Posted on 08/15/2010 3:56:22 PM PDT by TaraP
The Assumption is not a metaphor...
We must be very clear on this point: The Assumption is not a metaphor. The Blessed Virgin Mary was really taken up, her physical body was transformed. Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus (1950) declared that Mary, “after the completion of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.” Both BODY and SOUL!
This means that her physical body was transformed and glorified (in a manner identical to Christ’s after his Resurrection), her soul was perfected with the Beatific Vision, and she was taken up.
Is heaven a place? In the General Audience of 21 July 1999, Pope John Paul II stated that heaven “is neither an abstraction nor a physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with the Holy Trinity.”
In this statement, as (almost) always, the great Holy Father was in perfect accord with St. Thomas Aquinas – “Incorporeal things are not in place after a manner known and familiar to us, in which way we say that bodies are properly in place; but they are in place after a manner befitting spiritual substances, a manner that cannot be fully manifest to us”.
What John Paul II wished to stress, and what is especially important to consider today, is that heaven is not to be understood in terrestrial terms.
Heaven is primarily a state of being and is certainly not a ‘place’ in the worldly sense of the term. Nevertheless, we come to a difficulty when we ask:
Where did Mary’s (and Christ’s) body go?
The simplest answer is: Heaven! But then we wonder: If heaven isn’t a place in the ordinary sense of the word, how could there be real human bodies present there?
The words of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (who taught John Paul II and oversaw his doctoral work) are most helpful: “Heaven means this place, and especially this condition, of supreme beatitude. Had God created no bodies, but only pure spirits, heaven would not need to be a place; it would signify merely the state of the angels who rejoice in the possession of God.
But in fact heaven is also a place. There we find the humanity of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the angels, and the souls of the saints. Though we cannot say with certitude where this place is to be found, or what its relation is to the whole universe, revelation does not allow us to doubt of its existence.”
Now do not think that John Paul II had contradicted his teacher when he said that heaven is not a physical place in the clouds! Garrigou-Lagrange and the great Pontiff are both getting at the same point: Heaven is first and foremost union with God; secondarily, heaven is the place where the bodies of Jesus and Mary abide, but this ‘place’ is not like every other place we think of – its relation to our universe is not clear.
Glorified bodies are very different than non-glorified bodies (though they are essentially the same). A glorified body does not move and take up space in exactly the same way as a non-glorified body does. Still, the glorified bodies of Jesus and Mary are somewhere, but this ‘somewhere’ will necessarily be a ‘place’ which is ‘glorified’ – just as the glorified body is different from non-glorified body, it resides in a ‘glorified place’ which is different from a non-glorified physical place.
Where is heaven? The simple answer is: This has not yet been revealed to us. However, we can say that it is certainly not on earth. Neither is it within the earth. It is not in clouds either. Heaven may be somewhere in our universe, far off – though we must be careful not to fall back into our terrestrial categories of space, distance, and location.
Perhaps it is most likely that heaven is outside the universe in what some Thomists have called “uncontained place”. In ST III, q.57, a.4, ad 2 (which is not in the oldest and best manuscripts) we read: “A place implies the notion of containing; hence the first container has the formality of first place, and such is the first heaven. Therefore, bodies need themselves to be in a place, insofar as they are contained by a heavenly body. But glorified bodies, Christ’s especially, do not stand in need of being so contained, because they draw nothing from the heavenly bodies, but from God through the soul.
So there is nothing to prevent Christ’s body from being beyond the containing radius of the heavenly bodies, and not in a containing place. Nor is there need for a vacuum to exist outside heaven, since there is no place there, nor is there any potentiality susceptive of a body, but the potentiality of reaching thither lies in Christ.”
This argument from the Summa claims that, because the glorified body in no way relies upon the non-glorified world, neither does it need to be contained in the universe. Thus, the bodies of Jesus and Mary may in fact be outside of the universe, outside of space and time, no longer contained by place. There is no space or place outside of the universe, but this is where the bodies of Christ and Mary are; since they need not be contained by physical place.
Therefore, it seems most likely that heaven is outside of our universe. It is not a ‘place’ as we usually think of ‘place’, but is a ‘non-containing place’, a ‘glorified place’. The glorified physical bodies of Jesus and Mary reside there
Kolo! Nice to see you back on FR!! The eastern Church perspective has been lacking without you. Viva Barsoom!
Freegards, Tars Tarkus for Jeddak!
I agree wholeheartedly. If Mary was sinless her son Jesus would not have been able to carry the “sins of the world”. He had to be born of a sinfull person and a sinless God to be both God and man.
” He had to be born of a sinfull person and a sinless God to be both God and man. “
Why?
Well, if there’s but one intercessor, then I guess you better not ask your Aunt Suzie to pray for you. Actually, the word used in the passage you have in mind is “mediator,” not intercessor. I think Jesus himself referred to the Spirit as an intercessor and I guess there are a few passages that refer to him as an intercessor for us. But the “only one” deal is for “mediator,” not intercessor.
See, you can’t have it both ways. We do not say that Mary is the same mediator as Jesus. We do say she’s an intercessor, just as you could be an intercessor for me if you were willing to pray for me a sinner. And I could be an intercessor for you.
That’s ALL we say about Mary. She just happens to be the Mother of God Incarnate, which no other human intercessor is. But she is human and only human. And had a unique role, one that you or I could never have. So as an intercessor, she’s unique.
But Jesus as intercessor is of an entirely different order of intercessorship than Mary or you or me.
We really don’t believe Mary is anything but human. Just a unique human.
If you keep telling us we make Mary into more than human, then, having been warned, you are obstinately bearing false witness against us. We can’t stop you from doing that, of course. But the One Mediator (and his Mother) might not be amused by Christians bearing false witness against each other. The first time, out of ignorance, He’s willing to excuse. But after having been warned again and again . . . Oh well, that’s up to Him.
Im sorry, Im not really able to follow your logic here. Full of grace = sinless? Last I checked grace means "favor" ... i.e. Mary full of grace = Mary full of Gods favor ... Nothing to do with sin or sinlessness.
All generations will call me blessed ...
Thats a far cry from saying all generations will call me sinless, a perpetual virgin, bodily assumed, queen of heaven, co-redemptrix ...
He told John, ”behold your mother,” and Mary, “behold your Son,” giving her a significant place in the early Church indeed ...
Is this what passes for Catholic Biblical exegesis? There is no connection here at all.
The woman in the Revelation 12 passage that you mention is not Mary but the nation of Israel during the seven year tribulation period. You have to ignore the context of Revelation 12, the entire book, and prophetic scripture to come to any other conclusion.
humble woman, a woman who stayed in the background but helped Jesus every step of the way by nurturing, prayer, or just having the courage (example: at the foot of the cross) to be there.
If you were merely teaching what you have said here there would be no issue ... but what you are teaching is a far far cry from your words here. You argue that we Protestants dont support what the Bible says about Mary ... we DO support what is in there ... BUT NOTHING MORE CUZ ITS NOT IN THERE!
You habitually take liberties with the text and make it say something that is not even remotely suggested.
Well then that makes it somehow official since Romes Pope determined that's what happened? No wonder some catholics are confused over what is true and what is falsely presented as truth.....kinda like Bo claiming His created truth and that makes it so..even when there is no evidence this is so.
If you say the Nicene Creed, Mary is mentioned in that.
Born of the virgin Mary says nothing of her being sinless. And once she had the baby Jesus she was no longer a virgin either.
What a great post. Good job!
Freegards
Nonsense. You are saying that sin belongs to human nature. Jewish and Christian faith has always said that we were created by God with a sinless nature but chose to sin and corrupted that nature.
The human nature Jesus took to himself in order to save us from our sins was real human nature in its natural nature, not its corrupted state.
Since we agree (I hope, for God’s sake you agree) that Jesus had a sinless human nature, why would having a sinful mother help him with his sinless nature?
It’s his sinlessness, his guiltlessness that saves us from our sins.
We don’t insist that Mary absolutely, metaphysically HAD to be sinless in order for Jesus to be sinless. We just say it’s fitting that God by his absolute grace through no merit of hers, gave her the same sinlessness he gave Adam and Eve. If Eve was sinless at the outset, why can’t the Mother of the Redeemer be sinless as part of God’s full of grace favor to her to prepare her for her great mission?
We don’t argue from “what has to have been in order for something else to be”—we just state what the Church seems to have known—that she was sinless (by grace) and that it’s fitting that she was, not absolutely necessary that she was. Some Church Fathers did disagree on this point and said she sinned here or there but the consensus was that she was (fact) sinless and that theologically, this makes good sense.
Your effort to say “it had to be this way” leads you into heretical byways you really don’t want to enter.
Sin is not part of human nature. It’s something we added. It’s possible for God by grace to make exceptions. He seems to have done it once and once only because He became incarnate of a woman once and once only.
So what is happening with Mary? Is she traveling back and forth, with these “visions’ of her that Catholics claim? Or is she sitting on the right hand of Christ in Heaven?
Yep...not to mention when He arose you’d think his mother would have been one of the first to know...but that didn’t happen.....
I think when we get to meet Mary she’s going to be quite disgusted with those who elevated her to such a place of honor equal if not over her son. It’s a good thing she’s with God and doesn’t see all this.
” He had to be born of a sinfull person and a sinless God to be both God and man. “
Because he had to be truly man and truly God or he would not have been able to stand in mans place as the sacrificial lamb. He would not have been able to carry the sins of all mankind.
No..the Bible is about Christ, the Gospel, and Israel. God never goes about trying to persuade people that He is....but He does have to consistantly remind people Who He is...and who they are dealing with.
As I said....The Bible does not say what happened to Mary.
She could be with Jesus as many of the Saints are.
“Since we agree (I hope, for God’s sake you agree) that Jesus had a sinless human nature”
We do not agree. Jesus was “fully man” but was able to resist the sins of this world because he was also “fully God”. We will not, in our human understandig, be able to fully understand what that was but if he did not posess the sinfull nature of fallen man he would not have been able to defeat Satan.
Seems to me there is enough Biblical evidence that the sinful nature is passed down through the man (Adam) ... not the woman. It didnt matter if Mary was sinless or not, Jesus would not have received the sin nature from her anyway. There is no reason to insist that Jesus had to be born to a sinless woman. He had to be born of a woman to be fully human ... and the Holy Spirit provided the means for that pregnancy.
Yeah, she may be mad at us. But her Son won’t be because him himself elevated her to a place of honor. Lk 11:27-28.
Do you honor your mother? Does a son who doesn’t honor his mother commit a sin? I think there’s a commandment about that. If Jesus was God incarnate, do you think he failed to honor his mother and sinned and broke one of the Ten Commandments he commanded the rich young ruler to keep?
I’d be less concerned about what Mary’s going to say to you than what Jesus is going to say to you. Whaddya mean, there’s no need to honor my Mother? She’s my mother, for goodness sake. I’m her Son. You better believe that I honor her and I want all my followers to honor her.”
On the other hand, maybe Jesus doesn’t really care whether you honor your mother or His.
And then there’s the little problem that His Cousin Elizabeth honored Mary PRECISELY because she was carrying in her womb Elizabeth’s Lord, recognized by Elizabeth’s unborn baby John. Elizabeth explicitly called Mary “the Mother of my Lord” and “Lord” here means GOD. And Elizabeth said that she, Elizabeth, was not worthy to be visited by the mother of her Lord.
Sounds like giving Mary a whole lot of extra honor.
I guess Mary blew her top at that silly old Elizabeth. Why she was probably even disgusted with her as she will be with the rest of us for honoring her.
Oh, wait, Mary went on to say that all generations would honor her because God had visited her and made her the mother of the redeemer? That’s right there in Scripture. In Luke.
Doesn’t sound like Mary’s too disgusted with Elizabeth for honoring her, Mary. Sounds like Mary is saying, Hey Coz, you’re darn tooting that people are going to honor me, not because of anything I’ve done but because of what is growing in my womb.
Anyway, you are worried that Mary will be disgusted. I’m more concerned about what Christ will have to say. See, for us Catholics and Orthodox, Jesus Christ is what really matters. His Mother matters to us because, well
she
was
his
Mother.
And that’s special.
“Well, if there’s but one intercessor, then I guess you better not ask your Aunt Suzie to pray for you.”
I can ask “Aunt Suzie” to pray for me if she’s alive and prays in Jesus name. Jesus said “No one goes to the Father but by Me”.
Once “Aunt Suzie” is dead she can no longer pray for me than can Mary who has also died as all humans must. If Mary didn’t die but was assumed into heaven without dying then you are making Jesus a lier.
If Jesus had the sinful nature in Him there would have been no need for the immaculate conception. He would have been conceived like Moses or David or any other OT figure.
The sin nature is transmitted through the man ... not the woman.
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.