Posted on 01/12/2013 9:45:29 AM PST by count-your-change
Although once considered a binding "probable opinion" by the Catholic church, in 1950 the belief that the virgin Mary war taken into heaven "body and soul" was declared dogma for Catholic believers.
As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes in agreement with the Catechism of the Catholic church:
(Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.)
(Note: By promulgating the Bull Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November, 1950, Pope Pius XII declared infallibly that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was a dogma of the Catholic Faith)
But what is the evidence claimed in support of this belief that Mary was taken "body and soul" into heaven?
In summation the catholic Encyclopeia offers:
(St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem: St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven)
(Excerpt) Read more at newadvent.org › Catholic Encyclopedia ...
Scripture says nothing at all about "Adam's sin" being passed down through the father. Catholics understand original sin principally as the absence of God's indwelling divine life anyway, and you don't pass down an absence -- you fail to pass down the presence to whose lack the absence corresponds.
As to your question about aging and death, freedom from those evils were lost by Adam's sin, and Mary was not given them back. In that sense, she was less blessed than Eve originally was! The loss of those freedoms (called "preternatural gifts" by theologians) isn't the essence original sin, however.
Thank you for the info.
Now I really don’t understand. You do hold that Jesus did not rise from the dead, and that his bodily arrivals and departures after the alleged resurrection were just appearances, right? Or have I misunderstood your position?
Thanks, stuartcr. I was scratching my head over that one, myself!
These are questions unworthy of a response.
“And that business with Thomas putting his fingers into His wounds and his hand into His side? What was that about?”
How best to prove to Thomas Jesus was alive? Angels had the ability to produce a body that could eat, be grappled with, able to hold hands with someone, be lusted after!, so why not Jesus having that same ability? Even if that body did look the same during one of his appearances.
Please explain where in my response you find any statement about “the alleged resurrection”. Alleged is your word, not mine.
Please explain or show where I said what the disciples saw were “just appearances” and not an actual body.
“Or have I misunderstood your position?”
No, I think in reality you understand it but for some reason have misstated it, for what reason I have no idea. What I said is really quite clear and stated in normal English usage.
ok
Scripture says nothing at all about "Adam's sin" being passed down through the father.
That is not precisely so. The very idea of 'original sin' requires some sort of inheritance... And Biblical inheritance, with very few exceptions, is paternal. Federated headship is not only described in sin and it's curses, but also in blessings. I will grant you that we don't know the particulars thereof, it's eventual use and limitations, but it is not right to say it is not mentioned. I am not prone to a universalist construction, but these things are the very essence that drives universalism. The structures that serve it are there. Perhaps in ignoring such things we may do damage to the scope of the power presented in the resurrection. Does not Yeshua state that if He is lifted up on high, He will draw all things to Him?
"you fail to pass down the presence to whose lack the absence corresponds." <== *blink* *blink*... whoa, d00d. That there is some incredible syntactic mastertude, man. I looked at that and felt like I ran out of quarters before the rinse cycle, but I got 'er done. :)
Catholics understand original sin principally as the absence of God's indwelling divine life anyway, and you don't pass down an absence -- you fail to pass down the presence to whose lack the absence corresponds.
'Principally,' perhaps, but then one would suppose the onset of such a condition would be technically described in the Fall of Man - And that also raises the observation that the very breath of life is divine, so I would consider such a statement to be at least limited in action, lest we would have all crumbled back to dust forthwith. Or perhaps you are describing something higher up the corporate chain... a strategic partial withdrawal from all of creation might be a bit more palatable to me.
As to your question about aging and death, freedom from those evils were lost by Adam's sin, and Mary was not given them back. In that sense, she was less blessed than Eve originally was! The loss of those freedoms (called "preternatural gifts" by theologians) isn't the essence original sin, however.
Again, I find myself unable to concur with precision:
What you describe ties into the statement preceding it, and seems to be ignorant of the wider ramifications of the curse. All of creation waits breathlessly for it's repair, which at the least implies a more universal condition, and which must practically descend even into the realm of the physical - How else can Righteous YHWH justly hold the sin of one man against countless generations? No... I think that the actions of Man that day in Eden forced some sort of containment which no thing born of it can escape. Even the righteous souls who passed on prior to the cross were held in quarantine at Paradise. This is indicative of the mechanism's design, and is also indicative of why One from outside of the containment must needfully come to open the door of release.
In that line of thinking, suggesting that one who came from inside (born of) could be outside (born without original sin, born outside of the containment) defies the very logic of it's design.
I know of no Catholic doctrine that Mary "grew old and died," nor that she didn't. In defining the dogma of the Assumption, Pius XII avoided using the term "resurrection" and did not take a position on the question of the Blessed Virgin's death. Munificentissimus Deus limits itself to affirming the elevation of Mary's body to heavenly glory "at the end of her earthly life." It intentionally doesn't specify whether she died, or didn't die, because we don't know.
TRUE. Let me partially retract my statement with apologies. But the language of Munificentissimus Deus is intentionally wide, and constructed in such a fashion as to recall my friend Quix' definition: Weasel words. One can imagine why, as the existing tomb of Mary in Jerusalem, and the tradition of the Orthodox, seems to limit what they would have rather infallibly declared.
One cannot escape the origins of this tradition in a couple of 4th (or maybe 5th) century psuedapigraphical works... There is no early linkage, and all later works seem to stem from these.
First, I don't think an inconclusive statement is the same as a weasel word. If the evidence is ambiguous, the proclamation, to accurately express the state of the evidence, needs be ambiguous in the same way. To force clarity on uncertain evidence would be the real error.
(A good principle to keep in mind for Bible translation,too.)
I don't know what textual evidence, if any,m exists prior to the 4th century. I'm not sure, though, whetherthe Pope relied on extual evidence. I think, for him, the lack of relics, or even any claim of relics --- considering the intense ongoing interest in objects of veneration --- seems to have been the clincher. Form earliest days, nobody even thought it was possible to have relics of Mary.
If they had, the forgers/bone-vendors would have been there as quick as you can say "Beatissima".
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
Is Mary wearing clothes in Heaven or were they left behind when she mas assumed into eternity?Like all the Saints in heaven, she is Clothed in Glory.
Thank you for providing Luther’s comments (both times. I can have one for now and one for later) but what is the purpose for this reply?
The conclusion of the matter as posted in the title of this article is that the whole notion of any fleshly bodies entering heaven to inherit God’s kingdom is false, untrue, a lie, without support in Scripture.
So why is such a false idea so vigorouly defended? One reason is, of course, is that if this false leg gives ways to truth then the support for other false doctrines falls with it.
Age and tradition mean nothing in the face of truth, I would think the example of the Jews and what happened in 70 A.D. would make that clear.
Well just like The Trinity, the blessed Mothers assumption to heaven isn’t explicit. Her assumptin into heaven was documented in the 4 century, which is why all early Christian churches believe this, not just Catholics,
Neither Jesus body, or His mothers body was ever found. Which would be rare for such high profile people. Peters, body was found in Rome, and his death was documented. “The earliest reference to Peter’s death (outside the New Testament: see John 21:15-19) is 1 Clement (a.k.a. Letter to the Corinthians), written c. 96. In that letter, Clement, the bishop of Rome, says (chapter 5), “Let us take the noble examples of our own generation.”
“Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death … Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.”
Regardless, in the scheme of salvation history, this ideology of the early church doesn’t make a difference to me one way or another. To me Jesus’ mother was blessed among women, and nothing will change that.
I don’t see why those with a complete void of early christian history obsess over it. Don’t believe it, who cares. That is your God given right of Free Will, and no real Catholic would pretend to play God and condemn you for it. That level of arrogance would be offensive to God, and most Catholics know better.
Why is it so hard to believe things occurred in the early life of the Church and Christianity that aren’t recorded in Scripture? Scripture itself says that all the sayings and deeds of even Jesus aren’t recorded. (John 21:25). Why would anyone think His Mother’s life (and “death”) would be recorded in exact detail if even Jesus’ deeds couldn’t all be recorded?
It seems to me it’s rejecting an entire portion of the deposit of Faith to ignore teachings that aren’t in the Bible, simply because they aren’t in the Bible. It’s like saying the other things Jesus did that aren’t written in Scripture aren’t important. The things JESUS did, aren’t important, JUST because they aren’t in the Bible.
Ponderous man, just ponderous.
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.