The Fallible Assumption of Mary

[Stucky]

on Wednesday, February 13, 2013 by Bill Salus
Prophecy Depot Ministries

Some believe she has redemptive power, others suspect she is the demonic imposter called "Mother of Harlots" from the biblical book of Revelation; the Catholic "Virgin Mary," why has she become one of the most controversial religious figures of our time?

While Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is praying for the return of the Shiite Islamic Messiah called the Twelfth Imam, also called the Mahdi, Catholics by the millions continue to pilgrimage annually to Marian apparition sites scattered throughout various parts of the world. Even more pray to her daily for guidance and spiritual intercession.

Many Catholics, Orthodox, and others believe the apparition is Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the bible. Several of her supernatural sightings like, Our Lady of Guadalupe (Mexico City) in 1531, and Our Lady of Fatima (Portugal) in 1917 are officially accredited by the Roman Catholic Church.

Continue Reading:
http://www.prophecydepot.net/2013/the-fallible-assumption-of-mary-2/

[winsome]

Quote from the web site:

As a dogma, the Assumption is a required belief of all Catholics; anyone who publicly dissents from the dogma, Pope Pius XII declared, "has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith." His statement accuses "anyone" who believes Mary died rather than was assumed up into heaven while still living, is an apostate "fallen away completely" from the "divine" things pertaining to God.[iii]

Wrong (as usual). The Church has never defined whether Mary died or not.

The statement
"That the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." does not state whether she died or not.

Best therefore to ignore anything the web site says as it clearly is in error..

[Alan]

Since the statements/beliefs are unsupported by scripture it's better to keep our eyes focused on God and Jesus Christ our savior, and pray that we're filled with the Holy Spirit. This is all we need.

[mclees8]

I think that the issue should not be if Mary was assumed but why the Catholic church wants everyone to beieive this.

Why do they want you to put her on the same levil with Christ. When Jesus was told your Mother is out side he said who is my mother or even my brother: all of you are my mother and brother. We are not even in the same league with Him let alone his Mother, More power and authority was given to the disciples then we hear of her. Not that Mary should be deminished for her part in bringing Christ to us. Truly she a woman amongst women.

I beleive she would say as John the baptist. " I must decrease so the he should increase.

[winsome]

I think that the issue should not be if Mary was assumed but why the Catholic church wants everyone to beieive this.

That is nonesense.

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Do you think truth does not matter?

Do you think the Catholic Church should not proclaim the truth?

Why do they want you to put her on the same levil with Christ. When Jesus was told your Mother is out side he said who is my mother or even my brother: all of you are my mother and brother. We are not even in the same league with Him let alone his Mother, More power and authority was given to the disciples then we hear of her. Not that Mary should be deminished for her part in bringing Christ to us. Truly she a woman amongst women.

mclees,

I'm sure you have been told many, many times that we do not put Mary on the same level as Christ.

[Alan]

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Where is the evidence of these claims?

[mclees8]

I think that the issue should not be if Mary was assumed but why the Catholic church wants everyone to beieive this.

That is nonesense.

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Do you think truth does not matter?

Do you think the Catholic Church should not proclaim the truth?

Why do they want you to put her on the same levil with Christ. When Jesus was told your Mother is out side he said who is my mother or even my brother: all of you are my mother and brother. We are not even in the same league with Him let alone his Mother, More power and authority was given to the disciples then we hear of her. Not that Mary should be deminished for her part in bringing Christ to us. Truly she a woman amongst women.

mclees,

I'm sure you have been told many, many times that we do not put Mary on the same level as Christ.

To first comment the assuming is assumed so there is a fabrication here.


To your second part I say    Really !
Who saw her fly away?  You really should use some sense hear. Why would they say that if they were not wanting to put her in that place.

[neophyte]

mclees8, you wrote: "When Jesus was told your Mother is out side he said who is my mother or even my brother: all of you are my mother and brother. We are not even in the same league with Him let alone his Mother, More power and authority was given to the disciples then we hear of her. Not that Mary should be deminished for her part in bringing Christ to us. Truly she a woman amongst women.'

What Jesus was saying meant; to believe in Him, nobody has to be related to Him. Any mother, sister, brother ,anybody can become a follower of Jesus. 

[winsome]

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Where is the evidence of these claims?

There is no evidence that Mary died and was buried. The early Christians gave homage to dead saints, and their relics of saints were especially prized. Even the bones of the martyrs in the Coliseum were collected and preserved. Yet there is no record of Mary's body being claimed by anyone. She is believed to have ended her life in Jerusalem or Ephesus but neither of those places has ever claimed her remains.

There are numerous stories of Mary's assumption, some quite early. There are called the Transitus Mariae stories. Whilst they are only pious fiction, they show a widespread belief that Mary had been assumed into heaven.

We believe Mary is the ark of the New Covenant. Because the original ark was so precious, it was made of incorruptible wood.
"Arise, Lord, come to your resting place, you and your majestic ark." (Psalm 132:8)
As the living ark of the New Covenant, Mary is majestic and it is fitting that she is incorruptible too.

It would be fitting for Mary to be assumed into heaven similarly on account of her freedom from sin, her perpetual virginity, her being the mother of God and her particular place in the plan of salvation.

[mclees8]

mclees8, you wrote: "When Jesus was told your Mother is out side he said who is my mother or even my brother: all of you are my mother and brother. We are not even in the same league with Him let alone his Mother, More power and authority was given to the disciples then we hear of her. Not that Mary should be deminished for her part in bringing Christ to us. Truly she a woman amongst women.'

What Jesus was saying meant; to believe in Him, nobody has to be related to Him. Any mother, sister, brother ,anybody can become a follower of Jesus. 

I strongly disagree with your assesment. It was about identity. He was not just another man with a mother but he is identified with    The Father which is in heaven   He was the Christ

[neophyte]

mclees8,
Jesus replied, "Who are my mother and my brethern?" And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brethern! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother" [Mark 3:33-35].

What are we to make of this?



A Deeper Question

Jesus' action does not fit neatly into either the dutiful son role or the alternative where he doesn't want to have anything to do with his family.

His action raises a deeper question: Who actually is his family?

Natural family ties are important, which is why God enshrined "Honor thy father and mother" in the Ten Commandments, but they aren't of ultimate importance.

What is of ultimate importance is our relationship to God, and so Jesus indicates that being part of the family of God--the group of those who do God's will--is more important than having merely natural ties.

This does not dismiss his own natural family. They are not excluded from the family of God, but neither are they excused from the need to do God's will.



Jesus and His Natural Family

Since Jesus identified the criterion that makes one a member of his ultimate family, it has been natural for people to ask how his own natural family measured up to it.

We know that his mother, in fact, responded to God's will perfectly.

We also know that many of his brethren--such as James and Jude--went on to play prominent roles in the Church, so they responded as well.

As interesting as it may be to know whether the members of Jesus' own natural family were part of his ultimate family, this isn't the main question for us.

The main question, the one he wants us to ponder, is whether we are.

Answered by a member of Catholic Answers . com

[mclees8]

mclees8,
Jesus replied, "Who are my mother and my brethern?" And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brethern! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother" [Mark 3:33-35].

What are we to make of this?



A Deeper Question

Jesus' action does not fit neatly into either the dutiful son role or the alternative where he doesn't want to have anything to do with his family.

His action raises a deeper question: Who actually is his family?

Natural family ties are important, which is why God enshrined "Honor thy father and mother" in the Ten Commandments, but they aren't of ultimate importance.

What is of ultimate importance is our relationship to God, and so Jesus indicates that being part of the family of God--the group of those who do God's will--is more important than having merely natural ties.

This does not dismiss his own natural family. They are not excluded from the family of God, but neither are they excused from the need to do God's will.



Jesus and His Natural Family

Since Jesus identified the criterion that makes one a member of his ultimate family, it has been natural for people to ask how his own natural family measured up to it.

We know that his mother, in fact, responded to God's will perfectly.

We also know that many of his brethren--such as James and Jude--went on to play prominent roles in the Church, so they responded as well.

As interesting as it may be to know whether the members of Jesus' own natural family were part of his ultimate family, this isn't the main question for us.

The main question, the one he wants us to ponder, is whether we are.

Answered by a member of Catholic Answers . com

Catholic answer is Catholic answers.  Not nessesarily the complete and correct answer.

Yes all who do the will of God is of his family. This was a correct and safe answer. What if he responded differently. What if he said, Do you not know who I am. I am the Christ the one  spoken of by the prohets. They would have flew on Him. What if he said then send my mother and brother in. Then they would see Him as just another man. The answer that he gave identified Him with the Father and all who are of God are his family. Note that he did not yet say he was the The christ for he was not yet risen nor recognized as being the Christ.

[Selene]

Since the statements/beliefs are unsupported by scripture it's better to keep our eyes focused on God and Jesus Christ our savior, and pray that we're filled with the Holy Spirit. This is all we need.

How is it unsupported by Scripture? 

[Ladonia]

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Where is the evidence of these claims?

It's not  a big thing really, but it's having faith that the Universal Church is indeed teaching the truth. Just as you have faith that Christ did indeed rise from the dead, even though your own eyes never saw such a thing.

[AVZ]

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Where is the evidence of these claims?

There is no evidence that Mary died and was buried. The early Christians gave homage to dead saints, and their relics of saints were especially prized. Even the bones of the martyrs in the Coliseum were collected and preserved. Yet there is no record of Mary's body being claimed by anyone. She is believed to have ended her life in Jerusalem or Ephesus but neither of those places has ever claimed her remains.

There are numerous stories of Mary's assumption, some quite early. There are called the Transitus Mariae stories. Whilst they are only pious fiction, they show a widespread belief that Mary had been assumed into heaven.

We believe Mary is the ark of the New Covenant. Because the original ark was so precious, it was made of incorruptible wood.
"Arise, Lord, come to your resting place, you and your majestic ark." (Psalm 132:8)
As the living ark of the New Covenant, Mary is majestic and it is fitting that she is incorruptible too.

It would be fitting for Mary to be assumed into heaven similarly on account of her freedom from sin, her perpetual virginity, her being the mother of God and her particular place in the plan of salvation.

Claiming bones or being buried or not are not evidences of assumption.
How could anyone say "this is true" if the word "assumption" itself already indicates that is is an assumption?

If Mary was a symbol of the ark, then what happened to the original ark?
History says it was destroyed together with the temple. Perhaps you could assume the original ark also assumed into heaven?

Mary being sinless -> assumption. No such evidence anywhere in the Bible
Mary being a perpetual virgin -> assumption. No such evidence or indication anywhere in the Bible.

There is also no "particular plan" for Mary in the plan of salvation. Nowhere in the Bible is she given a position in that plan.
Absolutely nowhere is she even slightly mentioned as being such.
So there, assumption as well.

Now I find it remarkable to say that everything the RCC claims about Mary is true, if all those claims are based on assumptions.

[AVZ]

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Where is the evidence of these claims?

It's not  a big thing really, but it's having faith that the Universal Church is indeed teaching the truth. Just as you have faith that Christ did indeed rise from the dead, even though your own eyes never saw such a thing.

Psalm 146:3 "Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save."

[Ladonia]

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Where is the evidence of these claims?

It's not  a big thing really, but it's having faith that the Universal Church is indeed teaching the truth. Just as you have faith that Christ did indeed rise from the dead, even though your own eyes never saw such a thing.

Psalm 146:3 "Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save."

I have no trouble putting my trust in Jesus' Holy Church.  "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me". (Luke 10:16)

[RaaniJ]

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Where is the evidence of these claims?

It's not  a big thing really, but it's having faith that the Universal Church is indeed teaching the truth. Just as you have faith that Christ did indeed rise from the dead, even though your own eyes never saw such a thing.

Psalm 146:3 "Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save."

I have no trouble putting my trust in Jesus' Holy Church.  "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me". (Luke 10:16)

You should always put your trust in the Lord Jesus Christ before man/church. Jesus did say, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." If what someone is saying that claims to be a man/woman of God..what they say have to connect to the Bible. It has to be written in the Bible. That would be their evidence, nothing that anyone has said about Mary...such as her disappearing and flying to Heaven is nowhere in the Bible. God is not going to tell someone something that the Bible does not support. There is very little written about Mary in the Bible, and of course it should be considering the fact that Jesus is all that we should be focused on.

[Adamski]

Off topic !


Doesn't it bother Protestants that they are so divided
Episcopalians and elca champion gay so called marriage and abortion while seventh day Adventist think worship on Sunday is the mark of the beast ?? And on and on.........

[AVZ]

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Where is the evidence of these claims?

It's not  a big thing really, but it's having faith that the Universal Church is indeed teaching the truth. Just as you have faith that Christ did indeed rise from the dead, even though your own eyes never saw such a thing.

Psalm 146:3 "Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save."

I have no trouble putting my trust in Jesus' Holy Church.  "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me". (Luke 10:16)

Exactly.
Instead of listening to Jesus...you choose to listen to princes who claim to have the soul authority to correctly interprete what Jesus said.
If you put your trust in the "Holy Church" (I assume you mean to say the Catholic Church) you are ignoring the message given to us in Revelation where clearly is described how some of the "Holy Churches" had diverted from the correct path.

[Ladonia]

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Where is the evidence of these claims?

It's not  a big thing really, but it's having faith that the Universal Church is indeed teaching the truth. Just as you have faith that Christ did indeed rise from the dead, even though your own eyes never saw such a thing.

Psalm 146:3 "Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save."

I have no trouble putting my trust in Jesus' Holy Church.  "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me". (Luke 10:16)

You should always put your trust in the Lord Jesus Christ before man/church. Jesus did say, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." If what someone is saying that claims to be a man/woman of God..what they say have to connect to the Bible. It has to be written in the Bible. That would be their evidence, nothing that anyone has said about Mary...such as her disappearing and flying to Heaven is nowhere in the Bible. God is not going to tell someone something that the Bible does not support. There is very little written about Mary in the Bible, and of course it should be considering the fact that Jesus is all that we should be focused on.

Of course! And the Lord Jesus Christ has led me to hear him in his church here on earth. The Universal Church and Jesus Christ are synonymous, and this fact is most exemplified when we receive him via Holy Communion, which is and has always been the core of our worship service.

[RaaniJ]

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Where is the evidence of these claims?

It's not  a big thing really, but it's having faith that the Universal Church is indeed teaching the truth. Just as you have faith that Christ did indeed rise from the dead, even though your own eyes never saw such a thing.

Psalm 146:3 "Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save."

I have no trouble putting my trust in Jesus' Holy Church.  "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me". (Luke 10:16)

You should always put your trust in the Lord Jesus Christ before man/church. Jesus did say, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." If what someone is saying that claims to be a man/woman of God..what they say have to connect to the Bible. It has to be written in the Bible. That would be their evidence, nothing that anyone has said about Mary...such as her disappearing and flying to Heaven is nowhere in the Bible. God is not going to tell someone something that the Bible does not support. There is very little written about Mary in the Bible, and of course it should be considering the fact that Jesus is all that we should be focused on.

Of course! And the Lord Jesus Christ has led me to hear him in his church here on earth. The Universal Church and Jesus Christ are synonymous, and this fact is most exemplified when we receive him via Holy Communion, which is and has always been the core of our worship service.

That really has nothing to do with what I said...but I hope that you actually listen to what the Church says and then go home and see if what they are saying matches with the Word of God. Because if not, then that is not a church that God dwells in.

[AVZ]

Off topic !


Doesn't it bother Protestants that they are so divided
Episcopalians and elca champion gay so called marriage and abortion while seventh day Adventist think worship on Sunday is the mark of the beast ?? And on and on.........

I can only answer you personally.
Yes, it bothers me greatly that we Christians are so divided, not only Protestants...but also Catholics.
But then again, doesn't it bother the RCC for having a significant part in this?

[AVZ]

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Where is the evidence of these claims?

It's not  a big thing really, but it's having faith that the Universal Church is indeed teaching the truth. Just as you have faith that Christ did indeed rise from the dead, even though your own eyes never saw such a thing.

Psalm 146:3 "Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save."

I have no trouble putting my trust in Jesus' Holy Church.  "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me". (Luke 10:16)

You should always put your trust in the Lord Jesus Christ before man/church. Jesus did say, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." If what someone is saying that claims to be a man/woman of God..what they say have to connect to the Bible. It has to be written in the Bible. That would be their evidence, nothing that anyone has said about Mary...such as her disappearing and flying to Heaven is nowhere in the Bible. God is not going to tell someone something that the Bible does not support. There is very little written about Mary in the Bible, and of course it should be considering the fact that Jesus is all that we should be focused on.

Of course! And the Lord Jesus Christ has led me to hear him in his church here on earth. The Universal Church and Jesus Christ are synonymous, and this fact is most exemplified when we receive him via Holy Communion, which is and has always been the core of our worship service.

That is very incorrect to say.
The Universal Church and Jesus are not synonymous.
In fact, Revelation warns us for the rise of a "Universal Church".

Jesus is synonymous to "His Church" or "His Bride" and that is something completely different than what you claim, or anyone else claims to be a "Universal Church".

[mclees8]

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Where is the evidence of these claims?

It's not  a big thing really, but it's having faith that the Universal Church is indeed teaching the truth. Just as you have faith that Christ did indeed rise from the dead, even though your own eyes never saw such a thing.

Psalm 146:3 "Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save."

I have no trouble putting my trust in Jesus' Holy Church.  "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me". (Luke 10:16)

You should always put your trust in the Lord Jesus Christ before man/church. Jesus did say, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." If what someone is saying that claims to be a man/woman of God..what they say have to connect to the Bible. It has to be written in the Bible. That would be their evidence, nothing that anyone has said about Mary...such as her disappearing and flying to Heaven is nowhere in the Bible. God is not going to tell someone something that the Bible does not support. There is very little written about Mary in the Bible, and of course it should be considering the fact that Jesus is all that we should be focused on.

Of course! And the Lord Jesus Christ has led me to hear him in his church here on earth. The Universal Church and Jesus Christ are synonymous, and this fact is most exemplified when we receive him via Holy Communion, which is and has always been the core of our worship service.

Im sorry you only identify with the eartly church, not that there isnt an earthly church. But in the day of the Lord he will not look to the the earthly body or the organizational hierachies but those who individually worship in Spirit and in truth. Those who walk in spiritual connection with Him personally. Read John 3 and 4 and Jesus speaks of this connection.Those who only identify with the eartly are carnally minded and have not really grasped the spiritual. He knows His bride and they will be taken out from all the eartly and carnal to be with Him at the wedding.

[Alan]

Since the statements/beliefs are unsupported by scripture it's better to keep our eyes focused on God and Jesus Christ our savior, and pray that we're filled with the Holy Spirit. This is all we need.

How is it unsupported by Scripture?

Where is it supported by scripture? "it" being the OP

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Where is the evidence of these claims?

It's not  a big thing really, but it's having faith that the Universal Church is indeed teaching the truth. Just as you have faith that Christ did indeed rise from the dead, even though your own eyes never saw such a thing.

We have scriptural account of Christ rising from the dead, but only heresy concerning Mary being anything more than a mortal human being.

Off topic !


Doesn't it bother Protestants Christians that they are so divided
Episcopalians and elca champion gay so called marriage and abortion while seventh day Adventist think worship on Sunday is the mark of the beast ??  And on and on.........

Fixed

[winsome]

 

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Where is the evidence of these claims?

There is no evidence that Mary died and was buried. The early Christians gave homage to dead saints, and their relics of saints were especially prized. Even the bones of the martyrs in the Coliseum were collected and preserved. Yet there is no record of Mary's body being claimed by anyone. She is believed to have ended her life in Jerusalem or Ephesus but neither of those places has ever claimed her remains.

There are numerous stories of Mary's assumption, some quite early. There are called the Transitus Mariae stories. Whilst they are only pious fiction, they show a widespread belief that Mary had been assumed into heaven.

We believe Mary is the ark of the New Covenant. Because the original ark was so precious, it was made of incorruptible wood.
"Arise, Lord, come to your resting place, you and your majestic ark." (Psalm 132:8)
As the living ark of the New Covenant, Mary is majestic and it is fitting that she is incorruptible too.

It would be fitting for Mary to be assumed into heaven similarly on account of her freedom from sin, her perpetual virginity, her being the mother of God and her particular place in the plan of salvation.

Claiming bones or being buried or not are not evidences of assumption.

It is evidence but not proof.

We know where the bones of many early Saints are and there is evidence or early records of their deaths. But there is no such evidence for Mary

How could anyone say "this is true" if the word "assumption" itself already indicates that is is an assumption?

Logical fallacy of equivocation.

If Mary was a symbol of the ark, then what happened to the original ark?
History says it was destroyed together with the temple. Perhaps you could assume the original ark also assumed into heaven?

History does not say that. Scripture says it was hidden by Jeremiah (2Macc 2:5).

The Old Covenant is finished we have a New Covenant and Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. John say her in heaven.(Rev 11:19-12:1)

Mary being sinless -> assumption. No such evidence anywhere in the Bible

There is evidence in the Bible.

Mary being a perpetual virgin -> assumption. No such evidence or indication anywhere in the Bible.

There is evidence in the Bible

There is also no "particular plan" for Mary in the plan of salvation. Nowhere in the Bible is she given a position in that plan.
Absolutely nowhere is she even slightly mentioned as being such.
So there, assumption as well.

Really? And if she had said no to being the Mother of Jesus?

Now I find it remarkable to say that everything the RCC claims about Mary is true, if all those claims are based on assumptions.

However they are not based on assumptions.

[winsome]

deleted

[mclees8]

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Where is the evidence of these claims?

There is no evidence that Mary died and was buried. The early Christians gave homage to dead saints, and their relics of saints were especially prized. Even the bones of the martyrs in the Coliseum were collected and preserved. Yet there is no record of Mary's body being claimed by anyone. She is believed to have ended her life in Jerusalem or Ephesus but neither of those places has ever claimed her remains.

There are numerous stories of Mary's assumption, some quite early. There are called the Transitus Mariae stories. Whilst they are only pious fiction, they show a widespread belief that Mary had been assumed into heaven.

We believe Mary is the ark of the New Covenant. Because the original ark was so precious, it was made of incorruptible wood.
"Arise, Lord, come to your resting place, you and your majestic ark." (Psalm 132:8)
As the living ark of the New Covenant, Mary is majestic and it is fitting that she is incorruptible too.

It would be fitting for Mary to be assumed into heaven similarly on account of her freedom from sin, her perpetual virginity, her being the mother of God and her particular place in the plan of salvation.

Claiming bones or being buried or not are not evidences of assumption.

It is evidence but not proof.

We know where the bones of many early Saints are and there is evidence or early records of their deaths. But there is no such evidence for Mary

How could anyone say "this is true" if the word "assumption" itself already indicates that is is an assumption?

Logical fallacy of equivocation.

If Mary was a symbol of the ark, then what happened to the original ark?
History says it was destroyed together with the temple. Perhaps you could assume the original ark also assumed into heaven?

History does not say that. Scripture says it was hidden by Jeremiah (2Macc 2:5).

The Old Covenant is finished we have a New Covenant and Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. John say her in heaven.(Rev 11:19-12:1)

Mary being sinless -> assumption. No such evidence anywhere in the Bible

There is evidence in the Bible.

Mary being a perpetual virgin -> assumption. No such evidence or indication anywhere in the Bible.

There is evidence in the Bible

There is also no "particular plan" for Mary in the plan of salvation. Nowhere in the Bible is she given a position in that plan.
Absolutely nowhere is she even slightly mentioned as being such.
So there, assumption as well.

Really? And if she had said no to being the Mother of Jesus?

Now I find it remarkable to say that everything the RCC claims about Mary is true, if all those claims are based on assumptions.

However they are not based on assumptions.

statements of evidence but no evidence.  Its like you say there is evidence but the evidence is a blank book   

[Ladonia]

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Where is the evidence of these claims?

It's not  a big thing really, but it's having faith that the Universal Church is indeed teaching the truth. Just as you have faith that Christ did indeed rise from the dead, even though your own eyes never saw such a thing.

Psalm 146:3 "Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save."

I have no trouble putting my trust in Jesus' Holy Church.  "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me". (Luke 10:16)

You should always put your trust in the Lord Jesus Christ before man/church. Jesus did say, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." If what someone is saying that claims to be a man/woman of God..what they say have to connect to the Bible. It has to be written in the Bible. That would be their evidence, nothing that anyone has said about Mary...such as her disappearing and flying to Heaven is nowhere in the Bible. God is not going to tell someone something that the Bible does not support. There is very little written about Mary in the Bible, and of course it should be considering the fact that Jesus is all that we should be focused on.

Of course! And the Lord Jesus Christ has led me to hear him in his church here on earth. The Universal Church and Jesus Christ are synonymous, and this fact is most exemplified when we receive him via Holy Communion, which is and has always been the core of our worship service.

That really has nothing to do with what I said...but I hope that you actually listen to what the Church says and then go home and see if what they are saying matches with the Word of God. Because if not, then that is not a church that God dwells in.

And I believe that the Catholic Church matches with the Word of God. What do you want me to do, go to some other church somewhere just to hear a preacher give me his take on the Scriptures, some other church that does not recognize Christ's real presence in the Holy Eucharist? Never!

[Alan]

What do you want me to do, go to some other church somewhere just to hear a preacher give me his take on the Scriptures, some other church that does not recognize Christ's real presence in the Holy Eucharist? Never!

Heavens no!! Stay exactly where you are and never take an open minded approach to any other point of view.

The word of God is infallible, the Church is not.

[trifecta]

Actually, Alan, the Bible itself says the church is the pillar and foundation of the church (1 Tim 3:15)

But let's relax a bit.  I know Mary is a controversial topic, but she hasn't always been.  Martin Luther
insisted on her ever-Virginity, for example.

To make this simple, Mary was assumed because God's house could not be corrupted.

BTW, the Orthodox Churches (I am in one) believe the Mary did indeed die, while winsome and others
correctly point out that RCC leaves this question open.  It has something to do with doctrine of original
sin (Mary wasn't corrupted by it, therefore she didn't have to die?).   We don't believe in original sin but
do believe that death is an condition of humankind that Jesus conquered. Therefore, after death, we
believe Mary was assumed.

[Ladonia]

Actually, Alan, the Bible itself says the church is the pillar and foundation of the church (1 Tim 3:15)

But let's relax a bit.  I know Mary is a controversial topic, but she hasn't always been.  Martin Luther
insisted on her ever-Virginity, for example.

To make this simple, Mary was assumed because God's house could not be corrupted.

BTW, the Orthodox Churches (I am in one) believe the Mary did indeed die, while winsome and others
correctly point out that RCC leaves this question open.  It has something to do with doctrine of original
sin (Mary wasn't corrupted by it, therefore she didn't have to die?).   We don't believe in original sin but
do believe that death is an condition of humankind that Jesus conquered. Therefore, after death, we
believe Mary was assumed.

Thank you, you have made clear some of what we were discussing. And I learned something today about the Orthodox belief's about the Blessed Mother.

[winsome]

The issue of whether Mary was assumed or not is relevant to why the Church proclaims it as a doctrine.

It proclaims Mary as assumed into heaven because it is true.

Where is the evidence of these claims?

There is no evidence that Mary died and was buried. The early Christians gave homage to dead saints, and their relics of saints were especially prized. Even the bones of the martyrs in the Coliseum were collected and preserved. Yet there is no record of Mary's body being claimed by anyone. She is believed to have ended her life in Jerusalem or Ephesus but neither of those places has ever claimed her remains.

There are numerous stories of Mary's assumption, some quite early. There are called the Transitus Mariae stories. Whilst they are only pious fiction, they show a widespread belief that Mary had been assumed into heaven.

We believe Mary is the ark of the New Covenant. Because the original ark was so precious, it was made of incorruptible wood.
"Arise, Lord, come to your resting place, you and your majestic ark." (Psalm 132:8)
As the living ark of the New Covenant, Mary is majestic and it is fitting that she is incorruptible too.

It would be fitting for Mary to be assumed into heaven similarly on account of her freedom from sin, her perpetual virginity, her being the mother of God and her particular place in the plan of salvation.

Claiming bones or being buried or not are not evidences of assumption.

It is evidence but not proof.

We know where the bones of many early Saints are and there is evidence or early records of their deaths. But there is no such evidence for Mary

How could anyone say "this is true" if the word "assumption" itself already indicates that is is an assumption?

Logical fallacy of equivocation.

If Mary was a symbol of the ark, then what happened to the original ark?
History says it was destroyed together with the temple. Perhaps you could assume the original ark also assumed into heaven?

History does not say that. Scripture says it was hidden by Jeremiah (2Macc 2:5).

The Old Covenant is finished we have a New Covenant and Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. John say her in heaven.(Rev 11:19-12:1)

Mary being sinless -> assumption. No such evidence anywhere in the Bible

There is evidence in the Bible.

Mary being a perpetual virgin -> assumption. No such evidence or indication anywhere in the Bible.

There is evidence in the Bible

There is also no "particular plan" for Mary in the plan of salvation. Nowhere in the Bible is she given a position in that plan.
Absolutely nowhere is she even slightly mentioned as being such.
So there, assumption as well.

Really? And if she had said no to being the Mother of Jesus?

Now I find it remarkable to say that everything the RCC claims about Mary is true, if all those claims are based on assumptions.

However they are not based on assumptions.

statements of evidence but no evidence.  Its like you say there is evidence but the evidence is a blank book   

No evidence was requested

[AVZ]

There is also no "particular plan" for Mary in the plan of salvation. Nowhere in the Bible is she given a position in that plan.
Absolutely nowhere is she even slightly mentioned as being such.
So there, assumption as well.

Really? And if she had said no to being the Mother of Jesus?

Ridiculous. Are you really suggesting that God's plan of redemption depended on Mary's willingness to accept the offer?
Like when the angel appeared to Mary, all other angels were crossing their fingers wishing: "please let her say yes"...

But now the INTERESTING part of your statement.
You imply that it would have been possible for Mary to have said "no".
If that is indeed the case, then God would not have been certain of Mary's choice...hence Mary could have never been without sin.
If Mary's decision was uncertain beforehand, then her birth without original sin would also have been uncertain.