tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

The assumption of Mary’s assumption

The Catholic encyclopedia New Advent has an interesting article about the Tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In 1950 AD—which is one thousand, nine hundred and fifty years after Mary lived—the Roman Catholic Church decided to make is official that Mary was assumed into heaven.

Official refers not merely to a doctrine but to an ex cathedra dogma. This means that they changed the gospel by adding to it as prior to 1950 AD a Catholic could be saved whilst disregarding whether or not Mary was assumed and yet, after 1950 AD (literally from one minute to the next) they could no longer be saved unless they believe it.

One of the problems with the dogma is that it did not specify whether or not Mary died before being assumed. Thus, this is a portion of the disputes which have ensued ever since.
On the one hand, it is frustrating that Pope Pius XII, supposedly being guided by God himself in this new revelation, did not bother being very specific.

Now, if Mary did not die then there would, historically, be no such thing as a tomb of Mary. On the other hand, if Mary did die then she would have demonstrated the she suffered from the stain of original sin which the Roman Catholic Church denies via their dogma of the immaculate conception (which dates to 1854 AD). Thus, perhaps Pius was attempting to walk the fine line as he was caught between a logical rock and a theological hard place—he got away with it by being vague, making room for both and letting lesser clergy and laypersons deal with the fallout.

New Advent notes that the most likely place for the tomb of Mary is Jerusalem. They reference apocryphal texts from 2nd-4th c. AD and Lencius’ Acts of St. John by Prochurus (160-170 AD) which relates that he visited Ephesus along with Prochurus, “after Mary’s death.”
They cite B. Inatii missa S. Joanni (370 AD) to the effect that “the Blessed Virgin passed the remainder of her days at Jerusalem.”
Also, Dionysius the Areopagite who wrote to the Bishop Titus (363 AD) and the Joannis liber de Dormitione Mariae (3rd-4th c. AD) as well as De transitu B.M. Virginis (4th c. AD) which “place her tomb at Gethsemane.”

The encyclopedia notes that these texts reflect, “the tradition of the early centuries” and that “At the beginning of the fifth century a pilgrim from Armenia visited ‘the tomb of the Virgin in the valley of Josaphat’, and about 431 the ‘Breviarius de Hierusalem’ mentions in that valley ‘the basilica of Holy Mary, which contains her sepulcher.’” Also, “pilgrims of various rites repaired thither to venerate the empty tomb of Mary.”

They also list those who “teach this same fact and bear witness that this tradition was accepted by all the Churches of East and West”:

St. Gregory of Tours, St. Modestus, St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Andrew, Bishop of Crete, John of Thessalonica, Hippolytus of Thebes, and Venerable Bede.

Moreover, a “Shroud of the Blessed Virgin” was kept at the Church of Our Lady of Blachernae in Gethsemane.

Where the Roman Catholic system really is unique and utterly fails is described as follows within the encyclopedia. Following another tradition; Sister Catherine Emmerich (d. 1824 AD) claimed, via her visions, that Mary did, indeed, die but that she was buried 3-4 leagues south of Ephesus. They add that “The revelations of Ven. Maria d’Agreda do not contradict those of Catherine Emmerich.”
On the other hand, St. Brigid claims that when she first visited the church of Gethsemane, Mary appeared and told her that “spoke to her of her stay of three days in that place and of her Assumption into Heaven.”

So you see the utter folly and yet, value of the Roman Catholic system; have a problem? No problem! Just claim that Mary appeared and gave you a quaint solution.

Did Mary die? Yes. Was she buried? Yes. Well then, what of her assumption? Well, she did that as well.

So, you can have your tomb and venerate it too…whilst also claiming that she was assumed into heaven to sit a queen, etc., etc., etc.

It is convenient so as to support Roman Catholicism’s false dogmas but utterly bankrupt theologically.
It demonstrates the follow of relying on the Bible plus traditions, plus visions, plus ghostly apparitions, plus the declarations of Popes, etc., etc., etc.

For much details on the issue of the assumption itself, see: Mary in Roman Catholicism, part 12 – Assumed Into Heaven?


Posted

in

by

Tags: