Ship of Fools: "Assumed body and soul into heaven"

Thread: "Assumed body and soul into heaven" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023159

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

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.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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.

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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!

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

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

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

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.

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

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 ]

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

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

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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..."

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

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.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

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.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

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!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

Revelation 12?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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."

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

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.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

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 ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

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...

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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 ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

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...

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

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".

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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!

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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 ]

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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!

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

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?

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

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?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on :

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?

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

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.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

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.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

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.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

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 ]

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Mudfrog , Mary did not ascend. She was assumed (note the change from active to passive voice), just as Elijah was taken up in the fiery chariot, and Bernard Mizeki is said to have been taken in the flame. She is not seated on the throne, but on its steps, in her adoration of God and blessed above all women.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Mudfrog , Mary did not ascend. She was assumed (note the change from active to passive voice)...

Precisely. Christ ascendedm taking our human nature with Him: we are the possessors of that human nature who are assumed.

Mudfrog, our deification is our being transformed by our exposure to, and infusion with, the energies/grace of God so that our human nature reaches its fullness, which is union with the divine energies. We can never possess the divine nature for we are not divine beings by nature: we are human beings. Yet our human nature as we commonly see it, and know it, and experience it is not the fullness of the human nature as it is intended to be by our Creator. By sharing in our human nature and conquering our sin and our death in tour flesh, and then taking that into the divine life, Christ opened the way for us to follow. This is the Christian life and our hope of salvation.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

For the last time:

1) No one thinks Mary is co-eternal or co-equal with the three persons of the Trinity
2) No one thinks Mary is God
3) No one argues that the adoration given to the Trinity should be given to Mary.

However, some do believe
1) That Mary should be rightly honored for assenting to give birth and raise the Son of God
2) That Mary's obedience is an example for all Christians to follow
3) And that at the end of her life, as a blessing to her, God assumed her into the heavenly realms where she continues her ministry of prayer and intercession for all.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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?

Well, our Lord did at least confirm thrones for the Twelve, to wit:

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt 19:28)

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0