Mary ascended bodily?

This is yet one more thing that there is absolutely no biblical suport for. We are not to add or subtract from Scripture.

 

(John 3:13) And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Some (God forbid) might attack this statment of the Lord, saying "What of Enoch?" or "What of Elias?" Enoch did not ascended up to heaven, but rather "was translated" and "God took him." (Heb 11:5, Gen 5:24) Elias also did not ascended up to heaven, but was carried by a whirlwind, a chariot of fire and horses of fire, into heaven. (2 Ki 2:11)

Now then, will the Catholics attack the very words of Christ and say that Mary ascended up to heaven?

 

Ascended=Jesus went to heaven under his own power
Assumed=Mary's body taken to heaven under His power

 

This is interesting how the words are twisted to show multiple ways of doing the same thing... Going from earth to Heaven.

We do not know the exact means by which Mary was assumed to Heaven, just that it happened. In those days the relics of the saints where very much sought after so it was known where a holy person was laid to rest and relics exist for these holy people. In the case of Mary there is no relics or burial location.

It should be noted that just because something is not in the Bible it is not necessarily untrue. What we know is that what is in the Bible is true. For example, George Bush is president, since this is not in the Bible is it false???

Just because they do not mention the assumption of Mary in the Bible does not mean that it did not happen. Also these proclamations of the Catholic church are not made in hast. This dogma of the church was believed all the way back to the time in actually occured and it wasnt until the 20th century that it was proclaimed infallible.

Yours in Christ
Daniel

 

"It should be noted that just because something is not in the Bible it is not necessarily untrue."

Oh, but it is quite implicit in the Bible. They of course will not see what I am about to show you but it is there, more so than there wonderful Sola Scriptura Dogma which noboby really knows what that means. "well it doesn't really mean sola, it just means sola prima or something like that".

Here goes.

Have you ever noticed the parrellel's Luke draws between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary. Look in Luke 1 and 2 Sam 6. In 2 Sam 6 david says

2 Samuel 6:9
So David was afraid of the LORD that day; and he said, "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?"

Sound familiar?

In Luke 1 Elizabeth says "How is it that the Mother of my Lord should come to me".

Just a coicidence you say. Well, in 2 sam 6 David does something odd. He LEAPS and dances before the ark. Now the word for leap is rarely used in scripture. But there is one place. In Luke 1 John the Baptist leaps before Mary as Elizabeth made the statement about. So I got lucky with two.

Here is the third:

In 2 Sam 6 the Ark stays with Obemedon for 3 months and he was blessed. How long does Mary stay with Elizabeth. Good guess and elizabeth I am quite sure was blessed in the time with Mary's help and with a new son that was to announce the savior of the world.

Now what does that have to do with the assumption (not ascention as some have tried to distort this doctrine in to something it is not, it happened by the power of God, not Mary's power)?

Well some early Church father's (such as Augustine) noted this verse with regard to the assumption (which is mentioned in some of the ECF writings and so is nothing new, no new invention of 1960 as some would claim)

Arise, O Lord to your resting place you and the ARK OF YOUR MAJESTY.

Now they will cry foul at this. But you Catholics will see.

 

Hi Adopted,

Scripture always puts things into proper perspective for us

Yes, it does. Let's look at the passage.

On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples.

The only 2 people named are Mary and Jesus, in the context of a marriage, just after John describes salvation as a New Creation, based off of Genesis 1.

When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine."

Mary intercedes for the guests at the wedding.

And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come."

"[W]oman" signifies the "woman" of Gen 3:15 - for Mary is the New Eve - who now stands next to her mystical husband, the new Adam, who has come to save mankind.

His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you."

Mary always points us to Jesus. Our devotion to Mary has Jesus as its end and motivation.

Jesus said to them, "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim.

Mary's act of intercession is powerful as it brings about the beginning of Jesus' public ministry, which is the beginning of his salvific work, leading up to the cross on Calvary in John 19 where Mary, the New Eve, stands near Jesus, the New Adam, as the knot of Eve and the sin of Adam are undone through the Redemption accomplished once and for all.

John, through his powerful theological narrative, combines powerful symbolic Old Testament typology to display Mary's role in the Redemption as Co-Redemptrix and in the distribution of grace as Mediatrix and Advocate.

The question is - do you read the narrative with the eyes of faith through the power of the Spirit - or do you read the narrative with carnal eyes?

God bless,

Carson

[ January 25, 2003, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Did Mary ascend bodily?

Not before about 1950, no!

It was a Vatican pronouncement trying to keep their theology together when it was becoming unravelled.

 

AdoptedByGod,

If you had good intentions with this post, you would not have knowingly titled this thread "Mary ascended bodily" when you know full well that the Church teaches that she was ASSUMED ("taken up") into Heaven. You prove this by posting an article as your backing that uses that exact language.

You are, frankly, not to be trusted, as your attempt here is to deceive.

Grant

 

Or perhaps it was an ancient belief that the Church has spent nearly 2,000 years studying before making a final, binding decision.

Yeah, I think I'll chose to believe that (aka, the Truth).

God bless,

Grant

 

The whole thing is based on a legend. Not fact. RCs like Eamon Duffy say as much. Juiper Carol says that there is no patrisdtic transmission of the doctrine.

The basis for the assumption is Gregory of Tours. His source however was the apocryphal gospel called the Trasitus Beatae Mariae also known as Pseudo-Melito. It is acknowledged by proptestatnts and RCs alike that thi document is not actual history. Indeed this very writing was actually rejected as illegitmate and heretical by Pope Gelasius. That decree was reaffimred by another Pope, Hormisdas.

Further the logic used in the definition is spurious. You read the actual decree and the argument is esstially, jesus could do it, therefore he did it.

nonsense.

But RCs will defend it tooth and nail. They have to. No assumption no way to call Mary the Queen of Heaven or co-mediatrix. And ther is no way hatthey'll give that up.

BTW, why do people try to equate things liek the assumption with the Trinity and the Resurrection which have so much biblcial evidence?? Do they not understand that the comaprison of evidences is not even remotely similar?
Epiphianus says that of her end no one knows. Apparantly later someone dedicded they DID know.

 

Grant,

To be honest, I don't think you can assume Adopted knows any better. Look again at that article from "Weekly Alibi" (which bills itself as "Albuquerque's fish-wrap super-supply since 1992"). Apparently, they have a regular feature where they dig up old newspaper stories, put a supposedly-cute caption at the top, and reprint them.

Here, the two 1950 Albuquerque Journal articles that are quoted correctly say "assumption," "taken into heaven," etc., but the little "cute" lead-in by Susan Schuurman incorrectly says "ascended." So, Adopted's only gaffe may be in believing Ms. Schuurman. (I wonder if he also agreed with her dig at Protestant beliefs?)

I've gotta wonder why he spends his days reading three-year-old issues of Nevada alternative weeklies . . . but that's his business, I guess.

Mark

 

I did a little searching on the net, and rather quickly found this:

- "In the eighth century, St. John Damascene was known for giving sermons at the holy places in Jerusalem. At the Tomb of Mary, he expressed the belief of the Church on the meaning of the feast: "Although the body was duly buried, it did not remain in the state of death, neither was it dissolved by decay. . . . You were transferred to your heavenly home, O Lady, Queen and Mother of God in truth.""

- "The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century."

- "The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).

It appears that the idea is ancient. The idea did not start in 1950, it was just proclaimed an official dogma at that time.

 

Brian,

Helen's point, and it is accurate, is that, believed or not, it did not in any sense happen until the RCC proclaimed it in 1950. Even then it only "happened" for RCs who accept the jumped-up legend. Reality is of course unaffected by that.

 

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is referred to as the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin. From Holy Tradition, we have the following narrative:

THE DORMITION OF THE THEOTOKOS-GREEK ORTHODOX

And another nice site on this:

DORMTION OF THE THEOTOKOS-ORTHODOX FAMILY LIFE

As you may note by reading, as Brian said, the narrative is of ancient origin and not something "made up" to rescue a Church who's theology was falling apart as Helen insists.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

So, why is it that women are only allowed to be priests in the RCC after they leave earth?

(Heb 7:25) Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Silly me! I actually believed that I am saved by the Lord's intercession.

(Some who read this may want to look up the word sarcasm.)

[ January 25, 2003, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

So, why is it that women are only allowed to be priests in the RCC after they leave earth?

(Heb 7:25) Wherefore He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Silly me! I actually believed that I am saved by the Lord's intercession.

(Some who read this may want to look up the word sarcasm.)</font>[/QUOTE]You seem to miss that the Catholic Church fully believes in the common priesthood of all believers, that we each have direct access to God the Father via the ONE mediator, Jesus Christ, who IS the great and only High Priest.

That in no way means that others do not intercede for us on our behalf out of love and concern for us, or that God has not called and chosen some to be His ministers, while others He has not. Those acting as His ministers (ministerial priesthood) celebrate the Mass, the re-presentation of Chrit's own sacrifice. In doing so, they are acting in the person of Christ. Since Christ chose only men as His apostles (the first bishops/priests), and since God chose for His Son to be a man, and not a woman), we act rightly in only ordaining men to the ministerial priesthood, for we are doing as Christ did.

God bless,

Grant