DID MARY HAVE A TOMB?
The early Christians did not venerate the mother of Christ and she most likely
died in obscurity if she lived at all. Maybe she disappeared because she drowned
herself and nobody knew what happened to her? Maybe she died a recluse and
nobody knew who she was? There is a similar absence of interest in other New
Testament characters. Or perhaps a hoax took place. If Mary’s body was stolen
from her tomb and people were saying she rose from the dead then there are
countless reasons why she could have been stolen.
Even if she had been taken up into Heaven, they would still have pointed out the
spot or tomb which would have been the scene of a most wondrous and important
miracle – so those who say that the fact that nobody claimed to have Mary’s
bones means that she rose again or never died are issuing foolishness. They
would have been far more likely to honour the place of the assumption if there
had been one. The hypocrisy of saying the silence about a tomb means Mary rose
while if she had there would be a shrine at her tomb is apparent. If it is true
(which it is not) that the assumption of Mary was believed in by the entire
early Church (page 168, Born Fundamentalist Born-Again Catholic) then that means
the early Church was wholly gullible with regard to alleged resurrections and so
would have been as bad with Jesus’. The Hindus at the time generally believed
things about gods and what they had done and the Catholics don’t believe them
and yet the early Church supposedly believing Mary rose proves that she did!
That is double-standards I’ll tell you!
There are Christian Churches which hold that Mary is buried in a tomb in the
Valley of Jehosaphat. In 517 a bishop of Antioch called Severus claimed to have
had a revelation that bones in a tomb there were the bones of Mary (page 114,
The Marian Conspiracy). He must have been taken seriously for reasons other than
his claim to have had a revelation for a shrine grew up that still exists to
this day and is kept by schismatic ancient Catholic sects that doubted the
assumption of Mary. Father Benedetti was appointed by the Vatican to refute the
authenticity of the bones and he seems to have done so. It is possible that the
bones of the Virgin were taken away and replaced by bones that were not hers.
After all her remains would have made top relics. Benedetti claimed he uncovered
evidence of another place where Mary was probably buried and for this the
Vatican imposed silence upon him (page 11, The Marian Conspiracy). It is
interesting how the Church believes St Helena, Empress of Rome, found the cross
and the burial place of Christ and his tomb but denies her claim that she found
the place where Mary's was to be found and built a Church there in Ephesus (page
154, The Marian Conspiracy). Until the eighth century, shrine Churches were only
built over the tombs of saints. St Helena built such a Church in Ephesus for
Mary (page 185, The Marian Conspiracy).
If the early Church believed in the assumption, then it might have believed it
only as a pious belief or assumption and not as a part of the faith just like
Catholics believe Mary appeared at Lourdes as a pious belief but not as part of
their faith which consists of dogmas that the light of God shows them are true
and without error. This would mean that the pope had no right or authority to
make a dogma of the assumption though he claimed the early Church’s belief in
the assumption justified his action. When Mary says at Medjugorje and those
other places that she has a body she is clearly advocating heresy and error and
papalism. Don’t trust her. Believers that these visions are satanic hoaxes –
Satan has to be charming and caring for how else is he going to get you to
succumb to temptation? – will get ammunition from the fact that people that
touch apparitions find a sensation not like touching a body but like an electric
shock!
The Virgin is ignored in the New Testament after a passing reference to her
early in the Book of Acts. A bit more could have been said about her. People
would be interested in a famous man’s mother and yet they ignored her. There
must have been some important lessons that they could have seen in her life to
make them tell more about her. So, there being no legends about the Virgin’s
corpse does not infer that she must have risen from the dead.
When Jesus was told that his mother was looking for him he snapped that his
hearers were his mother for they did the will of God (Mark 3:31-35). Jesus
denied the cult of Mary in the Roman Church. He said that doing God’s will was
what mattered not being his mother in the physical sense. This tells us that
Mary should not be honoured so much just because she gave birth to Jesus. She
was not taken up into Heaven for that would be sanctioning devotion to her that
God did not want.
Concerning the doctrine of the Virgin not having original sin and the doctrine
of her assumption it has been written, “Over the centuries, it is easy to find
both beliefs ignored or opposed by theologians and even saints; they are both
present in the Church, but scarcely traditional in the sense of a general
acceptance. Nor, of course, can either be traced as far back as the apostolic
age” (page 210, The Virgin). And of the assumption, “The Assumption doctrine may
have gone through a transitional stage. The earliest version of Mary’s Passing
ends obscurely: her body is translated to paradise, but nothing is said about
its reanimation. Christians may, at first, have accepted that her deceased
remains were nowhere on earth, but hesitated to go the rest of the way” (page
248, notes on Chapter 9, ibid).
The evidence for the assumption of Mary is truly dreadful. That Pius XII made
this doctrine a dogma that Catholics are bound to believe indicates that the
Church is abolishing its traditional stance regarding miracles. This stance says
that if there is any doubt the miracle must not be declared to be true by the
Church and the evidence needs to be conclusive. This is because a miracle is so
unusual and rare and out of respect for God fraud and error must be eliminated
lest a work he never performed be attributed to him.
If Mary existed then she is dead. The pope then is not infallible. The Church
which declared him infallible is not infallible either. Catholicism is a hoax.
ALL ROADS LEAD TO ROME, Michael de Semlyen, Dorchester House Publications,
Bucks, 1993
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS CATHOLICS ARE ASKING, Tony Coffey, Harvest House
Publishers, Oregon ,2006
BORN FUNDAMENTALIST, BORN-AGAIN CATHOLIC, David B Currie, Ignatius Press, San
Francisco, 1996
CATHOLICISM, Richard P McBrien, HarperSanFrancisco, New York, 1994
MAKING SAINTS, Kenneth K Woodward, Chatto & Windus, London, 1991
OBJECTIONS TO ROMAN CATHOLICISM, Ed by Michael de la Bedoyere, Constable,
London, 1964
PAPAL SIN, STRUCTURES OF DECEIT, Garry Wills, Darton Longman and Todd, London,
2000
POPE FICTION, Patrick Madrid, Basilica Press, San Diego, California, 1999
REASON AND BELIEF, Bland Blanschard, London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1974
SERMONS OF ST ALPHONSUS LIGUORI, Tan Books, Illinois, 1982
THE MARIAN CONSPIRACY, Graham Phillips, Pan Books, London, 2001
THE PRIMITIVE FAITH AND ROMAN CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENTS, Rev John A F Gregg, BD,
APCK, Dublin, 1928
THE VIRGIN, Geoffrey Ashe, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. London, 1976
WHY BE A CATHOLIC? Fr David Jones OP, Incorporated Catholic Truth Society,
London, 1996