Assumption

[Carson Weber]

Hi Joseph,

Nice picture! You look like the guy I'm going to room with this next year. His name is Rob - he's 37 - and he converted to Catholicism from a Southern Baptist background in Michigan after a long and strenuous intellectual and spiritual journey (he owns 10 bookcases of books, most of which are theological, and he retains the KJV as his personal Bible, including an addendum with the "Apocrypha"). Due to your similar appearances, maybe there's hope for you. No, wait, there isn't much logic in that argument.

You asked, "What is "Holy" about it? Shouldn't we, instead honor God"

God is Creator; this means that his glory is manifested in the works of his hands, and when we recognize the beauty of his creation by honoring his creation, glory is given to Him in whom all creation has its origin.

If I were to fall in love with a young woman and say to her, "Oh Dorothy, I love you. I adore you, and I want to get to know you better. I don't care about your Mother, where you live, what you've done with your life, what you plan to do with the rest of your time, or what activities you're interested in. No.. I love you! I want to get to know you," I probably wouldn't get very far in that relationship would I? This is an analogy to our relationship with the Lord. Being Catholic is a family affair. Everyone counts and everyone is honored because everyone is a product of the abundant and glorious grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, including our Heavenly Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[BobRyan]

Joseph - this is simply a catholic error invented many decades/centuries AFTER the life and death of Mary.

BY CONTRAST - the resurrection and bodily assumption of Christ is attested to immediately in the NT - NT authors THEMSELVES declaring it.

Dead silence on that point when it comes to Mary. The RCC simply "makes it up" a few centuries "late".

But what is "more fascinating" - and "telling" is the "reason" that they "claim" it happened. It is NOT due to the eye-witness testimony that you find for Christ's ascension - RATHER it is "the claim" that SINCE Mary is "Sinless like Christ" (and of course we "all" know that is true) THEN she ALSO would not be left to decay JUST as Christ was not left to decay in the dust.

Obviously - another "idea" not quickly swallowed by non-Catholics. As with "so many" Catholic errors - you have to "already BE Catholic" to believe in it. It's not one of those teachings that "makes a Catholic" out of a non-Catholic.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Of course one might to choose hold a competition between the "assumption of Mary" ideas and the "tomb of Mary" traditions.

Who would win?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Joseph - this is simply a catholic error invented many decades/centuries AFTER the life and death of Mary.

What, I wonder, would be the point of inventing such an error. No knee-jerk answers now, let's think this one through and decide why the Church would invent this "obvious error" out of whole cloth, when it would be oh-so-much easier just to let well enough alone, or at least alter one of the NT books to "prove" the Assumption.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
Don't you celebrate your family of origin, both living and passed on?

If you are talking about birthdays, etc..., I would say yes. I don't, however, consider them holy days. I still am not sure how honoring a sinner saved by God's grace is considered "Holy"?

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]First of all Mary was not a sinner. She is said by the angel to be "full of grace". To be full of grace is to have no room for sin. Jesus is the only other in scripture who is spoken of as "full of grace". Though some translations speak of Stephen as at that point at his martyrdom. Now Mary was saved by God's grace however.

There is an interesting nugget of truth in Augustines Confessions that sheds light on this truth. Augustine lamments the sins that he would be committing had he not accepted Christ. Think about that. Grace prevents you from sinning as well as saves you from the sins you have committed. I know it has for me. There are two ways to save someone from a mud hole. You can prevent them from going in the first place or you can pull them out and clean them off. For most of us the latter is how God works. But with Mary, the former is what happened. God prevented her from sinning. This was not neccessary, but fitting for the Mother of God (Elizabeth says how is it that the Mother of my Lord should come to me". Now on to the assumption.

While it is true that the actual event is not recorded, there is implicit evidence in scripture (don't tell me that all you believe is explicit in Scripture). Luke 1 closely parrellel's 2 Sam 6. Now 2 Sam 6 is about the ark of the covenant which was so holy that if it were touched the man who touched it would die on the spot. Uriah the Hittite kept it from falling over in 2 Sam 6 and was killed on the spot. (Hummm. Another arguement for mary's holiness and sinlessness.).

In 2 Sam 6 King David says "how can the ark of my Lord come to me." . In Luke 1, Elizabeth says "how is it that the Mother of my Lord should come unto me.". David leaps and dances before the Ark in 2 Sam 6. John Leaps before Mary, carrying Jesus in Luke 1. Both incidents take place in the hill country of Judah. The ark stays with Obemedon in 2 Sam 6 for 3 months, while Mary stays with Elizabeth for 3 months. Coincidence? I don't believe so. Luke is drawing a parrellel between Mary and the Ark of the covenant. Mary is the new AOC. The God bearer as the Ark was called (for it contained the sacred bread, the tables with the Law, and aarons staff, symbols of Jesus). Surely Mary is the God bearer of the NT. Now things get interesting. In Psalm 132 the Psalmists say "Arise,come to your resting place, you and your majestic ark." . . The ARk spoken of is not the Ark of the OT. For we are told in Jerimiah that that one was lost. In one sense I have seen this ark spoken of as Jesus but in another it is Mary. She was assumed in to heaven as a gift from God. Not of her own merrit.

As for your question about honoring someone or something other than God, it is honoring God to honor those who have kept his word and persevered in running the race. We recognize what he has done in and through them. This is very scriptural.

Acts 28:10
They honored us in many ways and when we were ready to sail, they furnished us with the supplies we needed.
(Whole Chapter: Acts 28 In context: Acts 28:9-11)\

Romans 2:10
but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
(Whole Chapter: Romans 2 In context: Romans 2:9-11)

Romans 12:10
Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves.
(Whole Chapter: Romans 12 In context: Romans 12:9-11)

We are told to reflect on the lives of those who have held to the faith and recieved the reward:

Hebrews 6:12
We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised.
(Whole Chapter: Hebrews 6 In context: Hebrews 6:11-13)

Hope that helps.

 

[neal4christ]

First of all Mary was not a sinner. She is said by the angel to be "full of grace". To be full of grace is to have no room for sin. Jesus is the only other in scripture who is spoken of as "full of grace".

Could you point me to some verses, please? I know the one for Mary is Luke 1:28. How about the one you are referring to for Jesus? I would like to look at the Greek behind this phrase you are referring to. However, I know it will not be the same Greek word used for Jesus, because the one referring to Mary is only used twice, the other place being Ephesians 1:6. Regarding Mary, the word seems simply mean "highly graced" or "highly favored." I am not sure were this "full of" part comes from that Catholics are saying. However, I am not a Greek scholar either.

God Bless,
Neal

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Neal,

The Greek is kecharitomene, and it is a perfect passive participle. It signifies an action that has been fully completed in the past. A most literal translation of the Greek is "you who have been fully graced".

The Greek root literally means "to make graceful; to endow with grace"

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
While it is true that the actual event is not recorded, there is implicit evidence in scripture (don't tell me that all you believe is explicit in Scripture). Luke 1 closely parrellel's 2 Sam 6. Now 2 Sam 6 is about the ark of the covenant which was so holy that if it were touched the man who touched it would die on the spot. Uriah the Hittite kept it from falling over in 2 Sam 6 and was killed on the spot. (Hummm. Another arguement for mary's holiness and sinlessness.).

In 2 Sam 6 King David says "how can the ark of my Lord come to me." . In Luke 1, Elizabeth says "how is it that the Mother of my Lord should come unto me.". David leaps and dances before the Ark in 2 Sam 6. John Leaps before Mary, carrying Jesus in Luke 1. Both incidents take place in the hill country of Judah. The ark stays with Obemedon in 2 Sam 6 for 3 months, while Mary stays with Elizabeth for 3 months. Coincidence? I don't believe so. Luke is drawing a parrellel between Mary and the Ark of the covenant. Mary is the new AOC. The God bearer as the Ark was called (for it contained the sacred bread, the tables with the Law, and aarons staff, symbols of Jesus). Surely Mary is the God bearer of the NT. Now things get interesting. In Psalm 132 the Psalmists say "Arise,come to your resting place, you and your majestic ark." . . The ARk spoken of is not the Ark of the OT. For we are told in Jerimiah that that one was lost. In one sense I have seen this ark spoken of as Jesus but in another it is Mary. She was assumed in to heaven as a gift from God. Not of her own merrit.

Whoa. Very interesting, thess. Thanks for the cool post - very thought provoking.

 

[neal4christ]

The Greek is kecharitomene, and it is a perfect passive participle. It signifies an action that has been fully completed in the past. A most literal translation of the Greek is "you who have been fully graced".

Thanks Carson. I already knew what the Greek word was and that it was a perfect passive participle. My question is where this "fully" idea comes from. It seems the correct translation is "you who have been highly favored, graced." Also, I would like to see the passage where it was said the same reference is made with regards to Jesus. Clearly, the same Greek word is not used, but I will still like to see the reference that is being referred to. I just want to keep people honest. Saying that Jesus is referred to in the same manner as Mary is a bit misleading because the same Greek words are not used. So I would like to check into it myself. Any ideas as to the reference where Jesus is described with the same term as Mary was?

In Christ,
Neal

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
Also, I would like to see the passage where it was said the same reference is made with regards to Jesus.

John 1:14

Clearly, the same Greek word is not used, but I will still like to see the reference that is being referred to.

Just a variation of the same word. John 1:14 uses "charis" (Strong's #5485), Luke 1:28 uses "charitoo" (Strong's #5487) which is derived from "charis".

Edit: the words I posted above are the root words, not the words, without the tense declensions they have in the text itself.

 

[neal4christ]

Just a variation of the same word. John 1:14 uses "charis" (Strong's #5485), Luke 1:28 uses "charitoo" (Strong's #5487) which is derived from "charis".

Thanks, Brian. So what is the difference then? There has to be some, because they are different words used, even if derived from the same root word, right?

Also, I am still awaiting some explanation as to why "full of" is preferred in the translation rather than "highly."

In Christ,
Neal

 

[neal4christ]

I just realized that, though I feel my questions are needed, this issue still does not really lead to the natural conclusion that Mary was assumed. What evidence is there that she was? I am not aware of any, other than some connections that are attempted between her and the ark of the covenant. Even so, I don't see why her assumption is necessary, and with the lack of evidence (at least that which is known to me) I could never accept such a teaching.

God Bless,
Neal

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
I just realized that, though I feel my questions are needed, this issue still does not really lead to the natural conclusion that Mary was assumed. What evidence is there that she was? I am not aware of any, other than some connections that are attempted between her and the ark of the covenant. Even so, I don't see why her assumption is necessary, and with the lack of evidence (at least that which is known to me) I could never accept such a teaching.

God Bless,
Neal

Neal, (I always double-check the spelling now!

)

Do you simply reject today the command to "hold to the traditions which you were taught by us [...] by word of mouth"? Does this command no longer apply, and if not, why not?

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Neal,

The dogma of the Assumption is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, "Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might." If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark — who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ. But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin (Gen. 3:17, 19).

We know that Mary was assumed into heaven by means of apostolic tradition. The New Testament only covers so much history - not all of what happened to each of the Apostles, much less Mary, after Pentecost.

 

[neal4christ]

Do you simply reject today the command to "hold to the traditions which you were taught by us [...] by word of mouth"? Does this command no longer apply, and if not, why not?

Mike,

If you can show me that Paul taught the assumption of Mary, then I will gladly follow it. I have a major problem with the so-called traditions handed down that the RCC claims they have. I honestly have not looked into what tradition is referred to in this passage, but I will not blindly accept what someone calls a tradition.

God Bless,
Neal

 

[neal4christ]

After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived,

Ah, yes, Carson, and that is a big "if." Yet another thing which has no evidence except "apostolic tradition." I can't just accept all of the so-called "apostolic traditions" with little or no evidence. Were all the early Christians 100% correct?

And yes, I know that the NT is not exhaustive history. I have never onced claimed that. But there is little to no evidence for many of the "traditions" held, especially those concerning Mary. Forgive me, for I need a little more that just a group of men telling me to follow something blindly. Men are extremely fallible and imperfect. Many of these traditions became official many years later, and I just cannot accept that. Not all tradition is bad, but not everything called tradition is true.

In the Lord Jesus Christ,
Neal

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Do you simply reject today the command to "hold to the traditions which you were taught by us [...] by word of mouth"? Does this command no longer apply, and if not, why not?

Mike,

If you can show me that Paul taught the assumption of Mary, then I will gladly follow it. I have a major problem with the so-called traditions handed down that the RCC claims they have. I honestly have not looked into what tradition is referred to in this passage, but I will not blindly accept what someone calls a tradition.

God Bless,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Let's leave aside the Assumption for a moment, and reframe your question as "If you can show me that the apostles taught the tradition 'X', not written down, then I will gladly follow it." How could one show you such a fact? Well, the Church could declare it, but you have said you will not accept such a claim. So, how can you know any of the oral traditions that we have been commanded to hold to? I appears as though there are oral traditions which you should be holding to. What are they? Where are they found?

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I understand that Thursday is a Catholic Holy Day called the Assumption. What is the Assumption and where is this idea found in Scripture? And why is it considered to be a Holy Day?

Joseph Botwinick

Unless I missed it, nobody has pointed our brothers and sisters in Christ to the actual papal encyclical on the Assumption:

MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Joseph - this is simply a catholic error invented many decades/centuries AFTER the life and death of Mary.

Mike S said --
What, I wonder, would be the point of inventing such an error. No knee-jerk answers now, let's think this one through and decide why the Church would invent this "obvious error" out of whole cloth, when it would be oh-so-much easier just to let well enough alone, or at least alter one of the NT books to "prove" the Assumption.

That is the "easy part" -- Mariolotry.

Long after the death of Mary and all that were contemporary with her - you are free to "make up stories" - at least to some extent.

As to "how easy it would be to alter the pre-existing texts that were used by the NT saints" and already in circulation - that is a bigger prolem. Somewhat like trying to change the assumption story after you publish it and let it circulate for a few centuries.

As it turns out - the NT letter were not written by Catholics in the 3rd century. AS it turns out, they already existed in the first century - late first century - but first centruy none-the-less. To start "writing into the text" nice little stories - as it pleased the RCC - some 2 or 3 centuries after the fact - was bound to "get noticed" by some of the contemporaries of those later centuries - that had "a better unmodified copy" from "last year". Fortunately - with the introduction of the idea that man-made RC tradition was every bit as authorotative as God's Word - they presumed that they did not "need" a sola-scriptura answer - so no "need" to change the text - presumably.

But what if the stories that you make up in areas that the texts do not speak about (like the assumption of Mary) - start tripping you up and you get "competing stories"? That is the case with the assumption of Mary and the older stories about the Tomb of Mary.

IN the assumption "story" Apostles are flying in from all over the world to say farewell to Mary. There is no "Tomb" in that "story".

The whole thing is quite fascinating if you just look at it objectively.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
Joseph - this is simply a catholic error invented many decades/centuries AFTER the life and death of Mary.

Mike S said --
What, I wonder, would be the point of inventing such an error. No knee-jerk answers now, let's think this one through and decide why the Church would invent this "obvious error" out of whole cloth, when it would be oh-so-much easier just to let well enough alone, or at least alter one of the NT books to "prove" the Assumption.

That is the "easy part" -- Mariolotry.

Long after the death of Mary and all that were contemporary with her - you are free to "make up stories" - at least to some extent.

As to "how easy it was to alter the texts that were used by the NT saints" - the NT letter were not written by Catholics in the 3rd century. AS it turns out they already existed in the first century - late first century - but first centruy none-the-less. To start "writing into the text" as it pleased the RCC - some 2 or 3 centuries after the fact - was bound to "get noticed" by some of the contemporaries of those later centuries - that had "a better unmodified copy" from "last year".

But what if the stories that you make up - start tripping you up and you get "competing stories"? That is the case with the assumption of Mary and the Tomb of Mary.</font>[/QUOTE]So you're saying the Catholic Church didn't alter the NT text because people would catch them, but they went ahead and invented stories that went against the Scriptures, somehow figuring nobody would catch that? And the stories they invented didn't even have any use! (just saying "Mariolotry" doesn't tell me what use these made-up stories were to the Church).

At least, if they knew they might get found out anyway, they could have altered the NT texts and claim that theirs were the true texts and that the others were forgeries. That at least makes it a sensible conspiracy. But they didn't do that. Instead, the Church came out in 1950, knowing that hundreds of millions of bible-wielding Protestants were ready to pounce on their every encyclical, and boldly declared the Assumption anyway. If it's all just made up, what sense is there in that?

IN the assumption "story" Apostles are flying in from all over the world to say farewell to Mary. There is no "Tomb" in that "story".

You mean like with limos picking them up at the airport, and lots of cameras, and later an HBO special about the whole thing?

Guess I slept thru that catechism class!