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
Yeah, the Bible. Why would I be talking about another book? We are discussing Mary’s assumption, which being a rare and glorious thing, would be mentioned in the Bible.
Like I said ... a few mentions in the Gospels, once in Acts, nowhere in the epistles. In the few passages we can ascertain she was chosen by God to give birth to Jesus and that she was certainly a believer in Him and His mission. I believe what is written there, nothing more. I dont expand the text to make it say what is clearly not there ... although what you are teaching is not an expansion of a text ... its a hallucination of it.
“Mary was not sinless. If she was, she wouldn’t have needed a Christ.... It is sick, blasphemous, and utterly against all biblical understanding.”
Amen! I cannot understand what it is with Catholics and Mary, first they say she was an eternal virgin even though the Bible clearly references Christ’s siblings, then they say she’s sinless, then that she is the co-redeemer and make her equal to God! Couldn’t get any more blasphemous than that.
Oh my, that’s funny.
The Bible is essentially about God and the triune three person, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Mary took a back seat willingly in obedience to God. Her last words in the Bible are “Do whatever He tells you.” at the Wedding of Cana.
Because you do not believe in the Word of God handed down orally you are missing out on a lot of the beliefs of the Catholic (and other) churches.
Do you say a Creed at your church? If you say the Nicene Creed, Mary is mentioned in that. How do you explain that?
The (first) heaven, where birds fly; the atmosphere.
The (second) heaven; space.
The (third) heaven, the heaven of heavens; where the Throne of God is.
The division of the heavens is recorded in Genesis chapter one, and can be traced through Scripture.
Earth itself is a part of the first heaven, and the Kingdom of Heaven involves a kindom on earth ruled from the Third Heaven. When God’s will is done on earth (first heaven) as it is in (the third) Heaven, that is the Kingdom of Heaven.
“Because you do not believe in the Word of God handed down orally you are missing out on a lot of the beliefs of the Catholic (and other) churches.”
Oral tradition and the apocrypha are not canon and have more than a bit a gnostic influence in them (so would not call that the word of God). They can quite rapidly lead you a stray and should not be used as a basis for any major church teaching.
What do you mean Paul could not tell? Are you speaking from a Physical body to a Glorified one?
Yes but Elijah was not sinless as well and he ascended.
First, you dont know what I believe, so you should probably stop trying to guess at it.
Second, only half of the Bible is about the Son.
Third, you still did not provide scripture that she is sinless or that she was assumed into Heaven, which you should have at the ready if you are going to make the assumption that both are true.
Fourth, we shared the Apostle’s Creed at the Methodist Church I attended, and Mary is mentioned as having given birth to Jesus, nothing else. So I fail to see how mentioning someone in a creed means they were assumed, unless that is what you were wanting it to mean the whole time.
Fifth, the fact that Mary “took a back seat willingly in obedience to God” has absolutely nothing to do with whether she was sinless or assumed into Heaven, it is just a red herring.
You basically just put down four irrelevant topics.
And you know this to be true for sure on what basis? Does the Bible say “no exceptions, not even Jesus’ Mother”?
I don’t think so.
I think you’ve just added your own man-made stuff to the Bible, 2000 years after the fact.
We say that since the Bible was authorized to be written down by those Jesus chose to be the authoritative interpreters of his life and message (he wrote nothing down himself), so too He authorized them and their successors to decide whether “all have sinned” has no exceptions, one exception, thirteen and three-quarters exceptions, or thirty million exceptions. These authorized interpreters interpreted other passages (e.g., “full of grace”) as meaning that one exception was granted to the “all.”
So it’s you said/they said. Exactly when did Jesus authorize you to interpret his Holy Word authoritatively and to tell his authorized interpreters they are wrong?
Yesterday? Or three days ago? Or maybe a few years ago?
Here I go where angels fear to... um, never mind... but...
You KNOW what happens when people read early Church fathers or do HONEST research of the early church.
Here I go where angels fear to... um, never mind... but...
You KNOW what happens when people read early Church fathers or do HONEST research of the early church.
You would no more pray to Mary, than to any apostle, or your uncle Jim Bob.
You can ask your Uncle Bob to pray for you, just like I might ask Mary to pray for me. When you say “Mary is not a god” I’m not sure who you’re arguing with. Catholics don’t teach the position you imply.
Oh please, dude, whatever. Christ is all, have fun with your fairytales, but they aren’t going to save you.
And prayers for all these — that the Lord may open their minds.
Bye for now.
I’m not a dude. Read my profile page. LOL!
“This was made up due to the “Emaculate Conception” catholic doctrine which states that Mary was without sin, so they had to come up with the ascension because if she was without sin then she never would have died, the ascension is actually a relatively recent doctrine even.”
Nonsense. The Tradition is Eastern Christian, has nothing to do with the Latin notion of the Immaculate Conception and has been a pious belief of virtually universal acceptance in The Church since at least the 5th century.
That’s why so many protestants engage in shameful practices like birth control and abortion. It’s difficult to find specific condemnations, so you’re dependent upon pastor billie bob, or someone like Robert Schuler to give you the answer... wow...
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.