Total Consecration

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1620695' date='Aug 7 2008, 07:24 PM']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?[/quote]

That is correct.

[quote][b]If it was "body and soul" that implies that she was alive when she was brought to Heaven, doesn't it?[/b] 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?[/quote]

Not necessarily. "At first", when we reach Heaven, we will not have our bodies. "After" the Final Judgement, we will be granted our bodies again. The difference for Mary is that she doesn't have to "wait" for the Final Judgement to receive her glorified, heavenly body.

(NOTE: Heaven, being eternal and therefore outside of time, knows no "at first" and "after" and "waiting". We will notice no "time passed" between reaching Heaven when we die and being granted our Glorified bodies after the Judgement. Wrap your head around that, why don't ya? )

[quote]I wonder why there's no definitive "answer" on this one.[/quote]

Because the Church cannot proclaim as True what She does not know to be True.

Much love and prayers, dear!

Kris

[HisChildForever]

[quote]Because the Church cannot proclaim as True what She does not know to be True.[/quote]

That is logical. However (I bet you're kicking yourself because of all these questions ), there must have been an eyewitness who would have seen the Assumption, right? Of course, God could have had Mary taken into Heaven without anyone seeing, but then how would we have come up with this doctrine? What [i]if[/i] John didn't see it occur? "Oh no, Mom's run away!"

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1620908' date='Aug 7 2008, 10:30 PM']What [i]if[/i] John didn't see it occur? "Oh no, Mom's run away!" [/quote]

Funny. I have this image in my head of of Mary, senile with old age, running away ... hope that's not blasphemous! Momma loves me, so I'm sure she's laughing.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1620908' date='Aug 7 2008, 10:30 PM']I bet you're kicking yourself because of all these questions [/quote]

I am not. I've already given you permission to use this thread for that reason. And answering questions is good in that it helps me to build a tender devotion to Our Lady. Besides, I'm sure she'll give me extra hugs for helping you out.

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1620908' date='Aug 7 2008, 10:30 PM']there must have been an eyewitness who would have seen the Assumption, right? Of course, God could have had Mary taken into Heaven without anyone seeing, but then how would we have come up with this doctrine? What [i]if[/i] John didn't see it occur?[/quote]

I think that your logic sounds about right: if we have this doctrine, there must have been some kind of eye witness.

There seems to be some tradition (NOTE: Lower-case "t") in regards to this. Here is a page that lists some of the narratives:

[url="http://www.uoregon.edu/~sshoemak/texts/dormindex.htm"]http://www.uoregon.edu/~sshoemak/texts/dormindex.htm[/url]

I should probably caution you as to the legitimacy of these early Christian narratives. What we can learn from them is only truly the big picture -- that Mary was assumed, but not any of the specific details. The different stories will vary on the details, anyway.

According to at least two of those stories ("John the Theologian" and "Melito of Sardis"), the Apostles were called up from wherever they were to join Mary as her soul was taken up into Heaven, leaving a lifeless body behind. The apostles then bore her body to a tomb, and on the third day, the body was gone. Note any resemblance to Christ? Hehe. Mary points us to Christ, even in death.

Again, these are tradition, and not Tradition, in regards to the specific details. But, it does sound as though there was likely eye witness accounts that led to the Tradition of the Assumption, which in turn led to the dogmatic proclamation in [i]Munificentissimus Deus[/i] in 1950.

[mommas_boy]

Ok. Was just thinking I should clarify what I mean about "specific details". I don't think that one can conclude from these stories that Mary died first, and then her body was taken into heaven, nor that all of the apostles were raised from their graves to be there, etc.

What I think [b]can[/b] be learned from these narratives are these:
[list=1]
[*]Mary was Assumed, body and soul, into Heaven by her Son.
[*]Eye witnesses were there to verify.
[/list]
I caution a guess that those are the only two things that can be claimed with any kind of certainty, based upon these stories.

[HisChildForever]

Excellent, I will certainly give those traditional texts a thorough look when I'm more awake.

I had this sudden thought - "Why wouldn't one of these texts be included in the Bible?" - but then I remembered that Mary, being so humble, would have declined its "publication". Furthermore, the New Testament is focused specifically on Christ, salvation, et. al., so that including a text about Mary's Assumption would be somewhat out of place.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1621081' date='Aug 7 2008, 11:52 PM']Excellent, I will certainly give those traditional texts a thorough look when I'm more awake.

I had this sudden thought - "Why wouldn't one of these texts be included in the Bible?" - but then I remembered that Mary, being so humble, would have declined its "publication". Furthermore, the New Testament is focused specifically on Christ, salvation, et. al., so that including a text about Mary's Assumption would be somewhat out of place.[/quote]

True, but the NT texts were also written within (roughly) one generation of the Apostles. The Early Church Fathers wanted Scripture that was as close as possible to "the horse's mouth" as it were. Most (if not all) of these extracanonicals were written after that time period. This does not make them any less true in and of itself, as the big thing here is that they demonstrate a Tradition of the Assumption far before the formal declaration in 1950. Thus, the formal dogma wasn't "created on the spot" as some protestants would have you believe.

Pax Christi,
Kris

[johnnydigit]

a priest with a degree in dogmatic theology told me he thinks Blessed Mary would have wanted to share in Jesus' death to the fullest, which includes the death of the human body.

i'm reminded not only of her Immaculate heart and his Sacred heart as one, but of the Passion of the Christ, where she says at the foot of the Cross, "flesh of my flesh".. "let me die with you!"

[HisChildForever]

I got my book today!

[Justin86]

I don't see why Our Lady wouldn't have died and risen again like her Savior. I agree with that priest john mentioned. It seems she would want to imitate her Son in every way possible.

However, just to play devil's advocate (no pun intended, really ) what would you say to the opposing view that because death is a punishment of sin it would be contrary to justice for Christ's perfect Mother to die?

Oh, and one last thing, the oldest text we have describing the Assumption actually refers to it as Mary's "Dormition"(sp) which means "fell asleep".

Edited August 8, 2008 by Justin86

[HisChildForever]

[quote]what would you say to the opposing view that because death is a punishment of sin it would be contrary to justice for Christ's perfect Mother to die?[/quote]

Well, this immediately makes me think about the glorified body - doesn't one have to be deceased first in order to receive it? Furthermore, I have really latched onto Mary's humility. I don't think she questioned God in her last moments, and she, more than likely, graciously accepted death even though she was free of sin. [This is assuming that she did die first, and with what has been said by our other posters, I'm beginning to change my mind and think that she [b]did[/b] die first.] Now Jesus was the exception to this, because after all, sure Jesus was taken into Heaven alive, but He Ascended, He was not Assumed like Mary. Now with this theory that one has to be deceased before being granted a glorified body - think of all the saints who were raised and brought into Heaven right after Jesus died. (I forget the exact verse in the NT where this can be found, I think someone mentioned it already.)

1 Corinthians talks about the corrupted becoming incorrupted - i.e., glorified bodies. Now the tricky thing is, Mary wasn't corrupted, but I suppose that in this instance, you could say that "corrupted" really means in need of Jesus as Savior, and she [b]did[/b] need Jesus - He was the one who prevented her from receiving the stain of Original Sin, after all.

And it was contrary to justice for Christ to die, because He was perfect as well.

[quote]Oh, and one last thing, the oldest text we have describing the Assumption actually refers to it as Mary's "Dormition"(sp) which means "fell asleep".[/quote]

Right, but how many times does Scriptures refer to "death" as "sleep"? And let's not forget what we hear at Mass in one of the Eucharistic prayers! "May these, and all who [b]sleep[/b] in Christ, find in your presence light, happiness, and peace."

Edited August 8, 2008 by HisChildForever

[HisChildForever]

I have just realized something even more beautiful about Mary.

[b]Mary fulfills all vocations.[/b]
[i]As a perpetual virgin,[/i] she serves the consecrated and the single.
[i]As a wife and mother,[/i] she serves the married (and the children).
[i]As a widow,[/i] she serves those who are also widowed.
[i]As a perpetual virgin, the wife of a carpenter (poverty), and the Mother of God (obediance),[/i] she serves the religious (priests, brothers, nuns, sisters, etc.).

Okay, maybe being a widow isn't a vocation, but I had to throw it in there.

[mommas_boy]

So ...

Should we start calling you [b]Her[/b]ChildForever?

After you are done with [u]True Devotion[/u], you should go ahead and make the consecration, if you're ready for it. It's another book, but it's free:

[url="http://www.ourlady33.com/main.htm"]http://www.ourlady33.com/main.htm[/url]

It's a real little thing. The consecration takes 33 days to prepare for, and is well worth it. I suggest picking a Marian feast to do it on, though, and the book has instructions on that.

Pax Christi,
Kris

[johnnydigit]

or do the 7-day version, speed it up a little, and make it in time for the Assumption on the 15th! even better, find a Marian community to do it with, like the MI (Militia of the Immaculata) [url="http://www.consecration.com"]http://www.consecration.com[/url]
or MIM (Mission of the Immaculate Mediatrix Movement) [url="http://www.marymediatrix.com/mim-movement/about-the-mim/"]http://www.marymediatrix.com/mim-movement/about-the-mim/[/url]
or the FI (Franciscans of the Immaculate) brothers, [url="http://www.marymediatrix.com/religious-life/franciscan-sisters-of-the-immaculate/"]sisters[/url], tertiary sisters, or [url="http://www.marymediatrix.com/religious-life/third-order-of-the-immaculate/"]third order[/url].

there's bound to be something near you. it's all about Mary!

========

i recently started to realize why priests say they owe their vocation to Our Lady. she is the one who takes our hand and leads us like a mother leading her toddler to Jesus. she, the symbol of the Church, becomes our spouse. the Church becomes our spouse. she helps us with chastity and nurtures us like her infant. she raises us to total consecration to Jesus. Ave Maria!

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/johnnydigit/catholic/MaryandJesusDoorwayhand400.jpg[/img]

[johnnydigit]

oh ya and i think she teaches guys, as well as girls, to have a very gentle and compassionate character (femininity) towards others, especially towards our own moms.

Edited August 8, 2008 by johnnydigit

[johnnydigit]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1621447' date='Aug 8 2008, 11:38 AM']I don't see why Our Lady wouldn't have died and risen again like her Savior. I agree with that priest john mentioned. It seems she would want to imitate her Son in every way possible.

However, just to play devil's advocate (no pun intended, really ) what would you say to the opposing view that because death is a punishment of sin it would be contrary to justice for Christ's perfect Mother to die?

Oh, and one last thing, the oldest text we have describing the Assumption actually refers to it as Mary's "Dormition"(sp) which means "fell asleep".[/quote]

that is interesting. if Blessed Mary was preserved from original sin, the effect of which was death, does she not suffer death? but what kind of "death", is it in terms of the state of the soul from sin, as in the death of the soul = separation from God.. or the decay of the body, which results in the death of flesh. i think she may be omitted from the former, but not the latter decay of the flesh, which results in death. she grew old, which means her flesh decayed, her cells died continually as all mortal flesh dies on earth. if she grew old, then there must be a point at which so many cells die that organs malfunction and can no longer sustain her human body. if she was exempt from complete bodily death, then in a few more decades she would have decayed into a walking skeleton, a contradiction to the limitations of the mortal body and physics. if she didn't die, then it seems God assumed her before she experienced complete heart failure, or whatever would have caused her death.

i think Jesus lowered himself to endure all the limitations of the mortal body, and so his mother followed suit. it completes the life cycle of the mortal body. it's almost cheating even. it skips the final mortification of the body and soul before entering the next stage of existence. but then, what about Elijah and the chariot? oh never mind..

edit: it's said that Elijah went to heaven, as in "sky".

Edited August 8, 2008 by johnnydigit