 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 12:37 am |
|
Hello Again, Brothers & Sisters in Christ!
I have some questions in my desire to understand Mary better and see her more clearly. I have been praying the Holy Rosary for about one month and I now look forward to it everyday. Still, there is so much more I need to learn about Mary. So here are some questions.
1. What does the Immaculate Conception of Mary encompass? Does it mean that she also was born of a virgin (which I don't think it can) or that she was without original sin from the moment of her birth? I ask this because I thought that Catholic doctrine states that Mary was born with original sin but then God miraculously cleansed her before she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and conceived. I would like some clarification on this. There is no need to be brief in your explanation since I truly desire to have complete understanding (as much as one can) on this doctrine.
2. What exactly does the Assumption of Mary mean? Does it mean that she ascended into heaven just as Jesus our Lord did, and as Elijah and Enoch did, that is, in bodily form? If so, how can we know this for sure? I am not aware that the Bible states this occuring anywhere. Was it recorded by historians, such as Josephus or someone else? This is a part of Marian doctrine that I have difficulty in believing, so again, please do not be brief in your explanation.
3. Why is it that Catholics believe that Mary was forever a Virgin while here on earth? I ask this because, as I'm sure many of you know, Protestants claim that the Bible states clearly that Jesus had brothers, James the greater, being one of them. But also in scripture, the following passages are used as support for this belief. John 7:1-5: After these things Jesus walked in Galilee, for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him. Now the Jews' Feast of Tabernacles was at hand. His brothers therefore said to Him, "Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your diciples also may see the works that You are doing. For no one does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world. For even His brothers did not believe in Him. Acts 1:14: These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. Matthew 12:46-47: While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You." I don't understand why one should have to believe in Mary's perpetual virginity to believe she is a great saint and one that should be honored and respected. Even Peter, on whom Jesus built His church, was married, as were the Patriarchs and many holy men and women of God.
I would greatly appreciate some feedback on these questions. God Bless You All.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 761 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 02:08 am |
|
| I've read the explanation that there was no word for cousins so that was what was meant by the term brothers. But I also remember reading somewhere that Jesus' brothers may have been his stepbrothers, ie Joseph's children from a previous marriage. But I've only read that once and it was a long time ago. Why is that possibility not presented more often? It makes as much sense as cousins, maybe more.
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." Ps 139
"Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men." Ps 140
|
|
|
Saint Wanna Be
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | Oxford, Mississippi USA |
| Posts: | 17 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 08:53 am |
|
Hello Darlene, you have some great questions, questions I had and struggled with on my journey into the Church. Your first question about the Immaculate Conception is best approached with the teaching from the cathecism. Notice that Pope Pius 1X only clarified in 1854 the LONG HELD BELIEF that Mary was conceived free from original sin. As with all doctrines of the church, they were not just "thought up" at the time they were made doctrine. They became doctrine when they did to clarify the teaching the church had held since its earliest days, usually against some heresy of the time. An example, study why the Nicene creed states what it does. The church believed what it clarified long before the clarification was needed .
In 1854, Pope Pius IX's solemn declaration, Ineffabilis Deus, clarified with finality the long-held belief of the Church that Mary was conceived free from original sin. In proclaiming the Immaculate Conception of Mary as a dogma of the Church, the pope expressed precisely and clearly that Mary was conceived free from the stain of original sin. This privilege of Mary derives from God's having chosen her as Mother of the Savior; thus she received the benefits of salvation in Christ from the very moment of her conception. This great gift to Mary, an ordinary human being just like us, was fitting because she was destined to be Mother of God. The purity and holiness of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a model for all Christians.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says of the Immaculate Conception of Mary:
490. To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role". The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace". In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.
491. Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1844:
"The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin." (Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854.)
492. The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son." The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love."
493. The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia) and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature". By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
For more on the role of Mary in Salvation History, read the entire section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§ 456-511.
The Assumption of Mary: One thing to remember, Jesus ascended into heaven, Mary was assumed. Mary represents the church and the church represents Mary. To the early church, her assumption gave them great hope and should give us hope as well. She, as always, leads the way in following Jesus.
For a scripture reference regarding her being crowned Queen of Heaven mentioned in the quote below, see Revelation 12.
again from the cathecism:
966
"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:
In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.509
. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace
There is no scripture reference for the Assumption. It is a tradition of the Church. It is likened unto the word "Trinity" never appearing in scripture.
Perpetual Virginity:
The early church never doubted this. It was understood and almost taken for granted. The word "Brothers" was never a problem to the early fathers either.
Cathecism:
Mary - "ever-virgin"
499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".156
500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary".158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159
501 Jesus is Mary's only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother's love."160
The Early Fathers:
In 107, Ignatius of Antioch described the virginity of Mary as "hidden from the prince of this world… loudly proclaimed, but wrought in the silence of God"[2] The affirmation of the doctrine of Mary's virginity before, during, and after the birth of Jesus was the principal aim of the early second century work, the Protoevangelium of James.
Even protestant reformers held to this teaching:
"During the Protestant Reformation,.... such notable reformers as Martin Luther [17] and Huldrych Zwingli affirmed its veracity.[18] John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, also held to this doctrine."..Wikipedia, Virginity of Mary.
A verse, John 19:26 (Entrusted Mary to John not to a sibling.) is a strong indicator that Mary had one Son.
I hope this helps you Darlene on your journey. Mary always points us to Jesus. True and sound Mariology only brings one closer to Jesus. I also pray the rosary daily. Without fail, she always helps me understand and love and want to serve Jesus all the more. I always tell my many protestant friends that we do not worship Mary at all, we honor her. I tell them, If she's good enough for Jesus, she's good enough for us.
Peace,
Keith
____________________
St.W.B.
In the Eucharist We find Emmanuel
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2069 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 09:21 am |
|
Darlene and Jill, greetings to you both in Christ.
Mary is the topic that most baffles Protestants. I spent several years on the subject, too, when I was going through the process of discerning God’s call to become Catholic. Of course, I had no helps such as those now available on the internet, the plethora of books and periodicals, etc.
But the question of Jesus’ “brothers” was not perplexing to me because I was a student of languages. As Jill states, the Semitic languages (including Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew) have a different structure and vocabulary than English. Specifically, they have no words for a number of family relations, such as uncle, cousin and in-laws. What the speakers of these languages have to do is use circumlocutions (“my mother’s brother” for uncle, “my mother’s brother’s son” for cousin, etc.) — or they use a catch-all word, “brother,” for anybody in the clan. Obviously, the latter method is preferred because it is shorter and faster.
In English, of course, the word “brother” is presumed to refer to a sibling, rather than to just any relative, unless the context indicates otherwise. And this is the source of confusion. So it is easy to misinterpret when we see the word “brother” in scripture. Yes, sometimes it means what we mean by “brother.” But more often, it refers to other possible meanings of the word, meanings which are available as secondary definitions in English.
St. Jerome actually wrote a whole treatise on this subject because even in his day, when Christians spoke mostly Greek and Latin, they were stumbling over this. In it he refers to Abraham and Lot speaking of each other as “brothers” even though the text of Genesis explicitly states that they were cousins. He also cites many other uses in scripture, where the word can mean any of various relationships, even friendship and religious or political affiliation.
Now Jill brings up the fact that there are two traditional explanations of Jesus’ “brothers,” the one being as described above, and the other that Joseph had fathered children by a previous marriage and was a widower when he married Mary. The latter is more popular among eastern Christians (Catholic and Orthodox alike), the former among western Christians. The Catholic Church has not pronounced on this matter (I doubt if it ever will, there being no hard evidence), so it is acceptable to believe whichever explanation you prefer. Personally, I believe the linguistic explanation is more probable because the “children by previous marriage” solution seems to be based solely on conjecture.
Next, let’s look at the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
In early Christian literature, Mary is never referred to apart from the appellation “virgin.” Often she is simply called “The Virgin,” the name and her relation to Jesus being implied. Why is this? To protect the divinity of Christ. If Mary was not a virgin, then Jesus was not God incarnate, but a product of normal human procreation. But his divine nature is evident from the bible. It happens that I have been reading a book which explores this very question in considerable depth. It is Our Savior and His Love for Us, by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP. The entire first part of the book, some 180 pages, is devoted to establishing the biblical basis for Christ’s divinity and its defense by the early councils of the Church. The evidence, as I have read, is overwhelming. Mary’s virginity is the inevitable consequent.
But your question has to do not just with Mary being a virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth, but with her perpetual virginity. Here we must return to the tradition I mentioned above: for the ancients, it was simply unthinkable that Mary should not continue as a virgin for the rest of her life. Indeed, that virginity must follow her into eternity in heaven.
On a natural level, this insistence is perhaps not necessary. On a supernatural level, it seems imperative. Why? As a symbol of the very eternity of the Word made flesh. And as a sign of Mary’s constancy in her role as virgin mother, for as we read in Revelation 12:17, the devil, represented as a dragon, “went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.” Thus, spiritually, we too are Mary’s children. (There are many who say that this chapter refers not to Mary, but to the Church. But since Christ himself established “my Church,” as seen in Matthew 16:18, how is it said in Revelation 12:5 that that the Church gave birth to him?) If we Christians are incorporated into Christ (Catechism of the Catholic Church §818; cf. §865, 871, 897), we are born into grace in him through her. I suggest this section of the Catechism for further reading on the topic of Mary’s relationship to the Church. It also brings up her Immaculate Conception and Assumption, which will have to discussed later, since for the moment I am out of time.
I have glanced over what Saint Wanna Be has provided, and it looks like he has covered much of what I have not. Perhaps this is all you will need.
David
|
|
|
TotusTuus
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 123 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic (thanks Mom and Dad!) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 11:09 am |
|
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote a short commentary on the Hail Mary which offers context as well as addressing the main questions as regards Mary's role in the order of grace. Remember that St. Thomas, the "Dumb Ox", wrote in the 1200's:
http://www.angeluspress.org/angelus/1985_August/Hail_Mary.htm
Here is a commentary on St. Thomas' meditation which may be of interest as well:
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/meditations/thomasaquinas.html
____________________
TTM!
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2069 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 03:10 pm |
|
After reading through the other replies, I still see a few things that need to be covered. So I will pick up where I left off this morning.
Darlene wrote:What does the Immaculate Conception of Mary encompass? Does it mean that she also was born of a virgin (which I don't think it can) or that she was without original sin from the moment of her birth?
No (not born of a virgin; that was Christ) and not quite. Mary was without sin from the moment of her conception, just as the title of the doctrine indicates. Conception, as you know, takes place nine months before birth.
What do we mean by “without sin”? There are two meanings of the word “sin”: actual sin, by which we do something which is sinful, and original sin, which has to do with the fallen state of mankind from Adam and Eve’s first sin and the consequences thereof. Mary, as we believe, was protected from both.
Why protected? Was she not redeemed, as Mary herself states in Luke 1:47, “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” Yes, she was redeemed by her Son, just as everyone is. But in view of her singular mission and because that redemption had to come before the advent of Christ, it happened by way of protecting her from sin rather than through forgiveness.
Why at the moment of conception? First, it obviously could not happen earlier, because she would not exist. If you have any knowledge of pro-life issues, you understand that it is scientifically certain that human life (and indeed all animal life) begins at the moment of conception — not before, not after. Second, it could not be later than at the moment of conception because this would mean that Mary was subject to original sin at some time in her life. We looked earlier at some of the reasons why she had to be sinless. Therefore, it is theologically impossible for Mary to have been “born with original sin but then God miraculously cleansed her before she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and conceived,” for she would then not be “immaculate.”
Are there other reasons why did Mary have to be sinless? Yes. Because she is the ark of the covenant (Revelation 11:19; cf. Revelation 12). What is the ark of the covenant? You know of its significance in the Old Testament. You know that it contained a number of objects, such as the tablets of the Law, the staff of Aaron, the bowl of manna, etc. This is all recorded in the bible.
Now let us relate these things to Mary. For instance, she contained in her womb him who later would proclaim, when asked for a sign (“What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” – John 6:30–31), “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world… I am the bread of life” (John 6:32–33, 35).
Again, Christ told his disciples, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). By this he indicated that his commandments were to the new covenant what the law of Moses was to the old.
Thirdly, the staff of Aaron symbolizes his priesthood; so likewise, Christ’s priesthood is explained in the Epistle to the Hebrews. And so on through the various other objects pertaining to the ark of the covenant. Mary, then, inasmuch as she brought him into the world and cared for him during his formative years as God did the Israelites as they grew and matured in the way of divine life, is the antitype of the ark of the covenant. (A “type” is a symbol or prefiguring of something or someone to come; an “antitype” is what the type refers to.)
This is why Mary had to be the ultimate of human holiness: she was the footstool, as it were, of the Lord, the seat of his glory. Hence our doctrine.
What exactly does the Assumption of Mary mean? Does it mean that she ascended into heaven just as Jesus our Lord did, and as Elijah and Enoch did, that is, in bodily form?
No, Mary did not “ascend” as Jesus did. She was “raised” (assumed) by God. What does this mean? It is exactly the same thing that every Christian hopes to see at the end of the world, when all the dead will be raised and the just will enter heaven, body and soul, as described in 1 Corinthians 15. The only difference between Mary and ourselves is that she is already there, body and soul, while the rest of humanity will have to wait until the end of the world. So it’s a matter of when and perhaps how (some in our tradition believe that Mary did not die, but was taken up into heaven, as you say, after the manner of Elijah and Enoch, while others affirm that she died and was resurrected; it is your choice which you will accept), not something extraordinary.
Do you have any follow-ups?
David
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 03:53 pm |
|
Thank You, David,
You gave me quite a bit to ponder on, and I will do my best to absorb the Marian Doctrine you have presented thus far. However, I still have a question. Where did the belief in the Assumption of Mary originate? We know that our Lord's Ascension is recorded in the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. And also, Josephus a Jewish historian, who lived during the first Century, also wrote about Christ's Ascension. But is Mary's Assumption something that was witnessed by other Believers or recorded by a historian?
I really want to get this one right, so to speak. I realize that Sola Scriptura is a false premise and I trust that tradition is valid. However, just for someone to speak out of their head or own ideas is not valid. I could say that God revealed Himself to me in bodily form today and that doesn't mean anyone has to believe me. There are many theologians that speculate about the "lost years of Jesus" but that doesn't mean that they are speaking the truth. In fact, they are making suppositions, speculations that they cannot prove in any way.
So it is that I need to understand this teaching on the Assumption more clearly. We are to be defenders of our faith, workmen that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Is it necessary to believe in the Assumption of Mary in order to honor and respect her? After all, the Saints are honored and respected, yet they are still waiting for the redemption of their bodies in the resurrection of the just.
Thanks for your patience. I look forward to any and all responses.
Love in Christ,
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2069 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 10:35 pm |
|
OK, Darlene, let’s talk first about the earliest references to Mary and the reasons behind them.
The earliest centuries of Christianity were concerned primarily with defending Christ, true God and true man, from the pagans and the heretics. Over and over again false ideas had to be repulsed and the true Christian doctrine reformulated to rule out the latest erroneous ideas.
For instance, some were saying that the “Christhood” was extraneous to the man Jesus, that it “came upon” him at the beginning of his career and left him shortly before he was nailed to the cross, so that it was not “Christ” who died on the cross, but an iterant preacher and sometime prophet named Jesus of Nazareth. The origin of this idea was the early Gnostics, for whom the very idea of a material and suffering God was repugnant. You can see where it would lead for Mary: her son was nobody special, so she was nobody special. And this is the direction taken by numerous brands of heretics.
As a matter of fact, there were several strains of heresy that embraced this particular theme. The Arians, one of the strongest and longest lasting of them, used a variation of it to explain away the incarnation. After all, they were “realists” who had no need of fables. The Council of Nicea (AD 325) carefully defined Jesus as a divine person, his humanity inseparable from his divinity. But another council had to be called in Constantinople in 381 to combat a resurgence of Arianism, still denying the divinity of Christ, and a new heresy called Apollinarianism, which denied his humanity.
A century or so later we see the advent of the Nestorians. Same underlying doctrine, same result: the division of the Christ into two separate beings, one divine and impassable, the other human and expendable. This time, however, Mary was defended tooth and nail alongside her Son, and the Council of Ephesus (AD 431), convened to combat Nestorianism, solemnly defined Mary as the theotokos, the “God-bearer,” or as we would say, “Mother of God.” This could be considered the first notice made of Mary at the highest official level.
This does not mean that nobody had ideas beforehand, nor does it mean that nothing of note was said about Mary before the Council of Ephesus. From Wikipedia: “The earliest known Marian prayer is Deipara, Dei Genetrix, ‘Mother of God,’ dating from late 2nd century. It was, discovered in Egypt in 1917 and was written in the languages of the Copts and Greeks (Theotokos, Mother of God). This title was authorized at the Council of Ephesus in 431 commemorating the Virgin’s role in the incarnation of Jesus as the Word of God, and her place in the History of Salvation.” Here is the text of the prayer:
“We fly to you for protection, holy Mother of God. Listen to our prayers and help us in our needs. Save us from every danger, glorious and blessed virgin.”
My personal impression, in view especially of the first person plural and the use of titles, is that this prayer was used in the liturgy. If so, then we are speaking of a tradition that stretches back to the earliest days of Christianity. Indeed, looking at the Gospel according to Luke, we can see that he quite probably had recourse to Mary herself for his information about Jesus’ childhood. And the fact that she is mentioned at all in scripture indicates that she was held in veneration.
Now we can pass on to the origins of the idea of Mary’s assumption, which the eastern Christians usually refer to as her dormition, or “falling asleep,” a traditional euphemism for death. Again from Wikipedia:
Despite its recent definition as dogma, the story of the assumption dates back to the early centuries of the church, being mentioned in the apocryphal text De Obitu S. Dominae, attributed to St. John, but which was probably written no earlier than the fourth century. The story also appears in De Transitu Virginis, which was said to have been written by St. Melito of Sardis [2nd century, but spurious]. A letter ascribed to Dionysus the Areopagite [5th century, but spurious] also mentions the event. Other saints also describe it, notably St. Gregory of Tours [6th century], St. John Damascene [8th century], and St. Modestus of Jerusalem.
In some versions of the story the event is said to have taken place in Ephesus. In others, it is said to have been in Jerusalem. A fully developed legend had emerged by the seventh century, according to which St. Thomas is not present at the death of Mary, but witnesses her rising from the tomb after her burial. As testament to the event she drops her girdle down to him from heaven. This incident is depicted in many later paintings of the Assumption. The story of the Assumption was generally accepted as fact in medieval Christianity, as a corollary to the theological assertion of Mary’s immaculate conception. Theological debate about the assumption continued until 1950 when it was defined as doctrine.
According to the sources I have at my disposal, Jerusalem is cited as the more probable site of Mary’s last days. The legend gives the Mount of Olives as the location of her tomb, which supposedly was later found empty. Mary’s association with Ephesus stems from the fact that the apostle John spent many years there, and she had been given into his care by Jesus from the cross. But there is no evidence that John journeyed there until after Mary had left this life, which in any event was probably around the years 50–60 AD. She would have been in her 60s or 70s then. John died at a very advanced age in the environs of Ephesus circa 95–100 AD.
If you would like to do a little “mucking around” in the legends and traditions surrounding Mary’s dormition, I can suggest this website.
David
|
|
|
mrsbmoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 308 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Methodist. RCA, Presbyterian, Holiness, Wesleyan... Catholic as of June ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 11:17 pm |
|
| The thing that convinced me that Jesus had no brothers or sisters was the fact that Jesus gave her over to John to be supported and cared for. If he had siblings, even step siblings, there would have been no need. They would have taken care of her.
____________________
Becky
Wife of Michael(called Moo) and stay at home mom to 5 daughters between 10 months and 17
|
|
|
Katy
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | DFW, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 78 |
| First Name: | Katy | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Non-denom/Bible churches, Catholic since Easter 2005 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 5th, 2006 12:50 pm |
|
Hi Darlene,
The Mary Foundation has a good CD on Mary, The Truth about Mary. All of their CD's are excellent and I highly recommend them to anyone who hasn't heard them. The Mary Foundation asks for a $1 donation to cover shipping if you order online, but you can print out and mail the order form and receive the CD's for free if you prefer.
Katy
Last edited on Sun Nov 5th, 2006 12:55 pm by Katy
____________________
Lord, by Your cross and resurrection, You have set us free. You are the Savior of the World.
|
|
|
stephanpetersgirl
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Converting to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21st, 2006 10:03 pm |
|
| NOTE: Message moved to a new thread titled "Perpetual Virginity of Mary" Last edited on Tue Nov 21st, 2006 10:19 pm by
|
|
|
Current time is 07:38 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
