[quote=BJRumph]Avoiding the “Ark of the New Covenenant” problem; as one who is struggling to come into some sort of reconciliation with the Assumption, I have to point out that the “Wold God do any less for…” type of argument is very wanting, and lacks any form of persuasion.
Sure, if God were of the Grecio-Roman Pagan type, consumed with an overabundance of human Passions, then such an argument would have some, minor, weight of persuasion.
Further, such an argument has no “positive” evidence, simply a rhetorical pressure; this argument does not present any actual real evidence of action.
Afterall, as the argument goes, are we not all His sons and Daughters? Were you God, would you (under the assumptions of this train of argument), really consign your precious children, who you have already reconciled to yourself through the blood of Christ, to rot in the grave; or would you, as this argument suggests, out of Love be utterly repulsed by such an idea, to the point of not leaving them here in such a condition? I don’t know about you, but I am far more emotionally attatched to my Children, than the mother I, scripturally, must have left in order to produce them. Or is it that God is more of a “Son” than he is a “Father”?
As, I presume, we are all Trinitarians, I would not seriously suggest that any Marianist would suggest such a disparity of persons within the Divine Economy, an yet, sometime the exuberance used to express this Dogma (the Assumption, as well as its companion, the IC) leads down very heretical paths.
Frankly, the “lack of relics for veneration” argument is far more persuasive, even if it is likewise logically found wanting (as there are several counter arguments to counter it with equal validity; never fun trying to defend from the absence of evidence).
But anyway, I am not trying to be contentious, just pointing out holes in an area of inquiry of importance to me as a former Prot trying to become a Catholic. I realize that most marianists (as I have seen in these forums) are very emotional about these matters; I must insist, conversationally, that just because I am questioning, I am not trying to dishonor Mary. I am trying to embrace something that I have been given no adequet reason to support such (meaning something that is consistent with the entirety of the known gospel as taught by the Church). So, please take it for what it is intended for; as one who is serching for this answer, please provide something else than rhetorical answers that don’t in actuality address the issue. Though it is an old argument, it is no less specious for it.
God is not overwhelmed with human passions. God, however, has a love for man that goes beyond the ability of man to comprehend. The fact that the Father sent his divine son Jesus to die for our redemption begins to give us a glimpse of how much He loves us. Likewise, Jesus has the capacity for both perfect human love and divine love because He is both God and man. Jesus had a mother, and his love for her would be perfect. Jesus honors his mother and his Father perfectly. To love someone is to wish the best for them in all things.
We believe that Mary would likely receive such a gift from her son in a way that honors her above the rest of mankind.
Please do not misunderstand the teaching of the Assumption. Like many other doctrines, we have no absolute proofs. In some cases our evidence for beliefs that are held by “all Christians” are simply thought of as mere fluff by non-Christians. There is an element of faith that comes into play. The evidence and logic, however, do favor and encourage the belief. The Church in her wisdom and tradition holds that Mary has been assumed into heaven body and soul. This is not something that the Church would hold as a dogma without it having its roots and foundations in the early understandings of the faith.