in Eternity? Doesn't make much sense to me that Christ would do that.

Also, in Revelations, Mary is identified as the Ark of the Convenant (Rev. 11-12). In Judaic tradition, the defilement of the Ark was forbidden and would cost any person who touched it his life (2 Sam. 6:6-7). So, of course the Ark would rise with the Glory of the Lord who, as the Lord made Flesh, surpassed the old convenant and ushered in the New Convenant, thanks to Mary's "yes" to Gabriel, by which she became the new Ark. And thus we can examine with new eyes Psalm 132:8, which says, "Arise, O Lord, into they resting place; thou and the ark which thou hast sanctified."

As St. Robert Bellarmine wrote, "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." What true believer can entertain this thought???

Also, of course Mary would reign in Heaven with the Lord, as it was Judaic tradition for the Mother of the King to reign as Queen, as we know from the story of King Solomon and his mother Bethsheba, the wife of King David.

Or one can turn to the early Church Fathers, such as Epiphanius, who in A.D. 377, wrote: "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."

In the 3rd century, Ephraem described Mary has having been glorifid by Christ and carried through the air to haven.

Who has ever found her grave? When has anyone ever worshipped her relics? Can you think of a single other saint in the history of the Church that did not have at least a single relic? WHY NOT MARY????

Nevermind the infallible teachings of the Church. Just use logic and common sense. It would be absurd, from within the context of Scripture, to conclude anything other than the Assumption of Mary.

[bdeaner]

I have never understood why Protestants seem to take such joy in bashing Christ’s mother.