Let me get this straight...Assumption of Mary


#1

Catholic Encyclopedia Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem

.

You do not know what year. It could be 3 or 15, which also means it could be 2 or 16 as well. There is no basis for the time frame given. Why couldn’t it be 20 years?

You do not know WHERE it occured? Jerusalem or Ephesus.

You do not know what day it occured.

You do not know who saw this or did not find her body?

You do not know why no one seemed to mention the second greatest miracle or supernatural event of Christian history…for 300 years.

You do know you HAVE to believe it.


#2

May I add -

we do not know where her tomb is.
Can you help me?


#3

Definitely one of the two.

You do not know what day it occured.

You do not know who saw this or did not find her body?

At least one Apostle, most likely John (see Revelation 12:1) - probably more than one.

You do not know why no one seemed to mention the second greatest miracle or supernatural event of Christian history…for 300 years.

Nobody wrote about it, whose writings still exist today - true.

You do know you HAVE to believe it.

Yes - even though the evidence is negative (nobody can find her bones; nobody has ever tried to fake them; nobody knows which of her empty tombs she wasn’t buried in; nobody knows which of the Apostles didn’t bury her after her body disappeared …) we continue to keep the faith and believe that she was assumed into Heaven by her Son, Jesus Christ.

Nobody witnessed the Creation, either - we don’t know the actual dates (which vary by millions of years; not just decades), and the reports contradict each other, yet, strangely, we believe in the Creation, too. :smiley:


#4

newadvent.org/cathen/14774a.htm


#5

And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

Rev 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Rev 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Rev 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Not exactly an eye witness account. In verse 1, John talks about “a woman”. Without getting into Israel/Mary arguments, you will agree that the verse says that she is iin heaven. Nothing about how she got there?


#6

This might explain something to you. I ask you to read it and try to understand it.

catholicherald.com/saunders/01ws/ws010816.htm


#7

Thanks!
Let’s suppose her tomb is truly one of the two places - Jerusalem or Ephesus. How do you explain that the Assumption of Mary could not be real?

If we know the tomb of Jesus, could we deny the fact that He never raised up from the dead? [note: I am not saying Virgin Mary raised up from the dead herself]


#8

That about sums it up.
Trusting lot, we Catholics - no? :slight_smile:


#9

How to say this respectfully. If Mary was buried, and from my perspective one can assume she was…

weather, elements, no verifiable tradition for 300 years of who checked to see if she was there…etc.
Not trying to be too morbid here!:o


#10

I happen to think, the interest in Mary is later developing to the…extreme I see in Catholicism. I do not think the early church was consumed with Mary, I certainly do not see that in early Christian writings or the Bible. I see no problem with her dying a normal death and her burial place long since forgotten.


#11

I cannot see the air…and yet I breathe.
I cannot remember being born; & yet I live.
No one can see either my soul, nor yours…Yet we have souls.
There is this thing called faith; no one can see or touch or feel it. And yet, you see, I still believe.

God bless all here.


#12

a quote from Catholic.com

The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

That is right. Faith does play an important part of one’s Christian faith.


#13

True, he is only alluding to her Assumption; not describing it in detail. But it seems clear that the Woman is physically present in Heaven; not just in spirit.

The parallels to Juan Diego’s visions of Mary on Tepayac Hill near Mexico City in 1531 are startling, to say the least. (Juan Diego was a poor Aztec Indian, working as a laborer, who had recently converted to the Catholic faith. It’s unlikely that he could read, or that he could have created the image of his vision to conform so exactly to the description in Revelation 12.)


#14

Brian, the Church has never formally defined whether she died or not. Dying and Being assumed are different subject.


#15

#16

I know, just gave my view but thanks for clarifying for people who do not know.


#17

Yet during that same period of time, people were collecting the relics of the Apostles and Martyrs, and venerating them. They were also faking a lot of them, as well - apparently St. Peter has more than 20 skulls, and literally hundreds of fingers. St. Martha and St. Mary Magdalene, several heads, dozens of fingers and toes, enough hair that they must have been proto-Neanderthals - you get the picture, I’m sure.

Yet, Mary the mother of Jesus - none at all. They were collecting the bones of the Apostles and friends of Jesus, and faking them when they couldn’t find them, but nobody was finding, or even looking for, Mary’s bones, and nobody at all was trying to fake them.

Why not?

Unless they knew that there were no bones to find, in the first place. And that everyone else also knew it. That if they tried to fake Mary’s bones, they would instantly be exposed as frauds, due to the fact that there was nothing of Mary’s to find, and that everyone else already knew that, too.


#18

#19

I have always thought of these things as fakes. I am not aware of credible evidence of anyone having possession of one of these that can be proven. What is the earliest reference to a relic of one of the apostles? Proven of course.


#20

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.