The death of the Virgin in RCC imagery

[PilgrimToChrist]

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Hope that's good enough for you...you being a "christian" and all.

Does that verse say, "The entirety of Divine Revelation is contained within the Bible"?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I suppose she was greater than the RCs first pope, Peter

http://www.christianforums.com/t7327962-6/
Bones of Peter

Of course she is -- there is no one greater in all of Creation!

It is truly meet and right to bless you, O Theotokos,
Ever-blessed and most-pure mother of our God.
More honourable than the Cherubim,
And beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim,
Who without corruption gave birth to God the Word,
True Theotokos: we magnify you.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Well then, I guess that settles that....at least until her bones are found

I would think that if there was any doubt to Mary being assumed into Heaven (and we have writings from the Early
Church saying she was) that we would have some letter or myth or anything saying that Mary was buried somewhere. As far as I know we have nothing of the kind. All we have are the traditions that have been passed on since Mary was assumed saying she was assumed.

Well... with the exception of the last hundred or so years. But really, can supposition from the last hundred years be taken seriously with the facts? I do not think so.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

... On the other hand, if any 'Bible believing' Christian here feels called to chuck out the PC, live in a shed, live on locusts and wild honey and get down to some serious reading, go ahead.

That does sound like a good idea:

St. Paul the First Hermit, pray for us!


I met these hermits in 2009:

 

[Standing Up]

I would think that if there was any doubt to Mary being assumed into Heaven (and we have writings from the Early
Church saying she was) that we would have some letter or myth or anything saying that Mary was buried somewhere. As far as I know we have nothing of the kind. All we have are the traditions that have been passed on since Mary was assumed saying she was assumed.

Well... with the exception of the last hundred or so years. But really, can supposition from the last hundred years be taken seriously with the facts? I do not think so.

The earliest report (mentioned earlier in the thread) said, we do not know what happened.

 

[Standing Up]

Tradition tells us Peter is buried under the Vatican so he is not assumed in to Heaven from any early reports. Paul is the same, in Rome. The other Apostles are believed to be at various locations as well (or at least their bodies). From all known accounts Mary's body was assumed into Heaven and she is not claimed to be buried anywhere.

Tradition may be wrong. As mentioned, the earliest account of Mary was that no one knows. And there's something like 9 skulls of the Baptist. Maybe all are wrong. Just like wrong about the relics of Peter and Paul. What difference does it make? Zip.

So, since Tradition is fluid anyway, and there's no way to prove oral Tradition one way or the other, I'd propose that certain NT believers have already been assumed into heaven. People like Mary, Peter, Paul, Thomas, and the other apostles. It's an easy step. Why not?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The earliest report (mentioned earlier in the thread) said, we do not know what happened.

How early is the Protoevangelium of James? That book describes Mary and her ascension.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Tradition may be wrong. As mentioned, the earliest account of Mary was that no one knows. And there's something like 9 skulls of the Baptist. Maybe all are wrong. Just like wrong about the relics of Peter and Paul. What difference does it make? Zip.

So, since Tradition is fluid anyway, and there's no way to prove oral Tradition one way or the other, I'd propose that certain NT believers have already been assumed into heaven. People like Mary, Peter, Paul, Thomas, and the other apostles. It's an easy step. Why not?

My point is that there is no proof that Mary was not assumed in to Heaven. I am not trying to prove she was, that takes Faith as well. But there is no proof of any kind that she died and was buried.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Two points:

1. No denomination has ever elevated the matters of worship and assembly to the level of infallible dogma requisite for salvation. There are only four Dogmas in the Catholic Church which have been enunciated as dogmas and these are the four Marian Dogmas. Although there is general concensus that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is dogmatic in nature, it has never been declared to be Dogma nor does it address matters or worship and assembly.

Huh?

I have no idea what you mean by the statement "There are only four Dogmas in the Catholic Church which have been enunciated as dogmas and these are the four Marian Dogmas". First off, there are many, many more (just look at the list of any doctrinal 'anathemas' by a Council) and secondly, only three Marian dogmas have been formally defined (Her Ever-Virginity has never been formally defined but it is still dogmatic).

Also, I do not know what you mean by "there is general concensus that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is dogmatic in nature, it has never been declared to be Dogma". A catechism, by its very nature, is not a dogma but explains dogma and other teachings. There are many different Catholic Catechisms, just because the Catechism of the Catholic Church (to which I assume you are referring) is the newest (1992) doesn't make it the best or most accurate to explain Catholic teaching.

2. Catrholic dogma does not state that Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven. If they were, then we know they did so without dying. If Assumption is going to heaven apart from death, then the majority of Catholics (at least according to PilgrimtoChrist) are in error because they believe that Mary died prior to her Assumption.

"Assumption" means a "taking up into Heaven". (A logical assumption is a "taking up" of an idea). It doesn't matter whether the person has died and been resurrected or not.

But yes, you are right, there is no dogmatic definition about what happened to Enoch and Elijah, we know no more than the Biblical accounts.

But with Mary we do know because it is part of what the Apostles handed down to us.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Very well. Let us examine some of the implications of the Dogma.

If Mary was sinless (the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception) and death is the wages of sin (Romans 3:23) then Mary could not have died because she had no sin for which wages were due. Thus, according to some Catholics, Mary must have been assumed to heaven while yet alive, having completed her course on earth. To believe otherwise would constitute a mortal sin because it would deny the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

(I removed your Marian blue, even if it was apropos...)

If I say that the crime of murder deserves a punishment of death, does that mean that everyone who dies is guilty of murder? Just because B is the result of A doesn't mean that every time B occurs it is the result of A.

 

[Standing Up]

How early is the Protoevangelium of James? That book describes Mary and her ascension.

Epiphanius 377ad no one knows her end.

P of J c150ad is of dubious origin and generally rejected by RC because it suggests that Jesus' brothers were step-brothers by Joseph (EO), rather than His cousins (RC).

Anyway, PoJ, IIRC, doesn't even speak to Mary's end.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Well yeah, that's why Mary would have inherited tainted physical human DNA that grows from a baby and is able to die, yet her soul remained free of the stain of sin. Even Jesus was able to die though his soul was immaculate.

You are indeed getting at something. Jesus did not suffer the effects of Original Sin and yet He still suffered physical limitations -- He got hungry, thirsty, tired, etc. even though He could have stopped it and turned the stones to bread.

The Apostle says of Christ:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh; God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh...

Christ suffered the physical defects which were the result of the corruption of human nature but did so not because He was subject to the actual punishment of Adam but rather to transform the human race.

In the verb "to contract" is understood the relation of effect to cause, i.e. that is said to be contracted which is derived of necessity together with its cause. Now the cause of death and such like defects in human nature is sin, since "by sin death entered into this world," according to Romans 5:12. And hence they who incur these defects, as due to sin, are properly said to contract them. Now Christ had not these defects, as due to sin, since, as Augustine [Alcuin in the Gloss, Ord., expounding John 3:31, "He that cometh from above, is above all," says: "Christ came from above, i.e. from the height of human nature, which it had before the fall of the first man." For He received human nature without sin, in the purity which it had in the state of innocence. In the same way He might have assumed human nature without defects. Thus it is clear that Christ did not contract these defects as if taking them upon Himself as due to sin, but by His own will.

So Christ voluntarily adopted defects which fallen humanity suffers but He did not contract them as a punishment for Original Sin.

In the same way, the Blessed Virgin was not subject to the corruption of the flesh as to the punishment of Adam and his progeny but rather did so willingly in order to be in union with the suffering and death of Her Divine Son.

Death of the Virgin, by Caravaggio

 

[godisreal36]

It was the draw of the Holy Spirit dear friend

Luke 21:5 And certain saying about the Temple that to stones ideal and devoted-things/ana-qhmasin <334> it hath been adorned He said.......

Reve 14:8 And another Messenger, second-one follows saying "She falls, She falls, Babylon the Great, the out of the wine of the fury of the fornication of her she has given to drink all the nations".

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD

..............The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover.............

.......The Temple now presented little more than a heap of ruins............

I believe you brother. And thought the same thing. Thanks for the encouragement. I try to be careful. It seems tricky sometimes. Not sure why that is.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

If we believe Mary was bodily assumed into heaven after her death, then is there any reason to believe that Peter, Paul, and the other apostles have not also been bodily assumed into heaven also?

We are, after all, talking about oral tradition, but I think I can build a case for that.

Well, you would need at least some ancient testimony as to that effect. All the stories of the Apostles end with their martyrdom (John excepted, although they tried). They don't mention a resurrection and ascension and this is unknown to the Church. But the Assumption of Mary is very much known to the Church and is universally acknowledged, which is proof that it is part of the teaching of the Apostles (since the Church is divinely protected).

A few theologians (St. Bernardine and St. Francis de Sales among them) have said that St. Joseph was taken into Heaven body and soul (he died a happy death in the arms of Jesus and Mary, which is why is the patron saint of the dying, since that is what we all pray for). I guess it is only right for the Holy Family to be together again bodily. But whereas Our Lady's Assumption was universally celebrated, there is no such thing for St. Joseph (on the other hand, no one even claims to have his bones) -- it may or may not be true, but it is not contained (as far as we are aware) in the teachings of the Apostles.

 

[prodromos]

My point is that there is no proof that Mary was not assumed in to Heaven. I am not trying to prove she was, that takes Faith as well. But there is no proof of any kind that she died and was buried.

I assume that when you say "no proof of any kind", you mean no proof apart from her empty tomb.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I assume that when you say "no proof of any kind", you mean no proof apart from her empty tomb.

I mean that I am aware of nothing in the first 1500 years of Christianity that states Mary is buried somewhere. It seems to me that all evidence points to her Assumption.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Epiphanius 377ad no one knows her end.

P of J c150ad is of dubious origin and generally rejected by RC because it suggests that Jesus' brothers were step-brothers by Joseph (EO), rather than His cousins (RC).

Anyway, PoJ, IIRC, doesn't even speak to Mary's end.

Yes, PoJ was not what I meant. My kids had me a little disoriented before they were finally sent to bed.

I meant to bring up the apocryphal writings from around 400 AD that speak of Mary being assumed into Heaven.

Writings: CHURCH FATHERS: Assumption of Mary

 

[98cwitr]

Of course she is -- there is no one greater in all of Creation!

It is truly meet and right to bless you, O Theotokos,
Ever-blessed and most-pure mother of our God.
More honourable than the Cherubim,
And beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim,
Who without corruption gave birth to God the Word,
True Theotokos: we magnify you.

Greater than John the Baptist?

Luke 7:28
I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.&#8221;

Does that verse say, "The entirety of Divine Revelation is contained within the Bible"?

Nope, but if the apostles were there, and it was the resurrection of the mother of Jesus I'd expect it to be in there. Heck, they recorded the resurrection of poor 'ol Lazarus but not Mary? What gives? Unless...it's not true of course.....

 

[Thekla]

28 For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist;[a] but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.&#8221; (King James)

Otherwise, Jesus Christ (born of woman, per Paul) would be lesser than John the Baptist, which is not the case.

see here:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=7&v=1&t=KJV#conc/28

 

[98cwitr]

You know it's Jesus Himself saying these things right? You find me the word 'prophet' in the org. greek plz...I can't: &#955;&#8051;&#947;&#969; &#8017;&#956;&#8150;&#957;, &#956;&#949;&#8055;&#950;&#969;&#957; &#7952;&#957; &#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#964;&#959;&#8150;&#962; &#947;&#965;&#957;&#945;&#953;&#954;&#8182;&#957; &#7992;&#969;&#8049;&#957;&#957;&#959;&#965; &#959;&#8016;&#948;&#949;&#8055;&#962; &#7952;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#957;: &#8001; &#948;&#8050; &#956;&#953;&#954;&#961;&#8057;&#964;&#949;&#961;&#959;&#962; &#7952;&#957; &#964;&#8135; &#946;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#955;&#949;&#8055;&#8115; &#964;&#959;&#8166; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#8166; &#956;&#949;&#8055;&#950;&#969;&#957; &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#959;&#8166; &#7952;&#963;&#964;&#953;&#957;.

KJV is grossly mistranslated...just see Genesis 22:1 if you don't believe me.