Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Mary's assumption
Message-ID: <May.12.04.29.25.1993.10027@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 12 May 93 08:29:26 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 69
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

mpaul@unl.edu (marxhausen paul) writes:

>I hate to sound flippant, having shot off my mouth badly on the net
>before, but I'm afraid that much of this material only adds to my
>feeling that "the assumption of Mary" would be better phrased "our
>assumptions _about_ Mary."  In all the time I've been reading about
>Mary on this group, I can not recall reading much about Mary that
>did not sound like wishful veneration with scant, if any, Scriptural
>foundation.  

>I find in the New Testament a very real portrait of Christ's parents
>as compellingly human persons; to be honored and admired for their
>humility and submission to God's working, beyond doubt.  But the almalga-
>mation of theories and dogma that has accreted around them gives me
>an image of alien and inhuman creatures, untouched by sin or human
>desire.  Only Christ himself was so truly sanctified, and even He knew
>temptation, albeit without submitting to it.

>I also don't see the _necessity_ of saying the Holy Parents were some-
>how sanctified beyond normal humanity: it sounds like our own inability
>to grasp the immensity of God's grace in being incarnated through an or-
>dinary human being.  

>I won't start yelling about how people are "worshipping" Mary, etc.,
>since folks have told me otherwise about that, but I do think we
>lose part of the wonder of God's Incarnation in Christ when we make
>his parents out to be sinless, sexless, deathless, otherworldly beings.
>  
>--
>paul marxhausen .... ....... ............. ............ ............ .......... 

	Paul-

	You did a wonderful job of not doing anything humany possible to 
offend us Catholics; hopefully I can be just as careful in my wording as you
were.
	I also don't want to extend this topic into an entire major issue of
debate (anymore than it already is), but just a note or two:

	1.  Please don't talk about Jesus' "parents"--the doctrinal positions
		of the church an unequivocally different regarding Mary and
		Joseph.  I (personally) have never heard of anything being
		attributed to St. Joseph other than his sainthood; that is,
		no reference *ever* to him being sinless, assumed into heaven,
		immaculately conceived, etc.--all these ideas apply only to
		Mary.

	2.  I would agree there is very little scriptural evidence for our
		doctrines about Mary.  Needless to say, that presents a 
		significant problem to those who accept the bible as the only
		source of doctrine.  If, however, one turns to the sacred 
		traditions of the undivided Christian Church, there is no
		problem finding plently of evidence that it was basically a
		unanimous belief among the apostles and all the early 
		generation that Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul,
		etc. etc.  It wasn't until the reformation that these doctrines
		were called into question.  As far as I am concerned (again, my
		personaly feelings) if it's a choice between the apostles or
		Luther, I'll choose the apostles every time, whether or not
		it is recorded within the writings that the traditions of men
		have determined to be "the bible".

	Like a said, just a couple of notes.  As is often said, I believe that
we must agree to (politely) disagree.  
	May God's peace and blessings be with you always in your search to
discover His absolute truth.  
			- Mike Walker
			  mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
			  (Univ. of Illinois)
