Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary's Assumption

Do you believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
Poll Results:
Yes: The Church teaches it, and it makes sense
243 92.75%
No, No way, if it's not spelled out in the bible then...
9 3.44%
Not sure: Let's talk about this.
10 3.82%

To me, the Assumption is easy to believe in. If you check the OT you see that it happened back then too. Enoch, Moses, and Elijah were all taken up by God because of who they were in His plan and their faithfulness to Him and though the NT gives us nothing to go on on this event, there are non-canonical early church writings that do suggest that our Lord took the Blessed Virgin as well. This makes perfect sense to me for several reasons.

1. Mary was Jesus mother and He surely loves her just as any of us love our own and would do everything He can to display that love.

2. Jesus would no doubt protect his mother from the terrible persecutions that followed. You will notice that there is no record of Mary's death or where she went after the day of Pentecost, though we do know that she went home to live with St. John after Our Lord's death right? We know that St. John was the last of the apostles to die and that at one point he was miraculously saved by God when being boiled in oil for his faith...yet he never mentions Mary in his letters but there's just no way that he wouldn't have known her fate...that just doesn't make any sense.

I think that the NT is so silent about the Blessed Virgin because they all agreed to protect her. Can you imagine the PR blitz that would've occurred if the Jews or Romans could have found and tortured and killed the mother of this Jesus? Whew!

3. Since God did some really amazing things with the early church, like snatching St. Stephen away to Azotus after he baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts, it seems logical to me that God did some amazing things for the woman who said yes to bearing His only Son. My friends, Mary is probably the 2nd most unique soul in all of history, behind Jesus Himself. No one else was ever called "Full of grace" like that, and I believe that that "fullness of grace" meant she was way more than what a lot of folks think she was. No...she's not God! But I think she had to be about THE holiest person imaginable. Can ya imagine living every day of your life with the real live son of the living God as your kid? WOW! Now THAT's "walkin' with Jesus!" :D

So...the Assumption is really pretty easy for me and that is why.

(I cite no scripture because the pertinent passages should be fairly easy for anyone to find if interested.)

There are extrabiblical and non-canonical , but traditional sources about this belief.
Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about it all:


Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.


History is not all in the Bible...not even close. Nor is mathematics, science, or all literature! No; God might not let us know in the canon... but there is a great deal of stuff that He didn't see fit to include in the canon. Is there a miraculous principle of God doing things like this? Of course there is! The Holy Spirit snatched Philip away to Azotus after he baptized the eunuch...is that the only time that happened? No one can say...not even preachers and teachers. Are there stories of such things happening after the NT was closed? Yep. Lots of them...or does your particular version of Christianity disbelieve in miracles? If so I'd say that is really a shame.

I think that the whole fallacy of what you try to tell us is summed up in the closing line of the statement:
Always go back to the Bible for your answers.
That is a drastic oversimplification of Christianity and it simply defies all God-given good sense and logic since history tells us a very great many things about what the early church believed and why things developed the way they did.

I have a problem with those who always say that Mary could not have been assumed into heaven when there are so many things that God has done in the NT (Acts in particular) that are precedent setting. There are a lot of things that God has done that are beyond my simple comprehension, yet that does not make me doubt the things that He did for her. I mean if people are willing to believe in tongues and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit, then why not this as well? The fact that God has assumed OT faithful such as Moses & Elijah makes me wonder why He wouldn't do the same for someone as holy and special as His own grace filled mother. That just seems like a serious case of doubt to me.

A non Catholic friend said:
I've been thinking about this, & doing a little research (& a lot of toiling with my brain!!)
I finally came up with what I had been trying to remember. In Matthew 16:28, Jesus says:"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom"(KJV)...OK, this is explained away by a lot of people, but this--plus the reference in Revelation--It seems to me that He is saying that there is somebody--a real actual human person-- that is known to/in the company of the apostles, who is not going to die, but be taken to Heaven without dying.
And, as someone has all ready pointed out, the person with the empty tomb--in fact, the missing tomb--is Mary.
So combine that with the fact that this is not something that just occurred to someone one morning--It has been believed throughout history, I find that it is a pretty sure thing that, yes, Mary was assumed into Heaven.
Besides, why not??
That just blew me away! That is entirely possible, and as with so many things that I have discovered from the Scriptures it makes serious sense. I can think of quite a few reasons for Mary's assumption...and very few counters. It really doesn't hurt us either way though.

The fact that there are extra canonical sources that tell these things makes it all the more clear. There is ample precedent in scripture and when a thinking person considers all this one can see that it follows logic and the sense of the Word of God. It therefore does not surprise me that the Church proclaims it infallibly.

God is perfect and His works are the source of all wisdom and truth, therefore they are also logical. If there is error...it will be in our capacity to understand, not His works or will.

My contention is that this is still within the character that God has revealed to us in His word and the Assumption is not inconsistent with that nature since God did the same thing with OT people who were not His mother.

Here's the link to Munificentissimus Deus so everyone can read it for themselves.
MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Since you bring up this document, I decided to have a look at it for myself, and found this:

"21. Thus St. John Damascene, an outstanding herald of this traditional truth, spoke out with powerful eloquence when he compared the bodily Assumption of the loving Mother of God with her other prerogatives and privileges. "It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in the act of giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father. It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God."[17]

22. These words of St. John Damascene agree perfectly with what others have taught on this same subject. Statements no less clear and accurate are to be found in sermons delivered by Fathers of an earlier time or of the same period, particularly on the occasion of this feast. And so, to cite some other examples, St. Germanus of Constantinople considered the fact that the body of Mary, the virgin Mother of God, was incorrupt and had been taken up into heaven to be in keeping, not only with her divine motherhood, but also with the special holiness of her virginal body. "You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life."[18] And another very ancient writer asserts: "As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him."[19]"


Baptism~ Necessary or Not?

Many things that n-C churches tell me are not "core" beliefs I find to be Biblically stated otherwise.

Baptism just for an example. Many of the modern post-reformation step children have relegated this to some sort peripheral nicety that we "should" do but it's not necessary for one's salvation. Yet I find an awful lot of New Testament scripture that indicates otherwise.


Matthew 28:19: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Mark 16
:15: And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned

Acts 2:38: And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39: For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."
40: And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation."
41: So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Romans 6:3: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4: We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5: For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

1st Peter 3:21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

There are others, but I just want to get a scriptural basis for this discussion laid.

Being Catholic I offer statements from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
537 Through Baptism the Christian is sacramentally assimilated to Jesus, who in his own baptism anticipates his death and resurrection. The Christian must enter into this mystery of humble self-abasement and repentance, go down into the water with Jesus in order to rise with him, be reborn of water and the Spirit so as to become the Father's beloved son in the Son and "walk in newness of life":
Let us be buried with Christ by Baptism to rise with him; let us go down with him to be raised with him; and let us rise with him to be glorified with him.
Everything that happened to Christ lets us know that, after the bath of water, the Holy Spirit swoops down upon us from high heaven and that, adopted by the Father's voice, we become sons of God.
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
Is Baptism a "core teaching" and neccesary for salvation?

Matthew 28:19: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."
Why would Our Lord command us to make disciples and baptize them and teach them to observe he commanded us if it wasn't necessary?
Mark 16:15: And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned
He who believes and is baptized...
Acts 2:38: And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39: For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."
40: And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation."
41: So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Verse 38 plainly says that they must repent "
and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins". Verse 39 then extends it to all future believers. Verse 41 shows that the crowd responded in obedience, so apparently they took that baptism very seriously...as required. The apostles certainly did.

Remember also,
Acts 22:16: And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'
Romans 6:3: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4: We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5: For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
This in no way indicates a symbolism, but is an expression of a spiritual reality. Whatever happened to "God says it, I believe it, That settles it"?
Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Why include it here among the essentials of salvation?
1st Peter 3:21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Peter, the speaker in the Acts 2 passage above, outright says that baptism saves you...

If one takes the Bible literally I have to continue to wonder how this sacrament can be so marginalized.

Well, Now It's On!

There are those who feel that the Catholic Church is somehow wrong in its teachings.

This Blog is here to store my various refutations of their propaganda.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with the Catholic Church, but as John Martignoni says, "Disagree with what we really believe."

My Catholic Tract

Thank You…

Thank you so much for your concern for my soul. I deeply appreciate it, however with all due respect and all charity, the fact is that in spite of your misunderstanding, we Catholics are Christians, and part of the same Christianity that the early Apostles practiced. Our faith is the same one that began with Our Lord Jesus Christ and has endured for 2,000 years.

We Catholics believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God; that God is a Trinity that consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that we are saved by a personal relationship with the risen Lord Jesus Christ. We are “born again” and we do our best to live out that relationship by producing fruit worthy of repentance. None of us are perfect; we’re still all too human , but we confess our sins to God in obedience to the scriptures and make a moment-by-moment effort to be the best Christians that we can.

There are differences between us…They are the result of a division that occurred about 500 years ago called the Reformation. Prior to that we were all Catholics, a name which is Greek for universal and was used for all Christian churches and can be verified by the letter of Ignatius, the Bishop of the church of Antioch that he wrote to the church at Smyrna in about 107 AD. (Remember Antioch, the church in Acts 11:26 where we were first called Christians to begin with?) This name stuck in order to differentiate between the church of Christ and other heretical groups such as the Gnostics.

The difference between us is simple and fundamental. The core of the differences are the Protestant doctrines called “Sola Scriptura” (meaning Scripture Alone) and “Sola Fide” (Faith Alone). The first has to do with the verifiable fact that the early Christians relied on verbal tradition until the 4th century when the Council of Carthage settled the matter of the canon of the Bible with the 73 books that consist of the 46 books of the Alexandrian text of the Old Testament (also known as the Septuagint,) which was in Greek (not Hebrew) and the 27 books of the New Testament. As a result, the Apostles encouraged the early church to hold fast to the traditions that had been taught to them either by word or letter. Keep in mind that the last verse of Saint John’s Gospel says that not all that Jesus said and did is written down and that the entire world could not contain all the books if they were. Sacred Tradition helps us properly interpret the Word of God. It is not the “traditions of men” that Jesus condemned, since it in no way sets aside the laws of God, but along with the Bible confirms what they mean and helps to guide us into right doctrine.

2nd Thessalonians 2 :14 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

2nd Thessalonians 3 :6 “And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

The other is the doctrine that we are saved by “faith alone” and that our works have no merit before God. The fact is that a breakaway priest named Martin Luther developed both doctrines on his own authority, ignoring the fact that no one in the 1500 years of Christian history had believed any such things. In fact Luther had the audacity to add the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 in his German translation of the Bible so that it said that we are saved by faith alone, knowing full well that the Greek text does not say that at all. In fact, the only place where the words “faith” and “alone” are used together is in James 2:24 where it says, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” He also removed 7 books from the canon of the Old Testament and 4 from the New, including Jude, 2nd Peter, James, and Revelation. Most of the confusion between Catholics and other Christian churches is “trickle-down effect” of these doctrines.

This is just a brief overview, but rest assured that if you are willing to do some research into authentic Catholic writings like the Catechism of the Catholic Church you will find that there are very good reasons for what we believe and practice. You can also check out authentic Catholic teachings online at Catholic.com and Vatican.va (The official Vatican Website!). For the truth about the Catholic faith, ask us, we have nothing that we want to hide. We do not attempt to proselytize people though we will readily dialog with anyone and try to answer any questions they may have concerning Catholicism. Our focus is on insuring that everyone hears the Gospel. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit.

The harvest is indeed plentiful, so let’s be about Our Father’s business.

"I Find No Sacraments In the Bible" he said.

I've read through the bible many times, and find no sacraments.
That's kinda odd since I have read it through many times myself and I find the following Sacraments in the following passages.

Baptism: John 3:3,5, & 22-23, 2nd Kings 5:14, Ezekiel 36:25, Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 16:15 & 33, 22:16, )Ananias tells Paul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul's acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.). Romans 6:3, 1st Corinthians 1:16, 6:11, and 15:29

Reconciliation (Confession):
Leviticus. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 (even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.). Matthew 3:6,18:18, 9:6 & 8, Mark 2:7, John 20:21-23, Acts 19:18, 2nd Corinthians 5:18-19, James 5:16, 1st John 1:9-10.

The Eucharist: Foreshadowed extensively! John 6:31-70, Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:17-20, Luke 24:30-35, 1st Corinthians 10:16-17, 1st Corinthians 11:23-30.

Confirmation: Acts 8:15-18, 19:5-6, Hebrews 6:2,

Matrimony: Genesis 2:20-24, Matthew 19:5-6, Mark 10:8, Ephesians 5:22-32, Hebrews 13:4

Holy Orders: Genesis 14:18, Exodus 19:22, Psalm 110:4, Malachi 2:7, John 20:21, Acts 9:17, 13:3, 14:23, 20:28, Ephesisns 4:11, 1st THessalonians 5:12, 1st Timothy 4:14, 1st Timothy 1:6, Titus 1:5, Hebrews 5:1 & 7:17.

The Sacrament of the Sick: Matthew 10:8, Mark 6:13 & 18, James 5:14-16.

I don't know why you didn't see it when it's been in the Word of God and believed by the church for 2,000 years.

Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About Purgatory

Thanks to StillSmallVoice and Yaacov for their help with this.

There is ample evidence that the Bible implicitly teaches a Purgatory.

Begin with Matthew 12:32, which says, "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." Does this not imply that some sins can be forgiven in the age to come? Now think this through...There is no sin to forgive in heaven, right? Sin is not forgiven in hell because it's too late and permanent. So...Implicit "purgatory"

1st Corinthians 3:15 which says, "If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." Again this cannot refer to heaven or hell for the same reasons as above. This is essentially the definition of Purgatory.

1st Peter 3:18-20 which says, "Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water."

and 1st Peter 4:6 which says, "For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead: that they might be judged indeed according to men, in the flesh; but may live according to God, in the Spirit" Note that it was a prison for disobedient spirits and yet they were saved when Jesus preached to them.

Where is that prison? We are not told in scripture, yet this does indeed indicate that there are other "places" besides just Heaven and Hell, does it not? Believing that there is only Heaven and Hell is in fact, not scriptural.

2nd Maccabees 12:44-46 which says, "44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) 45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. "
The same reasons apply here as to the first passages I gave you...

Note also that St. Paul says that the early church believed this in 1st Corinthians 15:29 which says, "Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptized for them? " He does not condemn this practice though it seems to have fallen out of practice...

The Jews also believe this and still do today (as if the passage from 2nd Maccabees doesn't clearly show this). I offer info from my good friend Stillsmallvoice who is an Orthodox Jew who lives in Israel:
"Hi all!

Our prayer, the Mourner's Kaddish, is for the benefit of the soul of the deceased & is believed to ease the spiritual status of the deceased's soul as it goes through whatever trials & tribulations it may be subject to. Yes, we do believe in something akin to the Roman Catholic notion of Purgatory & thus saying the Mourner's Kaddish would be similar to the Roman Catholic idea of praying for the souls in Purgatory.

Look at http://www.ou.org/yerushalayim/kadish.htm#Meaning .

The text there is the (5 clause) Mourner’s Kaddish in Hebrew, transliterated English & English (you can also listen to it in RealAudio).

As I understand it, a soul that has sinned in this world has to pay for its actions/inactions in the next world. We do not automatically & necessarily divide souls into the entirely righteous who will therefore enjoy enternal bliss and the entirely evil who will therefore suffer eternal damnation. The degrees in between are infinite & we believe that God rewards/punishes each soul according to its good/not good actions. As I said, the recitation of the Kaddish prayer is believed to benefit the soul of the deceased as it goes through whatever trials and tribulations it has to endure in the next world.

In addition to the aforementioned Kaddish prayer (which is usually said by a son for a departed parent for 11 months after the day of burial, but which can also be said for 30 days for a spouse, child or sibling, particularly if none of these have children to say the Kaddish; the Kaddish is also recited on the anniversary of the burial), there are the Yizkor (literally: "He will remember") and E-l Maleh Rahamim (literally: "God Full of Mercy") prayers (see http://www.ou.org/yerushalayim/yizkor/) which are recited 4 times a year on Yom Kippur, the last day of Passover, Shavuot and Shemini Atzeret (see http://www.jewfaq.org/toc.htm for links to all of these holydays).

I submit the following excerpt (from http://www.jewfaq.org/death.htm#Kaddish):

In addition to the Kaddish. it is believed that the recitation of the Yizkor and E-l Maleh Rahamim prayers are beneficial to the soul of the departed. On the anniversary of the burial, it is common to study some chapter of the Talmud or the Tanakh (what we call what Christians call the "Old Testament"), read a selection of Psalms, give to charity, etc. in honor/memory of the departed. This is also believed to be beneficial."
I had already discovered this in talking to a devout Orthodox Jewish buddy of mine and Stillsmallvoice was kind enough to help out with all this info as well.

In spite of allegations to the contrary, the concept of Purgatory is indeed quite scriptural.

Priestly celibacy is unBiblical. NOT!

This was in response to something that a guy posted over at Catholic Answers Forums.

How do you figure unBiblical?
Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "

Ist Corinthians 7:6-9
"6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt."

Revelation 14:1-5

1: Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads.
And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of harpers playing on their harps,
and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth.
It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb,
and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are spotless.

...And just what's unhistorical about obeying the very words of Christ and the apostle Paul, from the very Bible that YOU say is the sole source of all we are supposed to believe. You don't know what you're talking about...

Now to your so called evidence:

I will display each of these passages and deal with them in turn...

1st Corinthians 9:5 "5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"

Paul certainly had the right...but he, in obedience to the very words of Christ chose not to. We know that he was unmarried and this just simply points up the fact that at least one apostle (that we know of for sure) chose and lived a celibate life. This really cuts both ways, but does not help your case anymore than it helps mine. I feel that it shows a case FOR celibacy as much as it shows that some of the apostles and early Bishops were married... this certainly DOES support my case that there are valid scriptural reasons for celibate clergy regardless of the change that the deformers brought about in the 1500's because some of them couldn't hack it... This only means that one should be very sure of his calling before making such a vow.

1st Timothy 3:2-12(dropped verse 1 as self evident)
"2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, 3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. 5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

6 Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 8 Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre: 9 Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime.

11 The women in like manner chaste, (Nuns?) not slanderers, but sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children, and their own houses."

So what we see here is that St. Paul says that those who seek the office of bishop must be squared away in many things. This shows the sanctity of marriage and the importance of a good report with the non-believers...this still does NOT negate Christ's own call to celibacy in the passages I gave you earlier...Nor St.Paul's own statement to that effect that I also cited.

If Jesus and Paul BOTH hadn't made these statements, then we'd have nothing to discuss...but your flat refusal to even acknowledge that my cited passages exist and that they are indeed scriptural mandates and guidelines (at least) is just "cherry picking". I have no questions about marriage and that some of the apostles were married...we have some married priests today and that is fine...

Titus 1:6 "6 If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly"
Same as above...

1st Timothy 4:1-3 "1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, 3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

I would just answer with this note that is in my Bible that covers what I was gonna say better than I could have.

3 "Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats"... He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance."

So, the admonition about heretics that forbid to marry is directed at the heretics of that day they really have nothing to do with those who willingly take a vow of celibacy for the sake of their service of God.

My only point gentlemen, is that it is not (as alleged) "unBiblical" as I hope is apparent from my posts.

I'm adding this next part from a dear Franciscan Brother who outlined his daily schedule in response to a comment from a non-Catholic that our celibate lifestyles were unbiblical

I'm reading this with a smile on my face. We have two sides here. One side wants to prove at all cost that celibacy is a heresy. The other side wants to prove that it's not a heresy, but that it's good for the person.

Has anyone thought to ask any of us thousands of men and women who are vowed to live celibate lives, who are very happy as celibate men and women, who have never violated anyone and who have no desire to be married -- has anyone asked us about our faith journey and how celibacy has helped us along that journey?

It's so interesting to watch those who have no stake in the matter try to decide for us what is right and wrong with the way that we live, but without ever asking us and without knowing us as persons. Most of us are very happy being celibate.

Is it non-biblical? I'll let you be the judge of that. I'll give you my daily schedule and you tell me if it's non-biblical.

4:45 Divine Office - Matins

5: 15 Lectio Divina

5:45 Divine Office - Lauds

6:15 Holy Mass

7:00 Breakfast

7:30 We speak for the first time this day and we clean up breakfast dishes, etc

8:00 Divine Office - Mid-Morning Prayer

8:30 Leave for ministry

12:00 break for bread and tea

12:15 Continue ministry

2:30 Divine Office - Mid - Afternoon Prayer

3:00 Quiet Time (study, pray, read, write letters, check email or nap)

4:00 Divine Office - Evening Prayer

4:30 Rosary

5:00 Silent Prayer in chapel

5:30 Supper

6:15 Clean up

6:45 Ministry

8:45 Community Recreation

9:45 Divine Office - Night Prayer - begin grand silence and bed if you want to

12:00 am. Divine Office - Midnight Office

12:30 back to bed
On top of that schedule of prayer, fraternal life and service, there are the three vows: obedience, poverty and consecrated celibacy.

1. I, Brother N, Vow to obey the Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Rule until death.

2. I vow to live according to the poverty of the Most High Lord Jesus Christ Crucified, without any property of my own, without wishing or desiring anything for myself except the salvation of my soul, and without seeking any place other than the last place for myself, according to the Holy Gospel.

3. I vow to voluntarily surrender the only possession that I truly have, the right to marriage and fatherhood, realizing that it is a pearl of great value and I return it to almighty God in reparation for my sins, in praise of his glory and love, and for the greater good of my brothers. Instead, I hereby bind myself to these my brothers as Christ prayed that all might be one, as he and the Father are one, and I solemnly vow, at the risk of losing my immortal soul that I will love my brothers as Christ loved his Apostles and will, to the best of my abilities, strive to fulfill Christ's greatest wish that we might all be one as he and the Father are one, with the help of the Holy Spirit.

And in conclusion, I vow to obey our Holy Father Francis and his canonically elected successors so that totally stripped of all things, including my will, I may conform to Christ who was obedient even unto death. To this, I consecrate all the days of my life and I ask you my brothers to pray with me, that God may have mercy on my soul.


PS. That's the formula for vows for the Franciscan Brothers.. The wording varies from one community to another, but they're the same vows and the effect is the virtually the same.

Which part is not biblical, the daily life or the vows?

What married man can live this life?

I wish someone would ask me if this celibacy is Anti Biblical?

Amen Brother! Amen!

The Eucharist IS Scriptural

I offer as evidence the following passages of Scripture:

John 6:31-70

"31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. 35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

36 But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. 38 Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day. 40 And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.

41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.

66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? 69 And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 70 And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. "

Matthew 26:26-28

"26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. "

Mark 14:22-24

"22 And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. 23 And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many."

Luke 22:17-20

"17 And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you: 18 For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. 19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. 20 In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you."

Luke 24:30-35

"30 And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them.

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight. 32 And they said one to the other: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst he spoke in this way, and opened to us the scriptures? 33 And rising up, the same hour, they went back to Jerusalem: and they found the eleven gathered together, and those that were staying with them, 34 Saying: The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
35 And they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking of the bread. "

1st Corinthians 10:16-17

"16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread."

1st Corinthians 11:23-30

"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. "

If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That "spiritualization" makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 "16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread."

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of a person and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol. I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the person, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question...of course not! Why? BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?
There is the the whole case for why the Eucharist really is the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ...body and blood, soul and divinity.

Catholics! You have the greatest miracle of all at every Mass that you participate in. BE THERE!
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

In addition to these passages of the New Testament I would also like to add this very clear quote from St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a close friend and disciple of St. John the evangelist , the bishop of Antioch and a martyr for the faith.


They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans