Assumption Of Mary

[beatty07]

welcome, um, can I call you e-bones? I just have a suggestion if you're interested in understanding Mary better from the Bible. Some of the coolest things are the way she is sort of foreshadowed in the Old Testament. The high-filutin' word for that is "typology", which is basically the way that things in the OT, though they are significant and real in their own right, also point to even greater realities in Jesus Christ.

Mary has some of the most beautiful examples of this. My favorite is the Ark of the Covenant kept in the "Holy of Holies"...the innermost sanctum of the Temple, which could only be entered once a year by one man. The presence of the Lord...the Shekinah in Hebrew..."overshadowed" the Ark just as the Holy Spirit "overshadowed" Mary in Luke.

Similarly, the importance in Israel of the King's mother, and the prophets' emphasis on the woman who would bear the child who brought salvation. I know this wasn't your question, but if you are looking to understand the doctrines about Mary I just thought it might help. The more I've come to appreciate her Biblical presence and her role under Christ, the more I understand and appreciate doctrines like the Assumption and images like the coronation.

Sorry about the digression...I just get really excited about Mary I guess.

Edited December 20, 2006 by beatty07

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='White Knight' post='1145974' date='Dec 19 2006, 10:23 PM']
The Immaculate Conception isn't in the Bible ethier, its something you have to take on Faith, and use other sources, same with the Assumption of Mary.
[/quote]

Who says these things are not in the Bible? It may not be blatantly spelled out, but Scripture is the story of God's love for us and His pursuit to redeem humanity; it's not a catechism. Therefore, very few things are spelled out so much that all doubt is removed.

Mary embodies in one person everything the Church is as a whole. All of us are immaculately conceived through Baptism; we will be taken up body and soul into Heaven at the Second Coming; we are the Bride of Christ and as the King's Bride, we are also the Queen of Heaven; we bring Christ into the world and point the world towards Him; if she was humble on earth, she must be great in Heaven because "the last will be first." All these truths about the Church are somewhat spelled out in the Bible (though some, like Baptism, can still be disputed from the Sola Scriptura perspective).

The other day a Protestant friend asked me about the Co-Redeemer belief about Mary. I explained that all of us in some what are co-redeemers if we lead others to Christ and encourage our friends towards holiness. He wasn't so sure about that and thought that must take away from Mary's proper place (as we see her). Actually, it's not so much that Mary's role is reduced, but that our role is raised up because we share it with Mary.


By the way, even if this were a genuine debate, I don't understand how strongly-worded responses and changing the subject to the source of the Bible are productive. Even if someone came here to debate with ulterior motives, unless we prefer God's judgement to His mercy, we should consider them better than ourselves.

Edited December 20, 2006 by LouisvilleFan

[exquisitebones]

[quote name='White Knight' post='1145974' date='Dec 19 2006, 07:23 PM']
The Immaculate Conception isn't in the Bible ethier, its something you have to take on Faith, and use other sources, same with the Assumption of Mary.
[/quote]



am I wrong? I am pretty sure the immaculate conception IS in the bible, iwas reading that part the other night... many, now i gotta go figure out where i read that.

[beatty07]

just to check, you're aware that "immaculate conception" refers to Mary being born without original sin, and not to the virgin birth of Christ, right? That's a very common mix-up (and the virgin birth of Christ is definitely in the Bible.) Mary was conceived and born the normal way, except that God protected her from sin by the power of Christ's atonement. Even though it hadn't happened in history yet! So Mary was the first to experience the redemption of her Son.

Like the assumption, this doctrine makes a lot of sense based on the Bible, but the Bible doesn't seem to spell it out explicitly. Let us know if you find the passage you were thinking of...

[thessalonian]

Actually once one sees the parrallel between 2 Sam 6 regarding the ark of the covenant, and Luke 1, Mary's visitation to Elizabeth, one can implicitly justify all Marian doctrines and practices from the Bible. The Ark of the Covenant is a type of Mary. Mary visist Elizabeth in the hill country of Judah and the Ark is in the hill country of Judah in 2 sam 6. Elizabeth says "how is it that the mother of my lord should come to me" and david says "how can the ark of the Lord come to me". David leaps and dances before the ark and John the baptist leaps before Mary in Luke 1. The ark stays with obemedon for 3 months. Mary stays with elizabeth for three months.

Now this should make the typing of the ark clear. Someone mentioned revlations 11 and 12 regarding the ark. But there is another passage in the Psalms, 132:8 if my memory serves me correct. It says arise unto me, thou (Jesus) and the Ark of thy might. i.e. the ark of the covenant. I believe it was augustine who applied this to Mary.

As for the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity these can be seen in this parrellel as well. The ark was made of the purest materials by the specifications of God himself. It was so pure and holy that no man could touch it or they would fall dead. We also pray through Mary to Jesus. Interestingly enough there is a place in Joshua 7 where Joshua and the elders bowed down and prayed through the ark to God. They were granted victory in battle. The ark preceeded the Jews through the desert (track in the desert and 40 years represents life). It was ahead of them as they crossed the river Jordan, known to be the exact place where jesus was baptized and lead them in battle. All images of how we view Mary with regard to the rosary and other devotions. She leads us to Christ and to the promised land.
Cathollic dogma and practice when seen in this light is very biblical and in the bible.

I should also mention that Hebrews, I think chapt 9, tells us that the ark contained the manna, the tablets, and the staff of Aaron. These are symbols of Christ. Mary of course contained Christ.

Hope that helps.

Edited December 20, 2006 by thessalonian

[exquisitebones]

[quote name='beatty07' post='1146530' date='Dec 20 2006, 10:50 AM']
just to check, you're aware that "immaculate conception" refers to Mary being born without original sin, and not to the virgin birth of Christ, right? That's a very common mix-up (and the virgin birth of Christ is definitely in the Bible.) Mary was conceived and born the normal way, except that God protected her from sin by the power of Christ's atonement. Even though it hadn't happened in history yet! So Mary was the first to experience the redemption of her Son.

Like the assumption, this doctrine makes a lot of sense based on the Bible, but the Bible doesn't seem to spell it out explicitly. Let us know if you find the passage you were thinking of...
[/quote]

well, now dont i feel ridiculous. good thing itsa common mixup, becuase i had the two mixed up.
i will shut my mouth now. thanks for the advice!

[thessalonian]

When the angel says to Mary "hail mary, full of grace" in Luke 1 that is an indication of the immaculate conception.

[scardella]

BTW, this isn't biblical, but it sums up pretty well the Catholic understanding of Mary. This are quotes from St. Louis de Montfort in his [i]True Devotion to Mary[/i]:

[quote]
14. With the whole Church I acknowledge that Mary, being a mere creature fashioned by the hands of God is, compared to his infinite majesty, less than an atom, or rather is simply nothing, since he alone can say, "I am he who is". Consequently, this great Lord, who is ever independent and self-sufficient, never had and does not now have any absolute need of the Blessed Virgin for the accomplishment of his will and the manifestation of his glory. To do all things he has only to will them.

15. However, I declare that, considering things as they are, because God has decided to begin and accomplish his greatest works through the Blessed Virgin ever since he created her, we can safely believe that he will not change his plan in the time to come, for he is God and therefore does not change in his thoughts or his way of acting.

...

27. Since grace enhances our human nature and glory adds a still greater perfection to grace, it is certain that our Lord remains in heaven just as much the Son of Mary as he was on earth. Consequently he has retained the submissiveness and obedience of the most perfect of all children towards the best of all mothers.

We must take care, however, not to consider this dependence as an abasement or imperfection in Jesus Christ. For Mary, infinitely inferior to her Son, who is God, does not command him in the same way as an earthly mother would command her child who is beneath her. Since she is completely transformed in God by that grace and glory which transforms all the saints in him, she does not ask or wish or do anything which is contrary to the eternal and changeless will of God. When therefore we read in the writings of Saint Bernard, Saint Bernardine, Saint Bonaventure, and others that all in heaven and on earth, even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin, they mean that the authority which God was pleased to give her is so great that she seems to have the same power as God. Her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands in the sense that he never resists his dear mother's prayer because it is always humble and conformed to his will.

...

32. "This one and that one were born in her." According to the explanation of some of the Fathers, the first man born of Mary is the God-man, Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ, the head of mankind, is born of her, the predestinate, who are members of this head, must also as a necessary consequence be born of her. One and the same mother does not give birth to the head without the members nor to the members without the head, for these would be monsters in the order of nature. In the order of grace likewise the head and the members are born of the same mother. If a member of the mystical body of Christ, that is, one of the predestinate, were born of a mother other than Mary who gave birth to the head, he would not be one of the predestinate, nor a member of Jesus Christ, but a monster in the order of grace.

33. Moreover, Jesus is still as much as ever the fruit of Mary, as heaven and earth repeat thousands of times a day: "Blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus." It is therefore certain that Jesus is the fruit and gift of Mary for every single man who possesses him, just as truly as he is for all mankind. Consequently, if any of the faithful have Jesus formed in their heart they can boldly say, "It is thanks to Mary that what I possess is Jesus her fruit, and without her I would not have him." We can attribute more truly to her what Saint Paul said of himself, "I am in labour again with all the children of God until Jesus Christ, my Son, is formed in them to the fullness of his age." Saint Augustine, surpassing himself as well as all that I have said so far, affirms that in order to be conformed to the image of the Son of God all the predestinate, while in the world, are hidden in the womb of the Blessed Virgin where they are protected, nourished, cared for and developed by this good Mother, until the day she brings them forth to a life of glory after death, which the Church calls the birthday of the just. This is indeed a mystery of grace unknown to the reprobate and little known even to the predestinate! [/quote]

You can read it all at [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/truedevo.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/truedevo.htm[/url]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Hello Exquisite Bones

I'm very glad you've decided to join us. If you want to ask questions about the faith for the purpose of understanding for becoming Catholic, it might be best to pick one person from the phorum with whom you are comfortable and sending private messages back and forth. That way, the one person gets to know you and learns the best approach. There are a good number of people I could recommend. PhatCatholic and I are both catechetics students (we learn how to teach the faith), but there are many others who have become Catholic and I'm sure would be willing to help answer questions for others.

God bless and welcome,

Micah

[Resurrexi]

[quote] we know that author of Revelations is having here a vision of heaven, [/quote]

Don't you mean St. John the Apostle?

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1146740' date='Dec 20 2006, 11:33 PM']
Don't you mean St. John the Apostle?
[/quote]

Who do you think he meant

[beatty07]

Don't sweat the Immaculate Conception mix-up... I think probably more than half of the Catholics in the pews think the same! We just need to do a better job of getting that teaching across.

[scardella]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1146740' date='Dec 20 2006, 10:33 PM']
Don't you mean St. John the Apostle?
[/quote]

I said what I meant. For the purposes of this discussion, it matters not whether the (human co-) author is St. John the Apostle or someone else. Feel free to open another thread debating the human co-author of Revelations.

Edited December 21, 2006 by scardella

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='scardella' post='1146879' date='Dec 21 2006, 11:06 AM']
I said what I meant. For the purposes of this discussion, it matters not whether the (human co-) author is St. John the Apostle or someone else. Feel free to open another thread debating the human co-author of Revelations.
[/quote]
it is for another discussion, but I stick with the church saying its St John. :

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1147165' date='Dec 21 2006, 08:59 PM']
it is for another discussion, but I stick with the church saying its St John. :
[/quote]
Agreed. St. John wrote his own work, I think...he lived long enough and it's quite clear that all his attributed writings come from the same mind. As for the other authors...there's nothing wrong with saying that other books, such as the synoptic Gospels, were written by disciples of those whom the Gospels claim. Afterall...the titles are "the Gospel according to..." not "the Gospel written by..." Any accounts which were handed down to those who wrote them are still according to those who handed them down.