I am not Catholic but I am curious about some things & thought this the perfect opportunity to learn more. I was reading about how the Rosary is prayed & had a question regarding the 4th Glorious mystery. Where did the assumption of Mary come from? I did not see any reference to scripture on this. Also, I am confused about the 1st Joyful mystery. The site I was looking at said that Mary’s vow of virginity is based on Luke 1:26 but I do not see that.
Mary’s Assumption came from Sacred Tradition. There are Scripture verses that, read in context, allude to the Assumption of Mary, “Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might” (Psalm 132:8) is one. But Catholics rely on the Holy Spirit guiding the Church whom Jesus gave authority to teach the Truth.
Where on earth did you get the idea that it HAD to be versed in Scripture in order to be true? I never saw that in Scripture.
There’s a good document on both of these topics on the Catholic Answers main site. They are very good explanations, I invite you to read them here:
Regarding her vow of virginity-- in Luke, Mary asks how it is possible that she is to conceive. She does not ask when. Since she was already betrothed (in that culture that means she was already married).
If an angel came to you *after *you were engaged and said you would bear a son-- your reaction would not be “how” but “when”… *if *you planned to have sexual relations when you began living with your husband. That is one clue to her vow of virginity.
Let’s see, Luke 1:26 -*** In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth***.
Nope, I don’t see any reference to her virginity there. I can see it in Luke 1:34 - ***But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?***” If you were fixing to marry a man and an angel told you were going to give birth to the Son of God, would you ask “how can this be?” No, you’d assume that you and your husband were going to conceive a son.
Mary doesn’t ask this. She asks, “How can this be?”. This can be true if Mary was consecrated as a Virgin to the Temple. Early Apochrypha works, such as the Protoevangelium of James (circa 120AD), attested to her being consecrated a virgin to the Temple. She married Joseph, a widower, to protect her and the Temple from scandal (I think that was the reason).
In addition to Notworthy and 1ke have said Mary and Joseph were still under the Old Covenant. Under the Old Covenant there were guidelines for living in chaste marriages. Take a look at Numbers 30
1 Moses then gave the Israelites these instructions, just as the LORD had ordered him.
2 Moses said to the heads of the Israelite tribes, "This is what the LORD has commanded:
3 **When a man makes a vow to the LORD or binds himself under oath to a pledge of abstinence, he shall not violate his word, but must fulfill exactly the promise he has uttered.
4 "When a woman, while still a maiden in her father’s house, makes a vow to the LORD, or binds herself to a pledge,
5 if her father learns of her vow or the pledge to which she bound herself and says nothing to her about it, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid. **6 But if on the day he learns of it her father expresses to her his disapproval, then any vow or any pledge she has made becomes null and void; and the LORD releases her from it, since her father has expressed to her his disapproval.
7 "**If she marries while under a vow or under a rash pledge to which she bound herself,
8 and her husband learns of it, yet says nothing to her that day about it, then the vow or pledge she had made remains valid. **
9 But if on the day he learns of it her husband expresses to her his disapproval, he thereby annuls the vow she had made or the rash pledge to which she had bound herself, and the LORD releases her from it.
10 The vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, or any pledge to which such a woman binds herself, is valid.
11 "**If it is in her husband’s house that she makes a vow or binds herself under oath to a pledge,
12 and her husband learns of it yet says nothing to express to her his disapproval, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid. **13 But if on the day he learns of them her husband annuls them, then whatever she has expressly promised in her vow or in her pledge becomes null and void; since her husband has annulled them, the LORD releases her from them.
14 **"Any vow or any pledge that she makes under oath to mortify herself, her husband can either allow to remain valid or render null and void.
15 But if her husband, day after day, says nothing at all to her about them, he thereby allows as valid any vow or any pledge she has made; he has allowed them to remain valid, because on the day he learned of them he said nothing to her about them. **16 If, however, he countermands them some time after he first learned of them, he is responsible for her guilt."
17 These are the statutes which the LORD prescribed through Moses concerning the relationship between a husband and his wife, as well as between a father and his daughter while she is still a maiden in her father’s house.
The whole thing talks mainly about women taking vows of abstinence and how their fathers or husbands can allow or disallow them to remain under those vows. Tradition teaches that this is the kind of marriage that Mary and Joseph had. After all if you were going to be responsible for the care and raising of the Son of God would you not want to devote your whole life to that task?
Thank you both for answering my question; it was very helpful. I will look mare into it & use the link that was posted. However, a note to NotWorthy and some others I have read on this site…you should maybe a little more thoughtful of how you word things. Sometimes it comes off as being a little rude. Maybe some Protestants such as myself would become even more interested in the Catholic faith if we weren’t looked down upon. My mother’s side of the family is Catholic & of the services I have been to I felt very out of place, even from my own family. For instance, instead of explaining why I couldn’t take part in Communion, I was just told I wasn’t “allowed”. Many of the Protestants on this site are here because they are interested in learning more & I think that should be looked at as a good thing, not meant to make fun of our questions.
Missy, my apologies, and your point is well taken.
Hang around a little and you’ll find out I’m actually sort-of-kind-of a nice kind of guy in a quirky sort of way.
It’s very easy to read the wrong tone into what is typed, and sometimes I forget to add the little “smiley” to show that I’m just pickin’.
What’s almost comical about your post is that I find that I’m often trying to defend our protestant brothers (and sisters) against some of our more “robust” defenders of the Faith.
But, once again, my sincerest apologies!
Hi Missy G.,
This is a heavily apologetic forum, and people are liable to throw a data base at you. While not relinquishing the forum entirely, I encourage you to try also the Catholic Online Forum, where things are a little more homey.
Thank you all for helping me with my question. I really enjoyed reading the link posted by 1ke. I have learned a great deal & it actually makes sense to me.
I do have another question since Verbum wrote it…what is apologetics?
Also, please pray for all of those affected by the VA Tech shooting.
Hi Missy G,
Apologetics is a branch of theology that aims to defend Catholic doctrine against the attacks of non-believers.