Society Magazine

"I Believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary..."

Posted on the 15 August 2013 by Brutallyhonest @Ricksteroni

The Anchoress is tossing scripture and science together in a bowl and serving up a great mix:

While the dogma was only made definitive in by Pope Pius XII in 1950 (Munificentissimus Deus), the AssumptionofMarytradition of Mary’s assumption after her death at Ephesus is an old, old one that, as demonstrated by early-fourth century Ethiopian apocrypha (Liber Requiei Mariae(The Book of Mary’s Repose), pre-dates the Bible.

But I’m not interested in apologetics or in re-arguing sola scriptura, an idea which, ironically enough, is also not found in scripture. I believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary not because my church tells me to, or because I am particularly pious. I believe it because of scripture and science, and frankly, for me science has the edge in the argument, because of microchemerism. Learning that every child leaves within his mother a microscopic bit of himself — and that it remains within her forever — made the dogma of the Assumption a no-brainer for me.

In Psalm 16 we read a curious reference to body and soul:

And so my heart rejoices, my soul is glad;
even my body shall rest in safety.
For you will not leave my soul among the dead,
nor let your Holy One know decay.

Christ’s divine body did not undergo corruption. It follows that his mother’s body, which forever contained a cellular component of the Divinity — and a particle of God is God, entire — would not be allowed to corrupt as well, but would be taken into heaven and reunited with Christ. Mary was a created creature and moral. But she was no mere mortal; she could not be, once the particles of God had entered her chemistry.

You should read the rest.

Seriously, you should.

It should make you look at our Holy Mother in a different way.  And if it doesn't, you should seriously ponder why that might be.

Back to Featured Articles on Logo Paperblog