The Assumption of Mary

[Slaol121]

According to The Catholic Encyclopedia:

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. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. 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.​

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.[/b]

It seems to me that the evidence of the assumption of Mary is questionable, at best. Why believe this? What possible benefit to salvation does this belief have?

Also, why is it considered to be "blasphemous" to deny that this happened?

 

[addo]

Interesting. I wondered the same thing too. I think Catholics place too much emphasis on Mary.

But to the OP, what do you think of the supposed appearence of Mary at Fatima?

 

[Slaol121]

Interesting. I wondered the same thing too. I think Catholics place too much emphasis on Mary.

As do I - though I do believe that we should regard her as special among women. I also agree with the teachings agreed upon during the First Council of Ephesus that Mary was the "Mother of God" - not that she was greater than God, but that the baby inside her was literally God.

But to the OP, what do you think of the supposed appearance of Mary at Fatima?

Honestly, I'm not sure. To me, it seems like the shrines and adoration surrounding Fatima fall dangerously close to the realm of paganism.

YouTube - Candlelight Procession in Fatima

 

[Rhamiel]

we do not base our belief on the assumption of Mary on those texts
as you pointed out, the texts are not the most trust worthy of texts, not horrible but not great either

we base our belief on the assumption of Mary from that it has always been believed by the Church

it is a lovely example of the salvation of the Church

to rebel agianst the teachings of the Church is to rebel agianst Christ Himself

the Gospel according to Luke chapter 10 verse 16
He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me

 

[Zeek]

we do not base our belief on the assumption of Mary on those texts
as you pointed out, the texts are not the most trust worthy of texts, not horrible but not great either

we base our belief on the assumption of Mary from that it has always been believed by the Church

it is a lovely example of the salvation of the Church

to rebel agianst the teachings of the Church is to rebel agianst Christ Himself

the Gospel according to Luke chapter 10 verse 16
He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me

In Luke 10:16 Jesus is talking to the 35 pairs of disciples whom He has sent out to pave the way for His coming...The Scripture cannot be used to endorse some Christian Institution.

to rebel agianst the teachings of the Church is to rebel agianst Christ Himself

This is probably the crux of every argument posted in these threads...I presume you are using the word 'Church' in this context to mean 'The Church of Rome'?...and therefore because the Church of Rome has always believed or taught it, then it must be true.


The fact is that the 'assumption' of Mary did not become official dogma until 1950...why that late you might ask? Well from what I see in all the religious teachings of the Catholic Church regarding Mary....they have created an on-going mythology surrounding not only her life, but her very being, therefore it is encumbent upon them to try and make their teachings water-tight...at least to fellow Catholics, who will not question the Church teachings, because the Church says any that do so are not true Believers. (Catch 22)

The one fly in the ointment regarding these teachings is that they cannot be properly backed up with Scripture, therefore they incorporate any teachings of the early Church that teach similar things, and elevate these to a position of almost Scriptural authority....and when Scripture is used, it is generally handled in a really inconsistant manner.

So in all of this, what is the outcome? The focus is taken away from the Son of Mary and zeroes in on Her....and so much doctrine and teaching goes towards safe-guarding her mythical status and proving the veracity of Catholic dogma in this area. It should not be so, and the One True Church (that's us, you, me and all Believers in Jesus as Saviour) is hurting because of such nonsense.

 

[Studious One]

Ever play the sentence game? Where someone says something to another person, and that person in turn tells another person? And so it goes through a chain of people and when it gets back to the original person who started the sentence, it is twisted entirely into something else?

I believe that is what happened to bring about the assumption of Mary story.

Someone stated the truth, that the Lord Jesus Christ who was the son of Mary, had died and rose again and ascended into heaven.

That true statement went through several people until it was finally twisted into both Mary and Jesus dying and then being raised from the dead and ascending into heaven... and then made official dogma in 1950.

 

[Studious One]

Interesting. I wondered the same thing too. I think Catholics place too much emphasis on Mary.

They do indeed.

But to the OP, what do you think of the supposed appearence of Mary at Fatima?

There are two possibilities:

1. That the apparition was not Mary, but a deceiving spirit.
2. If the apparition was indeed Mary, then it proves that Mary was a sinner and now a deceiving spirit.

I believe the apparition was the former... a deceiving spirit.

The promises it gave prove it to be deceiving. It draws attention and service to it instead of to the Lord Jesus Christ.

For instance, the first promise was that if it was faithfully served, it would bestow signal graces.

This is contradictory to the Word of God. We are told to serve God and Him only.

Another deceiving promise by the apparition was that if one recommends one's self to it by the recitation of the Rosary, that one will not perish.

Yet, the Word of God tells us that it is only through belief on Jesus Christ that one has the promise of not perishing.

Another deceptive promise is that the apparition will give those who faithfully recite the rosary all that they ask of it.

It is obvious that the apparition was indeed a spirit of deceit and not of God at all.

As to the assumption, I deny it ever happened. The Catholics may now all chime in in agreement with Benedict XIV and accuse me of blasphemy.

 

[Rhamiel]

Ever play the sentence game? Where someone says something to another person, and that person in turn tells another person? And so it goes through a chain of people and when it gets back to the original person who started the sentence, it is twisted entirely into something else?

I believe that is what happened to bring about the assumption of Mary story.

Someone stated the truth, that the Lord Jesus Christ who was the son of Mary, had died and rose again and ascended into heaven.

That true statement went through several people until it was finally twisted into both Mary and Jesus dying and then being raised from the dead and ascending into heaven... and then made official dogma in 1950.

does the sentence game also applies to Bible, with translations and hand written copies?
it was doctrine but not dogma before 1950, the EO also believe that Mary was assumed into heaven after she died
it was always believed but it was not defined as dogma

 

[Studious One]

does the sentence game also applies to Bible, with translations and hand written copies?
it was doctrine but not dogma before 1950, the EO also believe that Mary was assumed into heaven after she died
it was always believed but it was not defined as dogma

To say it was always doctrine is not entirely truthful. From what I have read the teaching of Mary's assumption did not arise until halfway through the 5th Century A.D... well after any of the Apostles had died. And at that time, it was rejected by the Catholic church.

 

[Dylan Michael]

Yes, if Mary was a deceiving spirit, then why does she always tell people to turn toward her Son?

 

[addo]

Yes, if Mary was a deceiving spirit, then why does she always tell people to turn toward her Son?

Hmm ... I don't think the best plan Satan can make is to simply appear in some form and say: "worship me and and give your attention to me and think less of Jesus". I'd say that even the Catholic Church will declare that as anathema. So a more indirect way which is not noticed at first is trickier to discover; thus it is easier to deceive people this way. Satan is the master of deception after all, and coming as a sheep is a good form of deceiving.

 

[Studious One]

Yes, if Mary was a deceiving spirit, then why does she always tell people to turn toward her Son?

She doesn't. She only talked to the people in her lifetime on earth. She no longer talks to people.

 

[Zeek]

I agree entirely with Addo and Studious One....obviously Mary the mother of the L-rd is a dear departed Saint, from whom one day we will hear true stories of the childhood of Jesus that have never been recorded, and the time she came to faith....I would like to be up the front of the queue to talk to her and honour her in Eternity.

2 Cor 2:11 Paul mentions not being ignorant of Satan's schemes

Greek-Noema...scheme, thought, purpose:

The trouble is that many Believers are very ignorant of these things, and that suits his purposes just fine, and he will continue to fool some of the people all of the time....but lets exhort one another to follow the Truth, desire righteousness, and to live lives worthy of our calling, and lay aside every encumbrance.

These apparitions can only be demonic, and just play along with the twisted doctrines that have have been accepted, elaborated on, and passed down through the ages...they know what people what to hear, and their aim is to perpetuate, strengthen and confirm the false doctrines that were first initiated in the exaggerated imaginations of men.

That they may point to Jesus, is probably even more subtle, because it therefore gives the appearance of endorsing the rest of their message...and anyway we know the devils believe in Him, and tremble.

I believe that when demonic strategy can no longer keep a person from knowing the L-rd, their next form of onslaught is to divert and weaken a persons faith, making them ineffective and diluting their faith through the introduction of all sorts of things that apppeal to the flesh, including in this case many religious diversions.

 

[Rhamiel]

the Vision at Fatima told the children to say this prayer

"O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls into Heaven, especially those of us in most need of they mercy"

this is not the prayer a proud spirit would teach children, it is asking Jesus for forgiveness and a reminder that we need His mercy
I do not think a demon, demons are totaly cut off from any grace correct?
I do not think a demon could even say such a prayer

so the Vision at Fatima could not be demonic
it had to either be some kind of group delusion or hystaria

or a vision from Heaven

I believe that the Vision in Fatima was of the Virgin Mary and she appeared from Heaven

 

[Studious One]

the Vision at Fatima told the children to say this prayer

"O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls into Heaven, especially those of us in most need of they mercy"

this is not the prayer a proud spirit would teach children, it is asking Jesus for forgiveness and a reminder that we need His mercy
I do not think a demon, demons are totaly cut off from any grace correct?
I do not think a demon could even say such a prayer

so the Vision at Fatima could not be demonic
it had to either be some kind of group delusion or hystaria

or a vision from Heaven

I believe that the Vision in Fatima was of the Virgin Mary and she appeared from Heaven

The "O my Jesus..." prayer is nothing but a smokescreen to make Catholics think they are pleasing God.

The fact is, 53 times in that Rosary, the person's attention is on Mary. The 'O my Jesus..." prayer obviously is not heard by Jesus because of all the attention on Mary. No man can serve two masters.

David said in Psalm 66 that if we regard iniquity in our hearts, the Lord will not hear us. The Lord does not hear the prayers of those who pray to Mary and bow in devotion to statues of her

 

[Rhamiel]

The "O my Jesus..." prayer is nothing but a smokescreen to make Catholics think they are pleasing God.

The fact is, 53 times in that Rosary, the person's attention is on Mary. The 'O my Jesus..." prayer obviously is not heard by Jesus because of all the attention on Mary. No man can serve two masters.

David said in Psalm 66 that if we regard iniquity in our hearts, the Lord will not hear us. The Lord does not hear the prayers of those who pray to Mary and bow in devotion to statues of her

So...
Demons are able to tell people to ask Jesus for mercy?
but God does not listen to children who are being tricked by demons? (since you assume the vision of fatima to be demonic?)

WOW

also, you assume the prayers of the Rosary and the meditations of the Rosary are not Christ focused?
I am sorry, you are wrong about the rosary

 

[Studious One]

Yes, the vision/apparition was indeed demonic.

According to the story, all three youths saw the apparition, but only the sisters heard it.

My contention that the apparition was a demonic spirit. That is evident in the fact that it required the youths to serve it faithfully.

Both God and Jesus said in Scripture that only God is to be served.... yet this demon that so many today identify as being Mary requests people to faithfully serve it. That demonic apparition convinces people to recommend themselves to it by the recitation of the rosary, promising if the do recommend themselves to it/the apparition, they will not perish.

Well, I have bad news for you. Those who recommend themselves to that apparition, faithfully serving it will indeed perish. Their devotion to the words of the apparition instead of to the Word of God will prove to be works of unrighteousness when they stand before God.

Yes, demons do at time speak of God. A cursory study of Scripture would reveal that. For instance:

Acts 16:16-18 And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

Notice the spirit that caused the girl to reveal to people that Paul was a servant of the Most High God and that Paul would show to them the way of salvation... was cast out of the girl.

Why was it cast out if it was telling the people that Paul had the words that brang Salvation? Because it was a foul spirit... just as foul as that one that appeared to the three in Fatima.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

we do not base our belief on the assumption of Mary on those texts
as you pointed out, the texts are not the most trust worthy of texts, not horrible but not great either

we base our belief on the assumption of Mary from that it has always been believed by the Church

it is a lovely example of the salvation of the Church

to rebel agianst the teachings of the Church is to rebel agianst Christ Himself

the Gospel according to Luke chapter 10 verse 16
He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me

The assumption/dormation of Mary has been part of Christian Tradition almost from the very beginning of the Christian Church.

The texts cited, while not Scripture, are evidence that those who believe in this, held this belief from early on, even before these were written.

Within Confessional Lutheranism, the assumption/dormation is neither taught, nor denied; rather it is considered "pious opinion". We do, however, commomorate "The Feast of St. Mary, Mother of our Lord" on the same day as the RCC and EO Commorate the Assumption/Dormation.

In our Congregation, we call it the Dormation of Mary.

For us, since Scripture is silent regarding this, belief one way or the other is not required for salvation, but neither is it a barrier to salvation.

BTW, I am one who does hold this belief.

 

[Zeek]

The assumption/dormation of Mary has been part of Christian Tradition almost from the very beginning of the Christian Church.

The texts cited, while not Scripture, are evidence that those who believe in this, held this belief from early on, even before these were written.

Within Confessional Lutheranism, the assumption/dormation is neither taught, nor denied; rather it is considered "pious opinion". We do, however, commomorate "The Feast of St. Mary, Mother of our Lord" on the same day as the RCC and EO Commorate the Assumption/Dormation.

In our Congregation, we call it the Dormation of Mary.

For us, since Scripture is silent regarding this, belief one way or the other is not required for salvation, but neither is it a barrier to salvation.

BTW, I am one who does hold this belief.

Hello Mark,

I think the point of view you have stated probably has more to do with what was initially in place in the early days of the Church generally, than what takes place now, and celebrating the lives of faithful men and women who have gone to be with the L-rd is a reasonable thing to do in the sight of G-d...it was when these things developed and wandered into the realms of religious fantasy that disagreement occured.

Personally I can see that it is possible that Mary was air-lifted into Glory, but I think that such an occurance would have caused ripples that would have been picked up in the teachings and accounts left by the Apostles, so my only honest option is to put it on the back-burner of vague possibilities.

The other thing that makes me seriously doubt its occurance is that it has become part of main-stream Catholic dogma, amongst which I am discovering practices and teachings that are so unbiblical I am spiritually stunned at times....therefore it does nothing to weaken my personal convictions regarding the theory of Mary's assumption...especially as I also believe that Catholic doctrine painted itself into a corner when they realised certain repercussions that must occur in their doctrine of her sinless perfection, which I presume the Lutheran communion do not accept.

 

[Studious One]

To disprove the doctrine of Mary's assumption, one only need go to the Word of God.


There is not one human being who has risen from the grave since Christ's ascension, nor will there be one to rise from the grave until that trump sounds that heralds the Lord's coming in the clouds to wake those who are asleep and to call His body into the clouds to be with Him.

It must also be noted that the common belief in the Catholic church is that Mary died sometime between 30 and 60 A.D. and that the Apostles went to her tomb one day and found it empty. Upon finding it empty, they began the doctrine of the assumption.

Now, if such an event actually happened, surely the Apostles would have spoken of such an event in their letters to Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, and other Churches. They did not.

Conveniently, the doctrine did not arise until years after the Apostles had all died so the Apostles could not refute the false claim of her assumption.

It is the same with many of the Marian doctrines found within the Catholic church. They arose years after the last book of the Bible was written. So those who knew Mary, who walked with Mary, could not defend the truth against their ungodly doctrines.

Convenient, eh?