|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Assumed body and soul into heaven"
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I've been lurking on the Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy thread and came across a phrase that has always puzzled me:
quote:
The dogma is simply that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the end of her natural life on earth, was assumed body and soul into heaven.
Can someone further unpack what it means to have one's body "assumed into heaven"? To my more Protestant ear, it sounds a bit like a Mormon doctrine where heaven is an actual physical place where people have flesh and blood physical bodies. (Admittedly, certain Bible passages seem to assert this as well, though I was taught that they were written out of a premodern belief that heaven was an actual physical place beyond the celestial sphere of fixed stars.)
I was always taught that heaven was more of a state of being removed from the physical and temporal constraints of this universe and that a true bodily resurrection happened at the End of Time when God creates a new heaven and earth.
So is this doctrine a positive assertion that Mary's physical body actually exists somewhere? Is she breathing? Is her blood flowing? Is she hungry? Or are Catholics and Orthodox using physical language to describe a spiritual truth? Or is "we don't know" sufficient?
Many thanks in advance.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
As I recall, without actually checking it, the precise wording of the promulgation of the dogma was that she was assumed body and soul "into heavenly glory", in part to avoid the question of the spatial location of Mary's body.
And if she has a glorified bodily existence, presumably this precludes hunger.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
My understanding of all this is, admittedly, a bit patchy with lots of traditions and bible texts botched together. However, again, I haven't had to change my understanding much with my transition from Anglicanism into Orthodoxy. Much C of E high churchman had to say still stands.
One major difference which has just been highlighted on these boards is the idea that Mary never actually died, and this seems to be where the term "Assumption" comes from.
I believe Mary did die, but didn't remain in the grave, hence the empty tomb. Her Dormition (that is Christ taking her body three days after she died) is essentially no different to the goal of all christians at the end of the age.
My understanding of Resurrection (at the end time) is that we are indeed re-united with our bodies in the physical sense. Paul says "we shall be changed" - but I don't believe that means our bodies become less than they were. Why should we be changed from physical living beings into ghosts?
Revelation talks of heaven coming down to the new earth, rather than us going up to nothingness (I mean in the sense of floating around on a cloud playing a harp).
Just as we must be changed for our eternal dwelling place, so the place itself must be changed (new earth) - from mortal to immortal, and from temporal to eternal.
In the Transfiguration I believe we get a glimpse of this - out of time, as it were.
Moses and Elijah, with Jesus, are seen glorified - yet they are seen with the eyes and recognisable.
That's the best I can do, but I'm sure more knowledgable people on here can fill in the gaps.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Even as a Protestant I can see how this dogma - the Assumption - and even the Immaculate Conception - are both prefigurings of the experience of all Christians.
What happened to Mary, by the grace of God and not through her own natural, innate holiness - is what will happen to us all in both sanctification (Immaculate Conception) and resurrection (Assumption).
What I don't like is the assumption (pun unintended) that these things happened to mary to show how important she was or that grace was her possession rather than being conferred upon he, or worse, that somehow this elevates her to a status that the Bible does not afford her - Queen of heaven being one of the titles given to her following her assumption.
She should not be seen as experiencing similar things to Jesus in the attempt to equate her life with his. She is not the co-redemptrix or co-mediatrix alongside him.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Looking again at the OP, I see I haven't really answered the question - so I'll have another go.
Consider the "Church Triumphant" - comprising all those who are in heaven. If we consider heaven to be eternal, and not bound by our linear time frame, then we can begin to understand how Mary was not just taken from our planet, but also taken from what we understand to be time - to the heavanly realm (of heaven and glorified, changed, eternal earth).
As far as we are concerned, this is far away in the future, but it doesn't have to be so with God.
Again, the Transfiguration is key, where we see something of the Church Triumphant in our own time.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
The paradox that is Mary. She is referred to in many Catholic teachings as Co-Redemptrix but may not be called a priestess. She may not be called Co-Redeemer since Christ is the only Redeemer. Mary is an unequal, indirect but important participant in our redemption because of her freely given consent or fiat.
The Assumption was defined as infallible dogma in November 1950 by Pius XII:
"By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: 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"
There is growing support for a dogma on Mary as Co-Redemptrix following the Amsterdam visions.
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
She can't be called Co-Redeemer because she is a woman. 'Co-Redemptrix' is the feminine form of the word.
There is no way that she participated in our redemption. By that logic, Moses' mother should be credited with the Exodus because she did her bit by putting Moses in a basket!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
Mudfrog, I'm not giving a personal opinion here, in part because I find the teachings and role of Mary problematic and paradoxical if not contradictory. But although there is no dogma yet on Mary as Co-Redemptrix, the understanding that she participated in our redemption is found in many traditional Catholic teachings.
Pius XII: The Blessed Virgin “merits for us de congruo”, that is, by way of a fitting reward without any self-binding on God's side, “what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno”, that is, God binding himself to give the reward
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Consider the "Church Triumphant" - comprising all those who are in heaven. If we consider heaven to be eternal, and not bound by our linear time frame, then we can begin to understand how Mary was not just taken from our planet, but also taken from what we understand to be time - to the heavanly realm (of heaven and glorified, changed, eternal earth).
As far as we are concerned, this is far away in the future, but it doesn't have to be so with God.
Again, the Transfiguration is key, where we see something of the Church Triumphant in our own time.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
You have hit the nail on the head with this, Mark, especially in the reference to the Transfiguration. I tried to explain to a friend once that the Transfiguration wasn't just a trick with lights: Christ glowing on a mountaintop and saying, 'Look what I can do!' This friend had said that he didn't see the point of the Assumption because, as he put it, 'Why would she need her body?' He went on to explain this question by stating that, in his mind, heaven is "a spiritual plane".
I have shared this story in the past in at least two threads, one about how we perceive the body after death and something else that I forget, but really all of these points are tied up into the same mystery: theosis.
The purpose of our faith is our theosis, our deification, our growth by God's grace into participation in the life and energies of God, and that means the full realisation of human nature as it ought to be, touching our souls and spirits but also our bodies, which are just as much a part of who we are. In order for God to become man, for him to take on the human nature, it was necessary for Him to take flesh upon Himself - this is what Incarnation literally means - and that human body, at the Transfiguration, was shown to be as we are all ultimately to be through participation in the life of God.
That is why, in addition to intercessions granted, physical attributes of human beings are also taken as indicators of sainthood - of participation in the energies of God beyond the grave: relics that exude sweet fragrance, relics that remain incorrupt despite no attempt at creating conditions that would preserve them, relics which, when touched or prayed before, grant healing to those who approach them, and indeed there are those whom we venerate as saints who, even in their earthly lives, were said to have demonstrated physical attributes that are out of keeping with what we commonly know and experience, in our fallen, undeified state, such as levitation, for instance.
The reason we believe these things are indicators of the sanctity of the person is very simply that the body is as much a part of the human person as the soul, and that, even prior to the general resurrection, those who rest in Christ, who have in their lives so opened themselves to God's energies, to God's grace, radiate something of these energies through their bodies as well as their souls.
When Christ ascended from the earthly to the heavenly state, it was in his human nature, with his (post-Resurrection) body. Yet through this, the way was opened for our theosis, for our salvation. That we, too, with our bodies, may attain to the heavenly state.
We do not know for certain what form these post-Resurrection bodies will take or what attributes they will have. We perhaps cannot imagine the extent to which what we know as common physical human experience is the result of the fall and the extent to which this will be different when fully irradiated with the grace of God. However, we do know what we experience in the relics of the saints (which is a large part of why Christians traditionally oppose the wilful destruction by fire of the body after death), we do know what Christ revealed to us on Tabor, and we do know that Christ's post-resurrection body had no need of physical sustenance, and could pass through walls, and yet He could be seen by the disciples, and St Thomas could physically insert his hand into the wounds.
So I would say that we can only speculate on the spiritual or physical nature of the heavenly state, of human life in the energies of God, risen, ascended, and glorified, but we can affirm with faith in the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ that, should we strive throughout our lives to be open to the grace of God, our bodies as part of our whole being may similarly be resurrected and assumed into the heavenly state. In the Dormition and Assumption of the Mother of God - a "worked example", as Divine Outlaw used to say - we have a pledge of this from God.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
In the Dormition and Assumption of the Mother of God - a "worked example", as Divine Outlaw used to say - we have a pledge of this from God.
A 'worked example' - I can live with that. With the proviso that Mary is not elevated above what we can all expect, either in role or status. She is no more and no less than anything all Christians in Heaven will be.
She was not assumed in order to be Queen of Heaven.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
She can't be called Co-Redeemer because she is a woman. 'Co-Redemptrix' is the feminine form of the word.
There is no way that she participated in our redemption. By that logic, Moses' mother should be credited with the Exodus because she did her bit by putting Moses in a basket!
I think it depends whether you take a broad view here or a narrow one. There is a particular narrow view which says that redemption is only about Christ's death on the cross (and his "it is finished" often gets glossed with a parenthetical "the work of our redemption"). Others emphasise his death and resurrection. Others broaden to emphasise his life among us and his ascension into heaven taking our humanity to the very throne of God. In many ways, I'd prefer to see the entire sweep of history as being part of the story of our redemption by God the Holy Trinity. Within that, of course, the death and resurrection of Christ have the most significant and highest place. But other things too are part of it: the creation of the world in which we live, the giving of the law, the foretelling of the Messiah by the prophets, the sending of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit's continued work in the Church. In the drama of redemption a particular place is afforded to Mary, who by her obedience to God's command gave birth to the Saviour. Without her, there would have been no redemption as we know it. Doubtless God could have found another way if that was in the divine will, but this was the way it did happen.
[ 15. June 2012, 08:15: Message edited by: seasick ]
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
In the Dormition and Assumption of the Mother of God - a "worked example", as Divine Outlaw used to say - we have a pledge of this from God.
A 'worked example' - I can live with that. With the proviso that Mary is not elevated above what we can all expect, either in role or status. She is no more and no less than anything all Christians in Heaven will be.
She was not assumed in order to be Queen of Heaven.
Yet she is the latter as well
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
...Yet she is the latter as well
"...For behold, from henceforth : all generations shall call me blessed.
For he that is mighty hath magnified me : and holy is his Name..."
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
She can't be called Co-Redeemer because she is a woman. 'Co-Redemptrix' is the feminine form of the word.
There is no way that she participated in our redemption. By that logic, Moses' mother should be credited with the Exodus because she did her bit by putting Moses in a basket!
But it was her assent to conceiving and bearing the Son of God that triggered the Incarnation. So she has a significant role in the drama of salvation.
If it weren't for Moses' mother's action, Moses would have died as an infant. So yes, Moses' mother does have a secondarily role in the Exodus journey.
There is a Protestant tendency to minimize any human role in salvation out of an extreme and exaggerated fear of Pelagianism. The problem with that it is that it turns humans into mindless robots being stringed along by a omnipotent divine will.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
But it was her assent to conceiving and bearing the Son of God that triggered the Incarnation. So she has a significant role in the drama of salvation.
Which assent was itself only possible through God's grace.
quote:
There is a Protestant tendency to minimize any human role in salvation out of an extreme and exaggerated fear of Pelagianism. The problem with that it is that it turns humans into mindless robots being stringed along by a omnipotent divine will.
But, in practice, produces a moral earnestness in many Protestants that looks, paradoxically, like Pelagianism.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
There shouldn't be any Protestant objection to the idea of 'Assumption', as Kings makes clear that Assumption can happen! The Transfiguration indicates that the NT writers believed the Jewish tradition that Moses was also assumed.
There can still be debate over whether the mother of Christ was Assumed, and about what Assumption *means* - but not, I think, about whether some form of 'taking up' that is Biblically termed 'Assumption' is possible!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
There is also a protestant tendency to see the Incarnation as something which only concerned Jesus. Rather than seeing all flesh, all matter, as potentially transformed by the presence of God.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
There is also a protestant tendency to see the Incarnation as something which only concerned Jesus. Rather than seeing all flesh, all matter, as potentially transformed by the presence of God.
I'm confused now - I can see how the Incarnation must involve all the Persons of the Trinity, with Mary, but the rest would be a consequence of the Incarnation, no?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
...Yet she is the latter as well
"...For behold, from henceforth : all generations shall call me blessed.
For he that is mighty hath magnified me : and holy is his Name..."
And Mary was indeed truly blessed. She was an exceptional, remarkable and humble young women.
But she was blessed 'among' women, not above them.
She was also a sinner who needed grace, forgiveness and salvation - like the rest of us. She called God 'my Saviour'.
The quote from the Magnificat says nothing about her coronation as Queen of Angels of Queen of Heaven. These are not biblical titles for her and there is nothing whatever in Scripture that affords her any direct role in the work of salvation, especially one that supposes who being a mediator of grace or mercy.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Revelation 12?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
She was also a sinner who needed grace, forgiveness and salvation - like the rest of us. She called God 'my Saviour'.
I don't think you can glean from that one verse that she was a "sinner" unless you see the gospel solely in terms of forgiveness of sin.
The Magnificat talks about the overturning of the powerful and the raising up of the humble and meek. It is about political deliverance and the setting up of the reign of God. Mary then represents all the poor and marginalized of the world in praising God for his political liberation. "Saviour" in this passage has nothing to do with sin, unless you mean the sin of oppression.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
She was also a sinner who needed grace, forgiveness and salvation - like the rest of us. She called God 'my Saviour'.
I don't think you can glean from that one verse that she was a "sinner" unless you see the gospel solely in terms of forgiveness of sin.
The Magnificat talks about the overturning of the powerful and the raising up of the humble and meek. It is about political deliverance and the setting up of the reign of God. Mary then represents all the poor and marginalized of the world in praising God for his political liberation. "Saviour" in this passage has nothing to do with sin, unless you mean the sin of oppression.
Which Messiah are you following??
Or are you saying Mary would have shouted 'crucify' because he turned out not to be the one to bring her salvation in the form of political liberation?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Not in the short term, he didn't. The implication of the Gospel he entrusted to us is very clear. Jesus's mission went far deeper than a limited political programme but that doesn't mean that it didn't include it.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Not in the short term, he didn't. The implication of the Gospel he entrusted to us is very clear. Jesus's mission went far deeper than a limited political programme but that doesn't mean that it didn't include it.
Jesus appealed to individuals to repent and change their behaviour, and to the Temple and Priests, but never to the secular (Roman) authorities. "Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's."
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Not in the short term, he didn't. The implication of the Gospel he entrusted to us is very clear. Jesus's mission went far deeper than a limited political programme but that doesn't mean that it didn't include it.
Jesus appealed to individuals to repent and change their behaviour, and to the Temple and Priests, but never to the secular (Roman) authorities. "Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's."
The "render unto Caesar's" bit has been terribly misinterpreted to mean that Jesus assented to Roman rule. Looking at it deeper, the question becomes "What belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar?"
The answer is "everything belongs to God and nothing belongs to Caesar." Anything otherwise violates the First Commandment.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
She was also a sinner who needed grace, forgiveness and salvation - like the rest of us. She called God 'my Saviour'.
I don't think you can glean from that one verse that she was a "sinner" unless you see the gospel solely in terms of forgiveness of sin.
The Magnificat talks about the overturning of the powerful and the raising up of the humble and meek. It is about political deliverance and the setting up of the reign of God. Mary then represents all the poor and marginalized of the world in praising God for his political liberation. "Saviour" in this passage has nothing to do with sin, unless you mean the sin of oppression.
Which Messiah are you following??
Or are you saying Mary would have shouted 'crucify' because he turned out not to be the one to bring her salvation in the form of political liberation?
I'm saying that if you read the Magnifant carefully, it has nothing to do with forgiveness of sins as we think of it. It has everything to do with overturning the powerful and wealthy, and liberating the poor and marginalized.
It's always a good idea to look at a passage in its entirety than simply to extract one verse and say that that is what the Scripture says.
[ 17. June 2012, 22:43: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
It's always a good idea to look at a passage in its entirety than simply to extract one verse and say that that is what the Scripture says.
I quoted two verses originally, with the purpose of showing how it may be reasonable to believe that Mary was indeed taken to heaven, where we all will be one day.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Can someone further unpack what it means to have one's body "assumed into heaven"?
First, it means that she didn’t do it herself, by her own power. Christ ascended, Mary was assumed. Secondly, it means that it was bodily.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I was always taught that heaven was more of a state of being removed from the physical and temporal constraints of this universe and that a true bodily resurrection happened at the End of Time when God creates a new heaven and earth.
And these teachers, what did they say about Christ’s ascension? (I know some protestants* who believe in a kind of docetism,** believing that Christ wasn’t actually, physically human.)
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
So is this doctrine a positive assertion that Mary's physical body actually exists somewhere? Is she breathing? Is her blood flowing? Is she hungry? Or are Catholics and Orthodox using physical language to describe a spiritual truth? Or is "we don't know" sufficient?
And what about Christ? What if we rephase your question? So is this doctrine [the ascension] a positive assertion that Christ’s physical body actually exists somewhere? Is he breathing? Is his blood flowing? Is he hungry? Or are Catholics and Orthodox using physical language to describe a spiritual truth? Or is “we don’t know” sufficient?
* Mostly nondenominationalists, so not that easy to define. I’m Lutheran myself, btw.
** Docetists, from greek δοκέω (dokéō), holds that the Second Person of the Trinity didn’t really assume human flesh, but only appeared to be human while on earth. Wikipedia is your friend... Sometimes...
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Thanks for that k-mann. It hadn't occurred to me to compare Mary's Assumption to Jesus' Ascension, but now you come to mention it, it's obvious!
Quite rightly we can say that Mary was taken to the place Jesus ascended to.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
The next question would naturally be, where did Jesus ascend to? I've done my best to try and explain here and here.
It is good to talk about these things, and it helps us to understand how Jesus (and for that matter Mary) remains human as well as devine after ascending to heaven.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
...Christians traditionally oppose the wilful destruction by fire of the body after death
Some Christians do, certainly. But not all.
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
She was not assumed in order to be Queen of Heaven.
Yet she is the latter as well
No she's not.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The next question would naturally be, where did Jesus ascend to? I've done my best to try and explain here and here.
It is good to talk about these things, and it helps us to understand how Jesus (and for that matter Mary) remains human as well as devine after ascending to heaven.
Just a quick note - I didn't mean that Mary had a dual human/devine nature in the same way that Christ has.
[ 19. June 2012, 12:27: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I didn't mean that Mary had a dual human/devine nature in the same way that Christ has.
Meh, give it another thousand years or so and that's what they'll be claiming...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
...Christians traditionally oppose the wilful destruction by fire of the body after death
Some Christians do, certainly. But not all.
I know that that's true today but that's a recent change. I tried to avoid focussing on the present-day disagreements by using the word "traditionally".
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The next question would naturally be, where did Jesus ascend to? I've done my best to try and explain here and here.
It is good to talk about these things, and it helps us to understand how Jesus (and for that matter Mary) remains human as well as devine after ascending to heaven.
Erm, as far as I am aware, Jesus ascended to the right hand of the father where he received again the glory he had before the incarnation, and where he receives worship, praise adoration and honour.
I am OK with the thought that Mary has actually been resurrected beforehand, as we will be, and after Christ's own resurrection body. I am NOT happy that she has been assumed(?) and therefore has 'ascended on high' - see my objections to her being 'crowned' Queen of Heaven.
It all smacks of an attempt to deify the woman!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Erm, as far as I am aware, Jesus ascended to the right hand of the father where he received again the glory he had before the incarnation, and where he receives worship, praise adoration and honour.
I'm not denying any of that, but the point is he didn't take human flesh upon himself, then shed it off again once his earthly work was finished.
[ 19. June 2012, 19:25: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
I think, for me, the dogma of the Assumption is potentially less problematic than that of the Immaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary. These two latter dogmas seem to me to say something fairly profound about God, and how He can (or can't) interact with His creation.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Erm, as far as I am aware, Jesus ascended to the right hand of the father where he received again the glory he had before the incarnation, and where he receives worship, praise adoration and honour.
I'm not denying any of that, but the point is he didn't take human flesh upon himself, then shed it off again once his earthly work was finished.
That is very true. He is forever truly and properly God and truly and properly man. And as such he, Jesus, is at the right hand of the majesty in Heaven, one with the father, Lord of lords, etc.
Mary is nowhere near that - she is merely a resurrected sinner, foreshadowing the rest of us. She will be standing near the throne, not seated on it!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The next question would naturally be, where did Jesus ascend to? I've done my best to try and explain here and here.
It is good to talk about these things, and it helps us to understand how Jesus (and for that matter Mary) remains human as well as devine after ascending to heaven.
Erm, as far as I am aware, Jesus ascended to the right hand of the father where he received again the glory he had before the incarnation, and where he receives worship, praise adoration and honour.
I am OK with the thought that Mary has actually been resurrected beforehand, as we will be, and after Christ's own resurrection body. I am NOT happy that she has been assumed(?) and therefore has 'ascended on high' - see my objections to her being 'crowned' Queen of Heaven.
It all smacks of an attempt to deify the woman!
This seems self-contradictory.
You say that you are happy with her resurrection as an example of what the Christian hope is for all of us. So far, so good. Then in the next breath you express opposition to her deification, even though this is the fulfilment of the same Christian hope that we all share.
If the hope of our resurrection, exemplified in that of the Mother of God, were not real, Christ's Resurrection would be futile. Similarly, if our hope of deification, exemplified in that of the Mother of God, were not real, then Christ's Ascension would achieve nothing.
Both are part of our salvation. Why accept the participation of the Mother of God in one but not the other?
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I didn't mean that Mary had a dual human/devine nature in the same way that Christ has.
Meh, give it another thousand years or so and that's what they'll be claiming...
Only on pain of demonstrating 180 degree, flat-out contradiction of perennial and current teaching. What makes you think the Catholic Church is likely to commit that kind of own goal?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The next question would naturally be, where did Jesus ascend to? I've done my best to try and explain here and here.
It is good to talk about these things, and it helps us to understand how Jesus (and for that matter Mary) remains human as well as devine after ascending to heaven.
Erm, as far as I am aware, Jesus ascended to the right hand of the father where he received again the glory he had before the incarnation, and where he receives worship, praise adoration and honour.
I am OK with the thought that Mary has actually been resurrected beforehand, as we will be, and after Christ's own resurrection body. I am NOT happy that she has been assumed(?) and therefore has 'ascended on high' - see my objections to her being 'crowned' Queen of Heaven.
It all smacks of an attempt to deify the woman!
This seems self-contradictory.
You say that you are happy with her resurrection as an example of what the Christian hope is for all of us. So far, so good. Then in the next breath you express opposition to her deification, even though this is the fulfilment of the same Christian hope that we all share.
If the hope of our resurrection, exemplified in that of the Mother of God, were not real, Christ's Resurrection would be futile. Similarly, if our hope of deification, exemplified in that of the Mother of God, were not real, then Christ's Ascension would achieve nothing.
Both are part of our salvation. Why accept the participation of the Mother of God in one but not the other?
I would like you to explain the term 'deification'. It is not used in Protestantism - nor in the Bible AFAICS.
I do not believe that we will become divine, if that's what deification means. I do believe that we shall be like him (Christ) but I don't think that means in divine status. Yes, we will partake of the divine nature but I do not see that we will share his power and glory.
We will not be on the throne - and either is Mary Queen of heaven.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
windsofchange
Shipmate
# 13000
|
Posted
I'm always a little suspicious of people who make authoritative statements about the afterlife.
How do you know that Mary, or anyone else, is or is not seated on a throne? How do you know there even IS a throne?
--------------------
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on." (owner of Coney Island Freak Show, upon learning someone outbid him for a 5-legged puppy)
Posts: 153 | From: Reseda, CA, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
There is also a protestant tendency to see the Incarnation as something which only concerned Jesus. Rather than seeing all flesh, all matter, as potentially transformed by the presence of God.
I think (as a former Protestant - although as an Anglican some still would call me a Protestant, I don't) the problem can be that Jesus' Incarnation is seen as a "plan B" resulting from human sin; and that his death on the Cross is simply his taking punishment due us, so the Incarnation is just a way of providing him with a perfect human body to sacrifice. It's easy to forget that he's still human, and human in the way that we will also be.
But if the Incarnation is seen as God's plan all along - that the cosmos was created for Christ to inhabit, then Christ's becoming human isn't just about his needing a body to sacrifice.
As for Mary, as early as the Revelation (Apocalypse) she's been understood as a symbol of the Church. Maybe that's a good way to understand her as "Queen of Heaven" (especially since much of the imagery in Revelation seems to picture her in that role). Revelation 12 This passage in Revelation also sees her as the Mother of all Christians!
However, I don't agree that she can't be called a priest (I won't say "priestess" 'cause I don't use that kind of gendered language). She's not our great High Priest; that's Christ. But she's every bit as much of a priest as any man or woman who's presided at Mass. I suspect the reticence to call her a priest is due more to the idea that women can't be priests than it is to any effort to avoid equating her role with Christ's. But she offered her very flesh to God, and the Holy Spirit came upon her (epiclesis) and literally made of her flesh the Body and Blood of Christ.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
I'm always a little suspicious of people who make authoritative statements about the afterlife.
How do you know that Mary, or anyone else, is or is not seated on a throne? How do you know there even IS a throne?
The throne is metaphor.
And in many ancient cultures, the mother of the king would be a queen, although I don't know if she had any kind of throne. Calling Mary a Queen is, in part - perhaps the most part - a way of calling her Son a King. Just like calling her Mother of God is really about saying her (very human) Son is God.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would like you to explain the term 'deification'. It is not used in Protestantism - nor in the Bible AFAICS.
I do not believe that we will become divine, if that's what deification means. I do believe that we shall be like him (Christ) but I don't think that means in divine status. Yes, we will partake of the divine nature but I do not see that we will share his power and glory.
We will not be on the throne - and either is Mary Queen of heaven.
I'll do what I can if you can forgive a delay. The temperamental laptop is having an "off" period and longer posts from my phone are difficult.
Briefly, though, I do think that we need to clear up terms. St Peter is indeed usually translated as referring to us partaking in the divine nature but "nature" has long been established as a specific theological term which would render St Peter's statement heretical if read without clarification. St Peter, of course, wrote his epistle centuries before these terms became fixed in the way that they have but today we would say that we share in the grace/energies of God rather than his nature/essence.
In a nutshell, our deification is the fruit of the Ascension of Christ. In his Ascension, the human nature that Christ took to Himself at the incarnation was restored to the path towards its intended destiny: sharing in the energies and life of God - deification. Anything less is not salvation, and a profession that the Mother of God was resurrected but did not share in this fruit of Christ's Ascension leaves unanswered the question of why this resurrected-but-not-assumed Mother of God is not seen walking the earth.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michael Astley:
[qb]...Christians traditionally oppose the wilful destruction by fire of the body after death
Some Christians do certainly. But not all
And so what happens to us when our physical-ness is burned, so we don't have a big place to be buried? Is there supposed to be something wrong about that? Mary and her family in those days weren't having their dead bodies burned, as many do nowadays.
[ 19. June 2012, 22:00: Message edited by: daisymay ]
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michael Astley:
[qb]...Christians traditionally oppose the wilful destruction by fire of the body after death
Some Christians do certainly. But not all
And so what happens to us when our physical-ness is burned, so we don't have a big place to be buried? Is there supposed to be something wrong about that? Mary and her family in those days weren't having their dead bodies burned, as many do nowadays.
There's a current thread about this where your questions have probably already been answered.
I really only used this as one of a number examples to.make a point. You guys seem to be running with it as a tangent.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I'm loving this thread - may I just add one more comment:
Some seem to object to the idea of Mary being "crowned" Queen of heaven. But I know there's hymns which talk of all the redeemed being given crowns - so, again, is she not just the first of the redeemed, and Queen in that sense?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
And so what happens to us when our physical-ness is burned, so we don't have a big place to be buried? Is there supposed to be something wrong about that? Mary and her family in those days weren't having their dead bodies burned, as many do nowadays.
Some of the saints never had buriel places. I don't think anyone's saying that a cremated body can't be resurrected, it's more to do with respect for God, and an acknowledgement that we will be resurrected in body as well as spirit.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
I'm always a little suspicious of people who make authoritative statements about the afterlife.
How do you know that Mary, or anyone else, is or is not seated on a throne? How do you know there even IS a throne?
We call it Revelation - through Holy Tradition and the Bible. For protestants, the Bible alone should be enough to get us all on the same wavelength here.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
