Scriptural basis for the Assumption

Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, just like the doctrine of the Trinity, is not formally defined in Scripture. However, in both cases we find scriptural evidence to support them.

There are two examples in Scripture that clearly demonstrate the bodily assumption of saints. Enoch (Hebrews 11:5) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:1-13) were both taken up to heaven with their bodies. All Christians agree on this, so logically all should agree at least on the possibility that the same could have happened to Mary. (1) Scripture teaches us that it was possible.

Even though Scripture tells us that it was possible and even likely, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that it happened. On the other hand, the fact that it is not explicitly taught in Scripture would not mean that it didn’t. That idea comes from the Reformation doctrine of “Sola Scriptura,” or Scripture alone. The leaders of the Protestant Reformation taught that all that was to be believed in matters of faith could be found on the surface of Scripture. However, this foundational teaching of the Reformation cannot itself be found in Scripture (see essay on Scripture Alone). What we do find in Scripture, is the establishment of an authoritative Church. For instance, the Church is “The pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). And rejection of the Church is rejection of Christ: “Whoever rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16; see essay on The Church). (3) Scripture shows us that the Church has the authority to teach.

There’s always the problem of runaway-piety.

There’s a whole lot of concepts that do not contradict scriptures, which nonetheless aren’t very believable:

  1. There are people on the sun.

  2. There are sentient beings on every planet outside our solar system.

  3. There are rational people living underground on Mars.

We can endlessly come up with assertions that aren’t necessarily true, whether or not we can verify or disprove them.

The Assumption is now a “dogma” – a point of faith that must be believed. It is essential for salvation. Really? For the sake of discussion, why is that?

If Jesus gave the commission that the apostles teach all that he had commanded, then where does the Assumption fall with respect to the issue of whether Jesus commands the Church to teach the Assumption? For that matter, what exactly are those things that Jesus commanded to be taught?

“Love your enemies” “do good to those who hate you” – now those are things that Jesus taught, no dispute.

It isn’t automatically legalistic to sincerely ask, what was it that Jesus taught us to do? Belief is very important, and just what is it that we are to believe? Is there any difference between what Jesus teaches and what the Church teaches? Why?

How can anyone NOT believe in the Assumption of Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven!? Like you stated Lampo, scripture gives us as example of this in Enoch and Elijah. But even without scriptural backup, I believe in the Assumption on a more practical level.

Jesus IS God, and for Him to be resurrected into a Glorified body is a Given, He’s God, of Course He can do this. But we are also promised that we mear creatures will also have a resurrected Glorified Body one day in heaven (not divine of course). This would normally be a concept beyond our reasoning ability if not for Mary. Mary is a created being like all of us (except she being without sin) God showed us through Mary that all creatures have this hope. Mary showed us, by God’s power of course, that all of us will inherit the Kingdom of God in our Glorified state.

The more I meditate on Mary and what she has meant throughout Salvation History, the more I LOVE HER and the closer I grow to my Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. She never stops showing us the way to Jesus:thumbsup:

That admission defeats the title of your thread.

Many protestants believe that Enoch and Elijah were taken alive into heaven because they were destined to die as martyrs in our distant future. They believe Enoch and Elijah will be the 2 Witnesses described in the book of Revelations. Sounds cute. :smiley:

L4M, :thumbsup:

Especially on the Feast of the Dormition, the Greek Fathers preached the doctrine of the universal distribution of grace by the Mother of God, assumed to the side of her Son to plead our case. To strengthen the confidence of the Romans in Christ, St. Paul wrote: “It is Christ Jesus who died, yes, and rose again, he who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us!” (Romans 8:34) What is more natural for us than to conclude: “It is our Mother who died, yes, and rose again, she who is at the right hand of Christ, who also intercedes for us!” And as Christ is in heaven at the side of the Father, with his wound-scarred body, as though to remind him that he has the right to be heard, so Mary is at the side of her Son, with the body that formed, nursed, and bore his body, with the face which formerly smiled at Him or wept over him, as though to make him understand, if it were necessary, that he cannot refuse her anything that she asks for her other children. And because Mary is in heaven with her glorified body, endowed with powers eminently superior to those of our earthly bodies, the faithful instinctively imagine that in some way she sees them, hears them, and answers them directly. Are they wrong? Many theologians and mystics hold that they are not.

Tomster

AT,

Religion is man’s effort to be right with God. To be effectual, it must express the correct relationship between God and man. This is the complete dependence of man upon God, and it imposes consequences of knowledge and action, which it is the business of religion to make clear. Hence religion must explain where a man stands and how he should act with regard to God. “A Religion,” then, is a body of beliefs and practices, purporting to supply this knowledge and indicate the right pattern of conduct. The true religion is the one which supplies this information correctly and offers mankind the right solution to its basic problems. That there be a true religion, accessible to people, is demanded by the dignity of God and the need of man.

I to have a love and respect for our Blessed Mother, and I wish to point out a few things.-
The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. I have known many catholics and one protestant who have a devotion to Our Lady, and must say that every single one is one of the most gentle and loving and compassionate people you would ever want to meet.

On the personal side, I have asked Mary to help me with grace, and once when I was tempted recently to commit a serious sin, I asked her to help me, since the thoughts would not leave me. Well, as soon as I thought of her beautiful face, and before I could think the thought of my request, the sinful attack left me completely, and I could sense the presence of her in the room with me. Now, I had no previous thoughts of anything like this event, and certainly was not expecting it, espacially since I only of late started giving her a place in my heart that she deserves. I always believed in things like the rosary and such, but had never really practiced it, and did not talk to her much, if any. Since then, I have a new respect and love for her, and am beginning to place some of my prayers before her to take to Jesus, because like was stated, Jesus cannot refuse the requests of His mother, and loves to hear her petitioning Him on the behalf of her children.

Now, any protestant or catholic that doesn’t want to go this way, I say OK, but as I have stated in the Bible in the Bible thread, you must go with what works and is proven. This has been proven to me beyond question, and I will continue to love my Precious Queen!

By the way, Happy feastday to all of you of the Franciscan persuasion!
Many think of St. Francis as one of the greatest preists ever born. NOT TRUE! He was never ordained a preist, but remained a permanent deacon. today in Mass we sang his prayer. What a powerful and beautiful thing that prayer truly is, isn’t it? The song remained with me at work today for a long while-“FOR IT IS IN PARDONING THAT WE ARE PARDONED, AND IN DYING THAT WE ARE BORN TO ETERNAL LIFE”. I am weeping now!!

QUOTE: “An ounce of humility is worth a pound of apologies!”-Thomas Aquinas

A BLESSED WEEKEND TO ALL!:wave:

A more serious and logical discussion of the topic in this thread is given at www.newadvent.org, under A, the assumption of Mary.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that there is nothing certain known about the death of Mary. The belief in her assumption is based on several non-scriptural sources. By the time Pope Benedict XIV (14) comes along, he says that disbelief is “impious and sacriligious.”

As stated there (in the link provided above), if the apostle Thomas had not wanted to see the dead body of Mary, then we might not have even later developed this idea of Mary’s assumption.

How can any dogma that we come up with, with or without the bodily assumption of Mary, possibly magnify Mary’s glory that God has intended for her? Is it even plausible that Mary’s glory would be dimished one iota, if we didn’t have the dogma of the Assumption (and we didn’t, as a matter of fact, for centuries)?

I note that no one has answered or responded to my previous comments.

The short answer, the dogma is based on Tradition, not scripture. This is very hard for non-Catholics and non-Orthodox to accept.

C’mon, it took 19 centuries or so to come up with the “dogma,” OK, it’s there. Like the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, it is a very divisive teaching. The doctrine of Mary as co-redemptorix is similarly divisive, perhaps just because of the wording. c’mon, lots of other people “cooperated” with God, like Joseph and John the Baptist. Are they co-redemptorixes?

Seriously.

BDM,

On the personal side, I can relate to your testimony. She has never, ever, failed to come to my assistance especially in times of temptation, fatigue and spiritual aridity.

“The ark which was made of incorruptible timber (Exodus 15:10) was the Savior. The ark symbolized the tabernacle of His body, which was impervious to decay and engendered no sinful corruption . . . . The Lord was sinless, because in His humanity, He was fashioned out of incorruptible wood, that is, out of the Virgin and the Holy Ghost, lined within and without as with the purest gold of the word of God.” - St. Hippolytus, d.235

The Ark of the Covenant, as type and figure of Christ, leads Hippolytus to associate the sinlessness of Christ with that of His Mother, a characteristic form in which the Immaculate Conception is expressed in the early Church. The passage will be used as well to witness to the incorruptibility of Mary’s body, the basis of the dogma of the Assumption.

You mean Protestants have traditions that are not taught in scripture??? :eek:

Yes. Actually the males are co-redemptors, females are co-redemptorixes. :wink:

God bless,
Paul

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.