Total Consecration

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1618766' date='Aug 5 2008, 10:48 PM']I'll let you know, Missy.

And thanks Kris (I can't say it enough, really). Your patience and your knowledge have been truly wonderful gifts. [/quote]

Aww. Thank you dear! :hug:

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1619139' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:17 PM']Aww. Thank you dear! :hug:[/quote]

[HisChildForever]

Okay, so I decided to check the Gospels last night (and am doing so right now) because I wanted to see how many times Mary is mentioned (in the Gospels, at least, I'm not talking about references to her being the new ark, etc.). Well, while I have read the Gospels before, I was surprised to see that while, in some parts she may not have spoken, she was around [b]a lot[/b], as was Jospeh. Of course, the obvious appearances would be - The angel visiting Mary, Mary's visit with Elizabeth, The birth of Christ, when the Magi visit, the Wedding at Cana, and when Mary is at the foot of the cross. However, I had basically forgotten (in random order) - the flight to Egypt, the return to Israel, the presentation of Jesus in the temple, Jesus in the temple as a young boy (when Mary and Jospeh thought they had lost Him), and there is probably more I forgot. Also, an angel didn't just come to Joseph in a dream once (telling him not to leave Mary), but three times, when the angel told Joseph in the dream to flee to Egypt, and then telling him that the family could now return to their home. I think Mary and Joseph get overlooked a lot because people tend to think of Jesus's ministry, death, and resurrection (which isn't a bad thing!) more than His childhood, and there isn't a lot about His childhood/teenage years included to begin with. Of course His parents wouldn't be around as much (compared to His childhood) when He was a grown man!

So I was thinking, "How come the Synoptics exclude the Wedding at Cana [b]and[/b] Mary's presence at the foot of the cross? [Since in the other Gospels, it's either mentioned that some women were standing at a distance watching, or they're not mentioned at all, right?]" But then I remembered, that John's Gospel really focused on the divinity of Christ, and the mysteries of our faith. Also, as many of you have mentioned the parallels between Mary, the Ark, and the new Eve, using the word "Woman" in the Wedding Feast chapter does point to John's description in Revelation, with "the Woman." (I think it's the same John who wrote Revelation, right?) So it's only fitting for these huge "Mary events" to be present in this particular Gospel, because:

(1) John is using the wedding as a metaphor [b]as well as[/b] a literal event. For example, you have the servers, Mary, and Jesus. Mary is [b]between[/b] the servers and Jesus, I never really thought about this before! Okay, so Mary actually approaches the servers and leads them to the service of her Son - by obeying Jesus and filling up the water jars, they helped Jesus with this miracle. I think it's important that Mary tells the servers "Do whatever He tells you" [b]before[/b] Jesus even asked them to do anything. Like everyone here has been mentioning, Mary brings us to Christ. Later on, Jesus directly tells the servers what to do, which tells us that while Jesus will talk to us directly, and while we should directly talk to Him, it's okay for us to go through Mary as well, and it's okay for us to listen to Mary when she instructs us on what to do and how to better follow Him. So at the end of this chapter, it speaks of how Jesus revealed His glory and that His disciples began to believe in Him - [i]nowhere does it say that Mary revealed her glory, and nowhere does it say that she received any credit, because she is humble and wants all glory for her Son. Also, nowhere does it say that the disciples of Jesus believed in Mary, because we don't worship Mary, and Mary doesn't want us to.[/i]

[b][i]Mary is more than just the mother of Jesus. This just further proves that Mary is our Queen and Holy Mother, because like all of our earthly mothers, she serves her Son and does so with great humility, never asking for anything in return, and she serves her Son by also serving us, that is, by leading us directly to Him every time we confront her.[/b][/i]

I'm getting excited because I'm on a roll here, people.

(2) Who exactly is the "beloved disciple"? A lot of people say it's John, and it very well could be. However, how come John didn't [b]say[/b] that Jesus gave him His mother, Mary, to look out for? And why didn't Jesus directly tell Mary that John was now her [adopted] son? Well, again, I see a lot of metaphor here. [b]We[/b] are the "beloved disciple" (I believe Scripture says "the disciple whom He loved") Jesus was giving Mary, and Mary is the mother we have been given. Maybe John was trying to tell us, "Yes, specifically, I was that disciple He was talking to, but truly, Christ wanted to give us all His mother." [Again, we see Mary called "Woman."]

Now towards the very end of the last chapter of John, there's a brief passage about this beloved disciple. Peter had asked Jesus about this disciple, since in the verse before Jesus had alluded to the way Peter was to die. But Jesus tells Peter that it's not his concern, and if He wanted it to be, the disciple would never die. [b]Then[/b] the verse goes on to say, "So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus had not told him that he would not die, just 'What if I want him to remain until I come? [What concern is it of yours?]'" (John 21:23). I think that this further shows that [b]we[/b] are this disciple, because we won't die - I don't think Jesus meant mortal death, after all He refers to living in sin and eternal damnation as "death" and not "life" - but rather we will have eternal life in Him. And since Jesus wasn't talking about any specific disciple, He didn't give Peter a straight response.



[b]I do have some questions.[/b]

(1) Why is Joseph's death not included in the Scriptures?
(2) Why isn't Mary's Assumption into Heaven included in the Scriptures, like in Acts, especially if we can assume that she did move in with John? Wouldn't John have recorded this somewhere along the line?

I also want to note something else that struck me. At first I wondered why Mary wasn't present during the Last Supper, but I think this was God's way of showing us that, as this was the first Eucharist, there were only men present at the table - aka, the altar - signifying that only men can be priests. (Well there are other reasons, but this one made me think.)

I think that's everything, I hope I didn't leave anything out.

Okay, holy cow, that took me almost an hour to work on. But it all just sort of hit me at once and you should have seen me flip those Bible pages, I thought that they were going catch fire, I was going through them so fast...

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
HisChild, i do believe that you've been given a gift from God. Please, please, check out [url="http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-First-Love-Fulton-Sheen/dp/0898705975/ref=pd_bbs_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218130921&sr=8-7"]The World's First Love[/url] by Fulton Sheen or [url="http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Words-Jesus-Mary-Lessons/dp/0764807080/ref=pd_sim_b_8"]The Seven Words of Jesus and Mary: Lessons on Cana and Calvary[/url]. Both I think you would really enjoy and help you out.

God bless you!!

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1620231' date='Aug 7 2008, 12:55 PM'][b][i]Mary is more than just the mother of Jesus. This just further proves that Mary is our Queen and Holy Mother, because like all of our earthly mothers, she serves her Son and does so with great humility, never asking for anything in return, and she serves her Son by also serving us, that is, by leading us directly to Him every time we confront her.[/b][/i]

...

[b]I do have some questions.[/b]

(1) Why is Joseph's death not included in the Scriptures?
(2) Why isn't Mary's Assumption into Heaven included in the Scriptures, like in Acts, especially if we can assume that she did move in with John? Wouldn't John have recorded this somewhere along the line?[/quote]

Beautiful exegesis. I am very proud of you. The verses that you examine, and [b]the way that you examine them[/b] is reminiscent of other work that I've read on the topic, but didn't know well enough to feel comfortable to teach.

As to your questions, I don't know that I can answer them. Joseph's death seems unremarkable, and so it seems would be understandable that it wasn't included for this reason. Further, the last mention of Joseph occurs when he emigrated his family to Egypt for their protection. Thus, it seems evident that he died in the period of time between Christ's nativity, and the beginning of His ministry. Since the bible is silent on this period of time, this is perhaps a more compelling reason as to why Joseph's death wasn't included -- it doesn't mention [b]anything[/b] that happened.

As for Mary's Assumption, the above logic doesn't work: (1) clearly, her Assumption is remarkable, and (2) it occurred during a period of time that is recorded in Scripture. As to [b]why[/b] it was not recorded in Scripture, my only guess is that Mary's humility impacted the Apostles, and most specifically John, and that the result of this impact was to "honor her wishes" so-to-speak in not including this within Scripture.

Note, however, that Scripture is the portion of Tradition that is written down. Protestants make the mistake of assuming that Scripture has authority by itself, but the truth of the matter is that Scripture [b]only[/b] has authority because the Church assembled it together and gave it Her stamp of approval. How else could we know that we can trust it?

While Mary's Assumption cannot be found in Scripture, it can be found elsewhere within Tradition. Apotheoun may be a better one to ask about this, as the Assumption/Dormition is a great topic of devotion in the Eastern Church. The Assumption was not simply invented in 1950 with the declaration of the dogma in Munificentissimus Deus. Further, the earliest known accounts of the Assumption date at least as far back as the 5th Century AD. Ethiopic accounts date as far back as the 3rd-4th Centuries. One work, "The Dormition of the Holy Theotokos" or "De Obitu S. Dominae" is attributed to St. John, but was likely written in the 6th Century. One should note, however, that at this point in history, the proper form of citing one's work was to attribute the authorship to the person whom you cite. Thus, to say that the work was composed by St. John is not to say that St. John wrote it, but rather that the work is derived from something that St. John taught. Talk about straight from the horse's mouth.

Finally, the accounts of the Assumption are corroborated by the fact that there are no remains of the Blessed Virgin. Quoted from an article on Catholic Answers (with Imprimitur):

[indent]
There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.

It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.
[/indent]

I recommend the whole article as well: [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp"]Immaculate Conception and Assumption[/url].

Pax Christi,
Kris

[johnnydigit]

you have effectively doubled your flaming light and passion for our Lord, yet only scratched the surface! it is like walking past a door that you never really payed attention to, but now you walk up to the peephole, see something interesting, so now open the door and realize you have just entered "Narnia" and beyond..

so now we pray for those who do not have recourse to her, and rest in Blessed Mary like baby Jesus in the Madonna of the Street painting (Lil Red's avatar)..

[img]http://www.catecheticsonline.com/images/christina.gif[/img]

[HisChildForever]

Thank you, Red - I will be sure to add those to my list!

And thanks, Kris - In fact, I have a theory that perhaps Joseph's passing was so hard on both Mary and Jesus that they did not speak of it outside of their home. And the little that their friends and other family knew - I imagine that many had asked Jesus about His childhood at one point or another; if John is this "beloved disciple" than surely he must have known - they respected Mary and Jesus enough to keep the event out of Scriptures.

[quote]Finally, the accounts of the Assumption are corroborated by the fact that there are no remains of the Blessed Virgin.[/quote]

That's very true, I never even thought of that. And you're right, relics and such of the Saints are so important to our understanding of our faith. Surely if there were remains, they would be held higher above all the other Saints! I will check out that link in a little while. However, with Mary's Assumption, was she assumed into Heaven when she was alive, or had she passed away first and her body was brought up?

[HisChildForever]

That's a really pretty picture =)

[MissyP89]

If I recall correctly, she had died first and was assumed bodily.

But I could be wrong.

The Assumption is really my only real beef--I keep forgetting we have no relics, though. That helps.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1620324' date='Aug 7 2008, 12:48 PM']That's very true, I never even thought of that. And you're right, relics and such of the Saints are so important to our understanding of our faith. Surely if there were remains, they would be held higher above all the other Saints! I will check out that link in a little while.[/quote]
especially since we have the remains of St. Peter, and many other very early disciples. why wouldn't they keep the remains of Jesus' mother? surely not because she was un-important! something i read (or heard) recently was that even the angels and apostles venerated the cave that Jesus was buried in. if they venerated an object so tied to Jesus, why wouldn't they venerate the physical tabernacle that He was housed in for 9 months? i know i'm explaining poorly, but i pray that it would make a little sense to you.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1620324' date='Aug 7 2008, 12:48 PM']However, with Mary's Assumption, was she assumed into Heaven when she was alive, or had she passed away first and her body was brought up?[/quote]
i believe that is the 'argument' between East and West. West has it that she died, and was assumed. East has it that she simply fell asleep and was assumed. and the document on her assumption deftly avoids that controversy.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1620324' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:48 PM']However, with Mary's Assumption, was she assumed into Heaven when she was alive, or had she passed away first and her body was brought up?[/quote]


[quote name='MissyP89' post='1620345' date='Aug 7 2008, 03:07 PM']If I recall correctly, she had died first and was assumed bodily.[/quote]


[quote name='Lil Red' post='1620391' date='Aug 7 2008, 04:00 PM']i believe that is the 'argument' between East and West. West has it that she died, and was assumed. East has it that she simply fell asleep and was assumed. and [b]the document on her assumption deftly avoids that controversy[/b].[/quote]

It's actually not formally defined. The "argument" exists only between theologians, rather than any formal entities. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munificentissimus_Deus"]Wikipedia[/url] correctly points to the silence of the [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html"]Dogmatic Constitution [i]Munificentissimus Deus[/i][/url], which defined the dogma, on this issue:

[quote]By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.[/quote]

[quote name='Wikipedia Article on Munificentissimus Deus']In this dogmatic statement, the phrase "having completed the course of her earthly life" is carefully written to leave open the question of whether or not Mary died before her Assumption, or whether, like the Assumption of the Prophet Elijah, Mary was assumed before death; both possibilities are allowed in the formulation.[/quote]

I believe that the linked article also makes this point.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1620451' date='Aug 7 2008, 02:33 PM']It's actually not formally defined. The "argument" exists only between theologians, rather than any formal entities.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
i know. i thought i made that clear in saying that the document was silent. by saying it avoided the controversy.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1620490' date='Aug 7 2008, 04:55 PM']+J.M.J.+
i know. i thought i made that clear in saying that the document was silent. by saying it avoided the controversy.[/quote]

Sorry, Lil Red. I didn't notice that at first, only after I wrote the post. Then I went back and bolded where you said it. I wasn't trying to step on your toes.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1620569' date='Aug 7 2008, 03:41 PM']Sorry, Lil Red. I didn't notice that at first, only after I wrote the post. Then I went back and bolded where you said it. I wasn't trying to step on your toes. [/quote]
+J.M.J.+
okay!

[HisChildForever]

So since it's sort of like an open-ended explanation, we can decide for ourselves, just as long as we believe in the Assumption?

If it was "body and soul" that implies that she was alive when she was brought to Heaven, doesn't it? She could have completed her life's purpose and then God simply rose her up to Heaven. It sounds a bit silly if Mary died, and then five minutes later her body joined her soul... Why not just rise together, unified?

I wonder why there's no definitive "answer" on this one.

Edited August 7, 2008 by HisChildForever