The Assumption

[Presentist]

Source: Mary: The Four Marian Dogmas :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

This marian dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950 on his Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus.

A distinction needs to be made between Ascension and Assumption. Jesus Christ, Son of God and Risen Lord, ascended into heaven, a sign of divine power. Mary, on the contrary, was elevated or assumed into heaven by the power and grace of God.

The dogmas states that "Mary, Immaculate Mother of God ever Virgin, after finishing the course of her life on earth, was taken up in body and soul to heavenly glory." This definition as well as that of the Immaculate Conception makes not only reference to the universal, certain and firm consent of the Magisterium but makes allusion to the concordant belief of the faithful. The Assumption had been a part of the Church's spiritual and doctrinal patrimony for centuries. It had been part of theological reflection but also of the liturgy and was part of the sense of the faithful.

This dogma has no direct basis in scripture. It was nonetheless declared "divinely revealed," meaning that it is contained implicitly in divine Revelation. It may be understood as the logical conclusion of Mary's vocation on earth, and the way she lived her life in union with God and her mission. The assumption may be seen as a consequence of Divine Motherhood. Being through, with, and for her Son on earth, it would seem fitting for Mary to be through, with, and for her Son in heaven, too. She was on earth the generous associate of her Son. The Assumption tells us that this association continues in heaven. Mary is indissolubly linked to her Son on earth and in heaven.

.

 

[Presentist]

This dogma has no direct basis in scripture.

The whole truth is that there is no indirect basis in scripture for that dogma either.

.

 

[Presentist]

This marian dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950 on his Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus.

What did the Catholics believe before 1950?

.

 

[Standing Up]

What did the Catholics believe before 1950?

.

IIRC, the earliest reference to this was Epiphanius who said, we don't know what happened to her.

 

[bbbbbbb]

What did the Catholics believe before 1950?

.

The doctrine of the Assumption slowly evolved in Catholic theology, with its greatest impetus occuring during the later Middle ages. Along with this doctrine other Marian doctrines also evolved so that by the end of the Middle Ages Mary was firmly affixed in the firmament of Catholic theology.

 

[Rhamiel]

What did the Catholics believe before 1950?

.

the catholic church believes that at the end of her life, Mary was taken up into heaven
some people believed that she died first, others said that she was just very sick, in a deep sleep
in 1950 it was made dogma, meaning that it was more strickly defined, this was done because there were some elements in the Church that started to doubt this teaching, the other reason was to show that the idea that she died first or the idea that she was still alive are both valid.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Originally Posted by Presentist

This dogma has no direct basis in scripture.
​

The whole truth is that there is no indirect basis in scripture for that dogma either.

.

You are correct; there is also no basis, direct or otherwise that denies it either.

IIRC, the earliest reference to this was Epiphanius who said, we don't know what happened to her.

I believe that there is other anecdotal (extra Biblical) evidence as well, but of very questionable origins.

the catholic church believes that at the end of her life, Mary was taken up into heaven
some people believed that she died first, others said that she was just very sick, in a deep sleep
in 1950 it was made dogma, meaning that it was more strickly defined, this was done because there were some elements in the Church that started to doubt this teaching, the other reason was to show that the idea that she died first or the idea that she was still alive are both valid.

Truth is we don't know; Scripture is silent.

If she was or was not is really of no consequence regarding our salvation.

Confessional Lutherans official view is that this would fall under adiaphora, a thing of indifference. One may or may not believe in the Assumption as a matter of pious opinion. By the way, we do commemorate the same day; August 15 as the Feast of St. Mary, Mother of our Lord.

 

[Presentist]

You are correct; there is also no basis, direct or otherwise that denies it either.

I agree with you that there is no basis (direct or otherwise) to believe that Mary escaped death.

Hebrews 9:27 says, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"

.

 

[Rhamiel]

I agree with you that there is no basis (direct or otherwise) to believe that Mary escaped death.

Hebrews 9:27 says, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"

.

what about Elijah and Enoch?
2Kings 2:11
Then it came about as they were going along and talking, that behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven

Hebrews 11:5
By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found because God took him up; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God."

Hebrews 9 is true, because all of the Bible is true, but it might be more of an "in general" type thing, not ment to exclude very very very rare exceptions

 

[Presentist]

what about Elijah and Enoch?

The Bible specifically states their unique circumstances.

As for the rest of us...

Hebrews 9:27 says, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"

.

 

[Rhamiel]

The Bible specifically states their unique circumstances.

As for the rest of us...

Hebrews 9:27 says, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"

.

so your problem is not with the idea of people being assumed into heaven but that it is not specifically mentioned that Mary was assumed into heaven?

it would be like saying "Brian is not the King of England"
now we can both agree on this, but if I do not think Brian is the King of England and you do not think there is such a thing as a King of England
Why do you think it has to be in the Bible for it to be true? God has done many many things, do you think He does not do miricles anymore?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Source: Mary: The Four Marian Dogmas :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

This marian dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950 on his Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus.

A distinction needs to be made between Ascension and Assumption. Jesus Christ, Son of God and Risen Lord, ascended into heaven, a sign of divine power. Mary, on the contrary, was elevated or assumed into heaven by the power and grace of God.

The dogmas states that "Mary, Immaculate Mother of God ever Virgin, after finishing the course of her life on earth, was taken up in body and soul to heavenly glory." This definition as well as that of the Immaculate Conception makes not only reference to the universal, certain and firm consent of the Magisterium but makes allusion to the concordant belief of the faithful. The Assumption had been a part of the Church's spiritual and doctrinal patrimony for centuries. It had been part of theological reflection but also of the liturgy and was part of the sense of the faithful.

This dogma has no direct basis in scripture. It was nonetheless declared "divinely revealed," meaning that it is contained implicitly in divine Revelation. It may be understood as the logical conclusion of Mary's vocation on earth, and the way she lived her life in union with God and her mission. The assumption may be seen as a consequence of Divine Motherhood. Being through, with, and for her Son on earth, it would seem fitting for Mary to be through, with, and for her Son in heaven, too. She was on earth the generous associate of her Son. The Assumption tells us that this association continues in heaven. Mary is indissolubly linked to her Son on earth and in heaven.

.

1. I agree that there is NO biblical basis for this. Either explicit or implicit. Direct or indirect. It is biblically BASELESS. It also has surprisingly little (and late) support even in the RC Denomination.


2. I have no idea why it matters. At all. To anything. Why declare something DOGMA (a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty) if it couldn't matter less?


3. IMO, I just don't care. If people want to believe that Mary was 7 feet tall, had pink hair or lived almost entirely on fish tacos - I have no problem with that. I only get uncomfortable when they shout that Jesus taught this, that it is a matter of highest importance to everyone (and perhaps even question the salvation of those that don't agree) and a matter of highest certainty of truth and fact (and then reveal they have NOTHING to show it as true AT ALL, on any level). As a matter of pious opinion - I'm fine with it (I just don't see why it matters). As a matter of DOGMA (as it is in only one denomination), I'm in disagreement - not with the opinion but with the status given it.

so your problem is not with the idea of people being assumed into heaven but that it is not specifically mentioned that Mary was assumed into heaven? it would be like saying "Brian is not the King of England" now we can both agree on this, but if I do not think Brian is the King of England and you do not think there is such a thing as a King of England Why do you think it has to be in the Bible for it to be true? God has done many many things, do you think He does not do miricles anymore?

I disagree that it's irrelevant if a dogma is true....
To me, truth matters.


And I disagree that silence = substantiation to the level claimed. True, Scirpture doesn't teach that I'm the smartest and most handsome man on the planet (and of all history), but I disagree with you that ERGO it's a dogmatic fact. Does it have to be in the Bible to be true? Can God not make me the smartest and most handsome man in history?

Sometimes I read Catholic apologetics and think: This person doesn't accept their OWN apologetic, not AT ALL, and yet wants everyone else to accept what they don't. Here's a classic example.

What did Catholics believe before this?

It had no view on this (which put it in the same category with most Protestant denominations)


The very first reference to anything related to this comes very late. In 377 AD, St. Ephiphanius of Salamis wrote that "no one knows if Mary had died or not." A surprisingly Protestant view.

LATER, opinions began to arise that She did not and that she was assumed. NONE of them offered ANYTHING at all to substantiate the opinion or to indicate that it was true in any sense at all, but some did embrace the opinion.






That's my perspective (ain't saying it's saying much).


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Eternally Optimistic]

What did the Catholics believe before 1950?

.

Well given that the assumption was part of the Rosary before 1950, I'm gonna have to go with we believed in the assumption.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-
2. I have no idea why it matters. At all. To anything. Why declare something DOGMA (a matter of highest importance and greatest certainty) if it couldn't matter less?
-snip-


.

Obviously it matters to the ones who so declared. And yes, the question is why. We could speculate, but perhaps the reason simply hasn't been revealed yet.

 

[Kristos]

When you consider that the Churches contemplation of Mary centers around the idea that she is a personification of the Church itself - it's first fruits if you will, then maybe it's not so surprising that we would not know for sure if she died before her Assumption. Do we know if we will die before the Resurrection? Maybe, maybe not - but either way the point is that we expect the Resurrection of the Dead and the life in the age to come. This is really the point of the feast of the Dormition (Assumption) of Mary. Unfortunately this always seems to get lost in the apologetics concerning the historical veracity of the narrative.

 

[bbbbbbb]

When you consider that the Churches contemplation of Mary centers around the idea that she is a personification of the Church itself - it's first fruits if you will, then maybe it's not so surprising that we would not know for sure if she died before her Assumption. Do we know if we will die before the Resurrection? Maybe, maybe not - but either way the point is that we expect the Resurrection of the Dead and the life in the age to come. This is really the point of the feast of the Dormition (Assumption) of Mary. Unfortunately this always seems to get lost in the apologetics concerning the historical veracity of the narrative.

I find this to be a fascinating idea. The Church is the body of Jesus Christ, the eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the Church is personified by Mary, ergo, the host and cup of the Eucharist is personified by Mary. Mary thus transubstantiates herself not only into the Church but also into its Eucharist.

Carrying this concept to yet another level we have Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Mary is a personfication of the Church. The Church is the body of Jesus Christ. Mary is a personification of God.

 

[Standing Up]

I find this to be a fascinating idea. The Church is the body of Jesus Christ, the eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the Church is personified by Mary, ergo, the host and cup of the Eucharist is personified by Mary. Mary thus transubstantiates herself not only into the Church but also into its Eucharist.

Carrying this concept to yet another level we have Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Mary is a personfication of the Church. The Church is the body of Jesus Christ. Mary is a personification of God.

In another thread in this subsection, an RCer already posited the idea that Mary is part of the Eucharist. Another RCer denied it. Will have to wait a few years to see if it becomes another dogma or not.

 

[Rhamiel]

I find this to be a fascinating idea. The Church is the body of Jesus Christ, the eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the Church is personified by Mary, ergo, the host and cup of the Eucharist is personified by Mary. Mary thus transubstantiates herself not only into the Church but also into its Eucharist.

Carrying this concept to yet another level we have Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Mary is a personfication of the Church. The Church is the body of Jesus Christ. Mary is a personification of God.

that is a weird way to look at it
too bad no orthodox church or denominations teaches this or you might have a point, but as it stands this is nothing more then some twist of logic like "can God make a stone so heavy He would not be able to move it" type thing
Oh there is a a comparison about "we will never understand that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ untill we understand that the Church is the Body of Christ" I am not sure but I think that is a quote from Thomas Merton, now many Catholics do not like Merton but some people respect him a lot, kind of a polarizing figure

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I find this to be a fascinating idea. The Church is the body of Jesus Christ, the eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the Church is personified by Mary, ergo, the host and cup of the Eucharist is personified by Mary. Mary thus transubstantiates herself not only into the Church but also into its Eucharist.

Carrying this concept to yet another level we have Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Mary is a personfication of the Church. The Church is the body of Jesus Christ. Mary is a personification of God.

that is a weird way to look at it
<snip>

And silly too .

 

[Kristos]

I find this to be a fascinating idea. The Church is the body of Jesus Christ, the eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, the Church is personified by Mary, ergo, the host and cup of the Eucharist is personified by Mary. Mary thus transubstantiates herself not only into the Church but also into its Eucharist.

Carrying this concept to yet another level we have Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Mary is a personfication of the Church. The Church is the body of Jesus Christ. Mary is a personification of God.

My thought had more to do with the Resurrection than the Eucharist, but we could certainly go there as well.

The Eucharist is the Body of Christ, which is offered by and for those gathered together in His name, who are the Church, the Body of Christ, by virtue of their gathering together to offer themselves as a living sacrifice, a mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise. Mary only personifies these things in as far as they should be personified by each of us personally as we join together in the gathering of the faithful in love. So, yes your conclusion, although it wasn't meant to be, is actually correct, just poorly worded. We are all created in the image and likeness of God and as such the Christian is called to personify God as revealed through the Incarnation. We are called to be by grace what God is by nature - as Paul and Peter and John and James say - to be perfect in Christ.