Assumption of mary

[Potato1237]

newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm

I was doing some research and I found this. Presumably by Saint John the apostle, it is an incredible writing. After seeing this, I did some more research but I could not find anything about this, which is why I’m starting to have doubts. However, I know that this website is a quite reputable source so that leads to more confusion. Is this writing authentic? because if it is, then any anti-Marian doctrine arguments go right down the drain.
But, if it is written by John, it may have to be in the Bible right?

God bless.
A.J.
(Potato1237)

 

[thistle]

newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm

I was doing some research and I found this. Presumably by Saint John the apostle, it is an incredible writing. After seeing this, I did some more research but I could not find anything about this, which is why I’m starting to have doubts. However, I know that this website is a quite reputable source so that leads to more confusion. Is this writing authentic? because if it is, then any anti-Marian doctrine arguments go right down the drain.
But, if it is written by John, it may have to be in the Bible right?

God bless.
A.J.
(Potato1237)

No. Not at all.

See the heading in the link you gave: Apocryphal Works on the Assumption of Mary.

That means the Church does NOT accept it as an inspired writing. It is un-canonical. The Bible contains only inspired writings.

 

[Potato1237]

No. Not at all.

See the heading in the link you gave: Apocryphal Works on the Assumption of Mary.

That means the Church does NOT accept it as an inspired writing. It is un-canonical. The Bible contains only inspired writings.

So it is not authentically by Saint John? And if it is, why is this not cited more when defending Marian doctrines? This is still a historical work by an apostle of Jesus.
Thanks for the help!

 

[Lenten_ashes]

So it is not authentically by Saint John? And if it is, why is this not cited more when defending Marian doctrines? This is still a historical work by an apostle of Jesus.
Thanks for the help!

It’s too late, like 5th or 6th century work.

So cant verify it came from John.

But just because it’s not canonical doesn’t mean it doesn’t contain truth.

 

[Potato1237]

It’s too late, like 5th or 6th century work.

So cant verify it came from John.

But just because it’s not canonical doesn’t mean it doesn’t contain truth.

That’s actually a bit disturbing, because the writing, in multiple places says “I John apostle of Jesus” it seems very deceptive to me. It specifically states and references other apostles currently being in places. If it was not John writing this work, then the person who did was very dishonest in my opinion.

God bless.

 

[brian_custer]

why don’t you post a snippet or quote of that rather long piece that you feel is most relevant to your thematic point?

 

[dmar198]

So it is not authentically by Saint John?

No, that’s what the word “apocrypha” means: “writings or reports not considered genuine.” (source)

This is still a historical work by an apostle of Jesus.

That’s the thing, it Isn’t a historical work by an apostle. It was written by some guy in the 400s or 500s who Claimed to be John the Apostle, but wasn’t. That was why the Church said it’s apocrypha – because the author wasn’t telling the truth about who he was.

There are good reasons to believe in the Assumption, including the fact that the Church Fathers said it happened. We don’t base our beliefs on some anonymous guy from the 400s who claimed to be the Apostle John. Even today, you can find people who claim to be a reincarnation of Jesus or an apostle or an angel and they’ll occasionally tell you Some stuff that’s true. A broken clock gets it right twice a day, right? But we don’t believe their claim to be an apostle or Jesus or an angel or whatever, and we shouldn’t believe that the author of this document was really the Apostle John, since we have good evidence that he didn’t write this book until at least the 400s, long after the historical Apostle John was dead. The Church knows this author wasn’t telling the truth about who he was, and that’s why it’s listed as apocryphal or “not genuine.”

That doesn’t mean the Assumption isn’t true though. The guy who wrote that book isn’t the one who came up with the Assumption, he was just trying to exploit the historical Assumption so that people would read his book. The Assumption is a historical truth. The Church Fathers said it happened, and there is evidence for it in the Bible. The guy who wrote that book just jumped on this historical fact to spread his book, and that’s where the danger came in. The Church quickly stepped in and said, No, this guy is not the real Apostle John, but the Assumption did really happen.

I also want to mention why New Advent has that document on their site. It’s not because they think it’s authentic. They have it on their site in a section called Apocrypha, which means Not Genuine. Its “parent page,” where that document is hosted, is this page: newadvent.org/fathers/index.html and it links to that document near the bottom in the section called “Apocrypha.”

New Advent includes a few apocryphal works on their website for several reasons. One is that apocryphal works are useful to historians who want to know what the Church had to deal with in each age. In the 400s, one of the things that happened was that a random guy forged some books and pretended to be the apostle John. Historians like to know this, and so we’ve preserved one of his books, this one, about the Assumption. But also, New Advent clearly marked the page as Apocrypha so that nobody would get confused, and they put it in a section called Apocrypha because it’s not genuine. So I hope that helps explain why they included it on their website. They are a reputable source, and this does not detract from that, because they clearly marked it as not genuine.

I hope that helps. Please let me know.

 

[Potato1237]

No, that’s what the word “apocrypha” means: “writings or reports not considered genuine.” (source) That’s the thing, it Isn’t a historical work by an apostle. It was written by some guy in the 400s or 500s who Claimed to be John the Apostle, but wasn’t. That was why the Church said it’s apocrypha – because the author wasn’t telling the truth about who he was.

There are good reasons to believe in the Assumption, including the fact that the Church Fathers said it happened. We don’t base our beliefs on some anonymous guy from the 400s who claimed to be the Apostle John. Even today, you can find people who claim to be a reincarnation of Jesus or an apostle or an angel and they’ll occasionally tell you Some stuff that’s true. A broken clock gets it right twice a day, right? But we don’t believe their claim to be an apostle or Jesus or an angel or whatever, and we shouldn’t believe that the author of this document was really the Apostle John, since we have good evidence that he didn’t write this book until at least the 400s, long after the historical Apostle John was dead. The Church knows this author wasn’t telling the truth about who he was, and that’s why it’s listed as apocryphal or “not genuine.”

That doesn’t mean the Assumption isn’t true though. The guy who wrote that book isn’t the one who came up with the Assumption, he was just trying to exploit the historical Assumption so that people would read his book. The Assumption is a historical truth. The Church Fathers said it happened, and there is evidence for it in the Bible. The guy who wrote that book just jumped on this historical fact to spread his book, and that’s where the danger came in. The Church quickly stepped in and said, No, this guy is not the real Apostle John, but the Assumption did really happen.

I also want to mention why New Advent has that document on their site. It’s not because they think it’s authentic. They have it on their site in a section called Apocrypha, which means Not Genuine. Its “parent page,” where that document is hosted, is this page: newadvent.org/fathers/index.html and it links to that document near the bottom in the section called “Apocrypha.”

New Advent includes a few apocryphal works on their website for several reasons. One is that apocryphal works are useful to historians who want to know what the Church had to deal with in each age. In the 400s, one of the things that happened was that a random guy forged some books and pretended to be the apostle John. Historians like to know this, and so we’ve preserved one of his books, this one, about the Assumption. But also, New Advent clearly marked the page as Apocrypha so that nobody would get confused, and they put it in a section called Apocrypha because it’s not genuine. So I hope that helps explain why they included it on their website. They are a reputable source, and this does not detract from that, because they clearly marked it as not genuine.

I hope that helps. Please let me know.

Yes it does help. Thanks so much for the clarification.

 

[Potato1237]

why don’t you post a snippet or quote of that rather long piece that you feel is most relevant to your thematic point?

To be honest friend, the whole thing is the most relevant haha. Most of the info in the writing was detailing how the assumption happened and if this was written by john as I previously thought, then it would be very helpful with the Marian doctrines. But, of course, I was not observant enough to read the word “apocrypha” in large letters at the top.
Thanks for your response.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

That’s actually a bit disturbing, because the writing, in multiple places says “I John apostle of Jesus” it seems very deceptive to me. It specifically states and references other apostles currently being in places. If it was not John writing this work, then the person who did was very dishonest in my opinion.

God bless.

Unfortunately there was a lot of this in the first few centuries. The gnostic movement was gaining a lot of traction. They usually carried partial truths in a attempt to appear legitimate and deceive.

 

[susanlo]

There are good reasons to believe in the Assumption, including the fact that the Church Fathers said it happened. We don’t base our beliefs on some anonymous guy from the 400s who claimed to be the Apostle John.

Which church fathers taught about the assumption of Mary? What is the earliest accepted writing about it?

 

[Stephen_says]

Dear Potato1237,

You have the best name and Avatar on this site! I also think it’s funny that there have been 1,236 Potatoes before you.

That is all.

PS. Is Falconry really one of your hobbies? That’s pretty BA.

 

[dmar198]

Which church fathers taught about the assumption of Mary? What is the earliest accepted writing about it?

There’s a Catholic Answers article called Mary Full of Grace that collects early testimonies to Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption. The earliest explicit quote about her Assumption in that article appears to be this one:

300 A.D. - Pseudo-Melito - “If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: ‘Be it done according to your will.’” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2–17 [A.D. 300])

That is a very early testimony to Mary’s Assumption. In my opinion, there are also several Earlier examples where the Church Fathers teach or imply the Assumption, examples that are not covered in that Catholic Answers article. For example, St. Hippolytus of Rome and St. Gregory the Wonderworker both lived before the 300s and called Mary “imperishable”:

~235 A.D. - St. Hippolytus of Rome - “The Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Spirit inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold.” (Commentary on Psalm 22, as quoted in Haffner, P. The Mystery of Mary. Gracewing Publishers, p. 77)

~262 A.D. - St. Gregory the Wonderworker - “A bulwark of imperishable life hath the Holy Virgin become unto us, and a fountain of light to those who have faith in Christ; a sunrise of the reasonable light is she found to be.” (Homily on the Mother of God)

The Liber Requiei Mariae, or Book of Mary’s Repose, is also earlier, from roughly the 200s A.D.

~200s A.D. - “And our Lord said to them: ‘Let them bring the body of Mary into the clouds.’ … And when they arrived together in Paradise, they placed the body of Mary beside the tree of life. And they brought her soul and placed it upon her body. And our Lord dismissed his angels to their places.” (Liber Requiei Mariae 89, as it appears in Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of Mary’s Dormition and Assumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. p. 163-164)

And there is the implicit testimony of other Church Fathers consider. The early Church Fathers regularly said things that I think are implicit testimony to the Assumption. I’ve collected some examples at this link:

Mary’s Assumption in the Doctrine of the Pre-Nicene Church
historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/marys-assumption-in-doctrine-of-pre.html

I hope that helps. God bless!

 

[susanlo]

There’s a Catholic Answers article called Mary Full of Grace that collects early testimonies to Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption. The earliest explicit quote about her Assumption in that article appears to be this one:

300 A.D. - Pseudo-Melito - “If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: ‘Be it done according to your will.’” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2–17 [A.D. 300])

But isn’t this also apocryphal? It is on the same page (different translation) as the original link by OP. Many sources date this to the 5th or 6th century. It is first made reference to by an outside writing in the 6th century I read. Do we know who actually wrote it?

That is a very early testimony to Mary’s Assumption. In my opinion, there are also several Earlier examples where the Church Fathers teach or imply the Assumption, examples that are not covered in that Catholic Answers article. For example, St. Hippolytus of Rome and St. Gregory the Wonderworker both lived before the 300s and called Mary “imperishable”:

~235 A.D. - St. Hippolytus of Rome - “The Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Spirit inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold.” (Commentary on Psalm 22, as quoted in Haffner, P. The Mystery of Mary. Gracewing Publishers, p. 77)

~262 A.D. - St. Gregory the Wonderworker - “A bulwark of imperishable life hath the Holy Virgin become unto us, and a fountain of light to those who have faith in Christ; a sunrise of the reasonable light is she found to be.” (Homily on the Mother of God)

These are very nice quotes about Mary. I don’t know if that proves she was assumed into heaven, though.

The Liber Requiei Mariae, or Book of Mary’s Repose, is also earlier, from roughly the 200s A.D.

~200s A.D. - “And our Lord said to them: ‘Let them bring the body of Mary into the clouds.’ … And when they arrived together in Paradise, they placed the body of Mary beside the tree of life. And they brought her soul and placed it upon her body. And our Lord dismissed his angels to their places.” (Liber Requiei Mariae 89, as it appears in Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of Mary’s Dormition and Assumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. p. 163-164)

Isn’t this also apocryphal and often dated much later?

And there is the implicit testimony of other Church Fathers consider. The early Church Fathers regularly said things that I think are implicit testimony to the Assumption. I’ve collected some examples at this link:

Mary’s Assumption in the Doctrine of the Pre-Nicene Church
historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/marys-assumption-in-doctrine-of-pre.html

I hope that helps. God bless!

Are there any writings that are not spurious that claim that Mary was assumed into heaven?

 

[Wesrock]

Not all pseudo documents are “forgeries,” and do attest to ancient tradition on the subject. Neither does it not (allegedly) being directly stated in the Bible make it not a valid testament to tradition.

However, we do see Mary in Revelation 11 and 12, the Ark of the Covenant (and Mary as the Ark, in general, is an ancient Church tradition), and the Woman with a crown of Twelve Stars, both as Daughter Zion and as the archetype of the Church.

Regardless, the Church’s dogma is not a statement on just the historical evidence and ancient tradition. It’s a statement on the Church, of which Mary is the archetype, and our spiritual AND bodily union with God. With Mary being sinless, sanctified by God at her conception, and her total acceptance into her being of the Word of God, and her faithfulness to God from conception to the end of her earthly life, how could she not now be in perfect spiritual and bodily union with the divine life of God, which we all have as our end should we persevere in Christian faith?

The dogma of the Assumption is not so much a statement of historical fact as it is a statement of the Church’s bodily and spiritual end in God, and therefore a defense of the dignity of the Blessed Mother, the Church, and Christian belief in what constitutes a human person (body and soul).

 

[Potato1237]

Dear Potato1237,

You have the best name and Avatar on this site! I also think it’s funny that there have been 1,236 Potatoes before you.

That is all.

PS. Is Falconry really one of your hobbies? That’s pretty BA.

Thank you and yes I do some falconry. Birds in general are kind of my thing.

 

[Potato1237]

There’s a Catholic Answers article called Mary Full of Grace that collects early testimonies to Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption. The earliest explicit quote about her Assumption in that article appears to be this one:

300 A.D. - Pseudo-Melito - “If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: ‘Be it done according to your will.’” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2–17 [A.D. 300])

That is a very early testimony to Mary’s Assumption. In my opinion, there are also several Earlier examples where the Church Fathers teach or imply the Assumption, examples that are not covered in that Catholic Answers article. For example, St. Hippolytus of Rome and St. Gregory the Wonderworker both lived before the 300s and called Mary “imperishable”:

~235 A.D. - St. Hippolytus of Rome - “The Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Spirit inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold.” (Commentary on Psalm 22, as quoted in Haffner, P. The Mystery of Mary. Gracewing Publishers, p. 77)

~262 A.D. - St. Gregory the Wonderworker - “A bulwark of imperishable life hath the Holy Virgin become unto us, and a fountain of light to those who have faith in Christ; a sunrise of the reasonable light is she found to be.” (Homily on the Mother of God)

The Liber Requiei Mariae, or Book of Mary’s Repose, is also earlier, from roughly the 200s A.D.

~200s A.D. - “And our Lord said to them: ‘Let them bring the body of Mary into the clouds.’ … And when they arrived together in Paradise, they placed the body of Mary beside the tree of life. And they brought her soul and placed it upon her body. And our Lord dismissed his angels to their places.” (Liber Requiei Mariae 89, as it appears in Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of Mary’s Dormition and Assumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. p. 163-164)

And there is the implicit testimony of other Church Fathers consider. The early Church Fathers regularly said things that I think are implicit testimony to the Assumption. I’ve collected some examples at this link:

Mary’s Assumption in the Doctrine of the Pre-Nicene Church
historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/marys-assumption-in-doctrine-of-pre.html

I hope that helps. God bless!

Thank you! This was very interesting and helpful.