CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[Good_Fella]

…we certainly had the early church father writings that were in fact written before 400 AD and NONE of them ever mention any assumption…they mention a lot about Mary which is parallel but like I said they omitted the assumption.

The early Church Fathers have left us no writings in which they explicitly mention the Assumption. But by examining what they have taught us about Mary, it is safe to assume that they believed in this event and may have referred to it when preaching. Justin Martyr (A.D. 155) and Irenaeus (A.D. 180), for instance, typified Mary as the new Eve in the economy of salvation. They couldn’t have been consistent in their typologies if they were inclined to believe that the mother of our Lord was not exempt from the universal law of sin and the corruption of death incurred by Adam’s fall through Eve’s participation. Hippolytus of Rome (ante A.D. 235) typifies Mary as the ark of the New Covenant, the “tabernacle” of our Lord, who was “exempt from putridity and corruption”. It would be unreasonable for a bishop to believe that Mary’s body lay decayed in a tomb while comparing her with the pure and undefiled ark of the Old Covenant, especially if he were familiar with Revelation 11:19, 12:1.

Moreover, we find an implicit reference to the Immaculate Conception of Mary in the analogy drawn by Hippolytus. Belief in Mary’s freedom from the stain of original sin may have already existed in private quarters of the Church by this time. (The Church hadn’t yet unanimously defined the concept of original sin.). Pope Pius Xll cited the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in his Apostolic Constitution *Munificentissimus Deus * where he gives reasons for his decision to declare the Assumption a dogma of the Church. In a homily of his, Origen (A.D. 244) describes Mary as the “Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten Son of God, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one”. An exception to the law of human nature. I suspect Origen was aware of the oral Tradition of the Assumption that had existed by the time of Epiphanius (A.D. 377) and, not unlike the latter, questioned whether Mary had actually died, not whether she actually had been assumed into heaven by the power of her divine Son. Ignatius of Antioch (c.A.D. 110) taught that Jesus “was both of God and of Mary”, a divine Person of the Trinity “who existed in the flesh”, made of a woman, in the words of the apostle Paul. I wouldn’t want to try to convince the bishop that this very flesh that had formed and suckled our risen Lord has rotted in the tomb.

PAX :harp:

 

[Mannyfit75]

Mary’s assumption is implied in the Book of Revelation 12:1-5

And a great portent appeared in heaven, a Woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. . . . he brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne. . . . Then the dragon was angry with the Woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus" (Rev. 12:1–2, 5, 17).

The woman in the passage appeared in heaven. How did she get there? She assumed by the power of God.

The woman also gave birth to a male child who will rule all the nations with an rod of iron. This child is Jesus Christ. The child was caught up to God and to his throne. This can be interpreted as the Jesus ascension into heaven.

The article from Catholic answers explains this. We believe the Assumption because it is implied in Scripture and in Tradition

There is a lot of debate about what the symbol of this Woman represents. Different.aspects of the symbol point to different possible meanings for it.

Unfortunately, most of the debate over what the Woman represents is misdirected because it does not take into account the way that Revelation uses symbolism.

The vision contains “fusion imagery,” in which one symbol is composed of elements from several different things. For example, the four living creatures John sees around God’s throne (4:6–8) are a fusion of elements from the cherubim seen in Ezekiel (Ezek. 10:1–14) and the seraphim seen in Isaiah (Isa. 6:1–5).

Similarly, the priest-elders John sees around the throne (4:4) are numbered twenty-four because they are a fusion of the twelve patriarchs of Israel and the twelve apostles of Jesus, a symbolism which occurs at the end of the book (21:12–14), where New Jerusalem is seen to have twelve foundations with the names of the twelve apostles and twelve gates with the names of the twelve patriarchs.

The beast from the sea in chapter 13 is a fusion of elements from the all four of the beasts the prophet Daniel saw emerge from the sea in chapter 7 of his book.

Polyvalent symbolism, in which symbols have more than one meaning, also is part of Revelation’s imagery. For example, the seven heads of the beast are said to be both seven mountains (Rev. 17:9) and seven kings (17:10).

The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.

She is Israel because she is associated with the sun, the moon, and twelve stars. These symbols are drawn from Genesis 37:9–11, in which the patriarch Joseph has a dream of the sun and moon (symbolizing his father and mother) and stars (representing his brothers), which bow down to him. Taken together, the sun, moon, and twelve stars symbolize the people of Israel.

The Woman is the Church because, as 12:17 tells us, “the rest of her offspring” are those who bear witness to Jesus, making them Christians.

The Woman is Eve because she is part of the three-way conflict also involving her Seed and the Dragon, who is identified with the ancient serpent (the one from Eden) in 20:2. This mirrors the conflict in Genesis 3:15 between Eve, the serpent, and her unborn seed—which in turn is a symbol of the conflict between Mary, Satan, and Jesus.

Finally, the Woman is Mary because she is the mother of Jesus, the child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:11–16).

Because the Woman is a four-way symbol, different.aspects of the narrative apply to different referents. Like Mary, she is pictured as being in heaven and she flies (mirroring Mary’s Assumption). Like the Church, she is persecuted by the Devil after the Ascension of Christ. Like Israel, she experiences great trauma as the Messiah is brought forth (figuratively) from the nation. And like Eve, it is her (distant) seed with which the serpent has his primary conflict.

Conversely, portions of the narrative do not apply to each referent. Mary did not experience literal pain when bringing forth the Messiah, but she suffered figuratively (the prophecy that a sword would pierce her heart at the Crucifixion). Eve did not ascend to heaven. And the Church did not bring forth the Messiah (rather, the Messiah brought forth his Church).

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705chap.asp

 

[Mannyfit75]

I also recommend that you read this article by Jason Evert.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105sbs.asp - Mary’s Assumption

 

[Mannyfit75]

Keep in mind that if Scripture does not record an event, it does not follow that the event did not happen. Scripture does not record Paul or Peter’s journey to Rome, and they were both martyred there while the Bible was still being written. With this in mind, it would be unscriptural and unreasonable to conclude that the dogma of Mary’s Assumption is false because it is not mentioned explicitly in Scripture.

There are numerous reasons why it is fitting that the Lord would assume Mary’s body into heaven. By becoming man, Jesus was born under the law (Gal. 4:4) and was bound to obey the commandment to honor his mother. The Hebrew word for “honor” does not imply mere courtesy, but the bestowal of honor and glory. By preserving Mary’s body from corruption, Jesus fulfills the command to honor his mother in a way that only a divine Son could. What person, if he had the power to prevent the corruption of his mother’s body, would not do so? The love of Jesus for his mother seems to be the strongest argument for her Assumption.

It is useful also to examine how God calls people to treat holy things in the Old Testament. The holiest object for the people of Israel was the Ark of the Covenant, because it contained the bread from heaven, the staff of Aaron, and the tablets of the law. It was laden in and out with gold and could only be approached by sanctified priests. One unfortunate soul dared to touch it, and despite his good intentions, it cost him his life (2 Sam. 6:6-7). God’s glory overshadowed this holy Ark, and Psalm 132:8 says of it, “Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place; thou and the ark which thou hast sanctified.”

In the book of Revelation we read, “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple” (Rev. 11:19). “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; . . . she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev. 12:1,5). The arbitrary break here between chapters, done long after the Bible was written, makes it easy to overlook how John mentions the mother of the Messiah in conjunction with the Ark of the Covenant.

Considering God’s reverence towards an inanimate Ark, St. Robert Bellarmine asked a fitting question: "Who could believe that the ark of holiness, the dwelling of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit , crumbled into dust? I shudder at the very thought that the virginal flesh of which God was conceived and born, which nourished him and carried him should have turned to ashes or been given as food to worms."

 

[Mannyfit75]

Historians-Catholic and non-Catholic-agree that there is a great deal of ancient material on the Assumption that is unreliable. A prime example of this is the Transitus Mariae stories, which were written as homilies in the fifth and sixth centuries. These are often fantastic and legendary accounts, devoid of historical accuracy. Some examples include the Obsequities of the Holy Virgin, and the text of Pseudo-Melito. But these apocryphal writings have no bearing on the Church’s dogma of Mary’s Assumption.

The Church Fathers provide a much more balanced approach. Epiphanius said in A.D. 377, "Let them search the scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried. More than that: John journeyed to Asia, yet nowhere do we read that he took the holy Virgin with him. Rather, Scripture is absolutely silent [on Mary’s earthly end] because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy, in order not to shock the minds of men. . . . Neither do I maintain stoutly that she died. . . .

“Did she die? We do not know. At all events, if she was buried, she had no carnal intercourse. . . . Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires” (Panarion, haer. 78, nn. 10-11,23: G.C.S., 37, 461-462; 474).

Neither Jerome, Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, nor Augustine contested Epiphanius in what he had written regarding Mary’s miraculous passing, and Ephraem (d. 373) described Mary as having been glorified by Christ and carried through the air to heaven (Cf. Ephraem, De nativitate domini sermo 12, sermo 11, sermo 4; Opera omni syriace at latine, Vol. 2, 415). Throughout history, there have been very few opponents in the Church of Mary’s Assumption. No one seemed ready to claim that she corrupted. In fact, the first opposition to the Assumption cannot be found until Ambrosius Autpertus of the eighth century.

From this faith of the Church, Christians began to celebrate the feast of Mary’s unique passing. Like the fruit from a tree, the liturgy is the result of doctrine, not the source of it. By the end of the fourth century, the feast of the Dormitio or Koimesis, which celebrated Mary’s death, resurrection, and Assumption, was celebrated throughout the East. A feast celebrating Mary’s entrance to heaven, “The Memory of Mary,” also began around the fourth century. The significance of these early feasts cannot be overlooked, as they are testimony to the truths that the Church knew to be true. Christians would not initiate feasts throughout the Church that were ideas on the fringes of Catholic thought.

One reason why it is difficult to assess where Mary’s last days were is because she left no remains. The early Church prized the relics of early Christians, as can be seen by reading The Martyrdom of Polycarp. However, no one claimed to have Mary’s remains, which would have been prized above all others. There is no historical reference to the relics of Mary, the corruption of Mary, or the place where her body lies. A skeptic who denies Christ’s Resurrection should be asked to find evidence of the remains of Christ, and the same challenge can be extended to whoever denies Mary’s Assumption.

 

[Hesychios]

JL: There is no Catholic definition saying Mary died or did not die, as a Catholic I may accept either. My personal opinion Mary died first. If the Church were to define she did not die, I would be wrong and submit to those whom Christ set over me to guide me into all truth.

But this is incorrect. The church has indeed acknowledged that Mary did die. If one reads Munificentissimus Deus in it’s entirety you will see that Pope Pius XII reaffirms the death of Mary about seven times, and therefore this is part of the ordinary Magisterium of the church. So you are not really free to accept either opinion if you are interested in truth and not fantasy.

But since this is not really knowledge which saves, we should not get all stoked up over it anyway.
*
Michael*

 

[Mannyfit75]

But this is incorrect. The church has indeed acknowledged that Mary did die. If one reads Munificentissimus Deus in it’s entirety you will see that Pope Pius XII reaffirms the death of Mary about seven times, and therefore this is part of the ordinary Magisterium of the church. So you are not really free to accept either opinion if you are interested in truth and not fantasy.

But since this is not really knowledge which saves, we should not get all stoked up over it anyway.
*
Michael*

I believe that it is implied in Catholic Church teaching that Mary died prior to her assumption into heaven.

The Encyclical states, These words are found in this volume: “Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.”

 

[Hercules253]

While there might not be strong biblical evidence of Mary’s Assumption, it is not unprecedented.

Remember Elijah? He certainly wasn’t killed, and then taken up to Heaven.

If Elijah was Assumed, why not Mary?

If read my earlier threads, I didn’t say that an assumption is impossible…we know it happened because of 2 things:

1. Eyewitnesses (they saw Elijah and Jesus go up into Heaven)
2. It was the Word of God

That’s not the case with Mary

 

[Good_Fella]

The assumption is definitely intrinsic in Scripture so I agree that the Assumption is possible…but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Mary assumed into heaven…

The Trinity can be backed up with evidence from eye witnesses and scriptural proof BUT specifically Mary’s assumption of body and soul cant.

Arise, Lord, and go to your resting place, you and the Ark of your might.
Psalm 132, 8

I agree. The Assumption is “definitely” revealed implictly in the Scriptures, so it means with a certainty of faith that there are sound reasons for believing in the necessity of this miraculous and glorious event. One can never hope to grasp the fullness of divine truth by approaching the written word strictly in a literal-historical sense.

The Bible is formally insufficient as a medium of divine revelation to begin with, whether we are concerned with “the great things the Lord has done” for Mary, according to Luke, the hypostatic union of natures in Christ (homoousious as opposed to the heretical Arian notion homoiousios), or the true nature of the Holy Trinity (Trinitarianism as opposed to the heretical concepts tritheism and modalism). Scripture must be interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition. And now that the Catholic Church has defined the Trinity at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), individuals like yourself can easily open the Bible and argue from hindsight bias. But by doing so in keeping with orthodox belief, you are concurring with a traditional belief of the Apostolic Catholic Church. If the Sacred Extraordinary Magisterium erred with regard to the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, how can you be sure that the Ecumenical Council didn’t err with respect to the dogma of the Holy Trinity? You won’t find a correct and precise definition in the Scriptures. :nope:

I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.
1 Corinthians 11, 2

“But in learning the Faith and professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures…Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart.”
Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 350)

Needless to say, I find it hard to imagine how any mortal can relate an eyewitness account of the Trinity. Would you care to elaborate?

Do we know what happened to Joseph? Zachariah? Elizabeth? The centurion that Jesus said had the greatest faith? Of course not. So does that mean that they assumed into heaven? Zachariah was sinless, so he is qualified to be assumed into Heaven?

The angel Gabriel never appeared to anyone but Mary declaring: “Chaire, kecharitomene!”, meaning: “Hail, Made Perfect by Grace.” In other words, Mary was created preserved free from the stain of original sin and lived a personally sinless life. Zechariah, Elizabeth, and Joseph were righteous people like Noah, Job, and Daniel but were not completely sinless.

The centurion’s faith cured his servant. Mary’s faith helped save humankind from sin and death. Her faith served to erase Eve’s universal disobedience and reconcile mankind (Adam) with God, giving us another chance to persevere in faith.

“Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.”
Luke 1, 38
*
“Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”*
Luke 1, 45

“As the human race was subjected to death by the act of a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.”
Irenaeus (A.D. 180)

Try convincing Irenaeus that the curse of Eve applied to our Blessed Mother, the New Eve.

… and what makes Catholics think they have the right answer??** With what concrete evidence and eye witness** are they basing this on?

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans. I will come to you.”
John 14, 16-18

“He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.”
John 16, 13

“The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth”
1 Timothy 3, 15

PAX :harp:

 

[Hercules253]

Mary’s assumption is implied in the Book of Revelation 12:1-5

And a great portent appeared in heaven, a Woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.

The woman in the passage appeared in heaven. How did she get there? She assumed by the power of God.]

Not necessarily. That’s just possible evidence that she is in Heaven and was crowned…not specifically “how” and “by what means” she entered heaven.

 

[guanophore]

However, from 100AD to 130 AD (Mary could not have lived longer than this), we have the early church fathers such as Irenaeus and Ignatius (who got their info from Polycarp who was a direct disciple from Apostle John, who was entrusted by Jesus to take care of Mary meaning he would know about more about Mary than the other apostles) who wrote about Mary.

My question is why did they leave out the coronation and assumption?

Well, you are assuming this is the case. John is the one who describes the Woman who gave birth to the Son wearing a crown of stars.

Why did they not mention many other things, like which books belonged in the Bible, or the nature of the Trinity? You are basicallly saying that, their works, written for specific purposes, should contain everything, whether it was relevant to the purpose or not!

for the first 400 years was like this.

This is like saying, since the NT did not exist at that time, it cannot be valid because it was formed 400 years after Christ.

The fact is that they already wrote about Mary but why couldn’t they spend an extra 10 seconds to write that down if it was such an undeniable truth? Was it on purpose?

The Fathers never imagined that the Scriptures would be separated from the doctrine of the faith committed to the church. To them, the two Sources were strands of the same One Divine Revelation. Had they thought people would try to derive doctrine from the Scripture in isolation from Apostolic Teaching, I am sure they would have been more precise about a lot of things!

I mean, the assumption and coronation is a big event here and also supernatural and rare which identifies Mary as a holy queen.

No, what identified Mary as a holy queen is Jesus. She is called Theotokos because of who He is, not because of something that comes from herself. He is the King of the universe, an she is His mother. That is what makes her the Queen Mother.

Its equivalent to writing everything about Jesus but leaving the resurrection and ascension out.

Not at all. Scripture is clear that we will all be transformed as Mary has been when He comes in the clouds and every eye will see Him. All that we know about Mary is derived from what we know about Christ.

It seems to be more of a theological opinion from men than actual concrete fact that she assumed.

Perhaps you will ask Jesus to reveal to you what you need to know?

 

[guanophore]

Yeah but that’s up to 700 years later…

I’m wondering why the EVERY single early church fathers for the first 400 years omitted the ascension and coronation in all their works. Don’t you think it was at least worthy to be written down?

They were committed to holding the traditions that were committed to them by the Apostles. They never had any expectation that everything should be written down. Why didn’t they write the table of contents of the NT?

I mean, why write something about Mary at all if you're going to include everything else except her ascension and coronation? That's a pretty Big Deal there. That doesn't make any sense. Why not do the same for Jesus and not write anything down for the first 200 years and pass everything orally?

What if every biography of President Lincoln for the first 100 years AFTER he died only included his childhood, family life, early adult years but didn’t include his presidency and assassination? That would be very questionable.

So who witnessed her coronation and ascension?

You are focusing on the wrong parts. Mary’s heavenly elevation is not what is central. What is central is the identity and ministry of Christ. Anyway Mary did not ascend.

 

[Ignatius]

.

Wouldn’t Assuming Mary’s Challenge be more rewarding?

 

[Good_Fella]

Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, There are some of those here who will not have a taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” bible.cc/matthew/16-28.htm

Who may not taste death? Here are some:

1 John 2:17, "The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever".biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:17

John 5:24, "Truly, I tell all of you with certainty, whoever hears what I say and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged, but has passed from death to life.
bible.cc/john/5-24.htm

John 8:51, “Truly, I tell all of you with certainty, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.”
bible.cc/john/8-51.htm

Did Mary qualify to any of those mentioned above? Yes, consider the following:

Luke 1:38, "Then Mary said, "Truly I am the Lord’s servant. Let everything you have said happen to me." Then the angel left her. bible.cc/luke/1-38.htm

Luke 1:30, "And the angel said to her, Have no fear, Mary, for you have God’s approval." bible.cc/luke/1-30.htm

“The Almighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.”
Luke 1, 39

 

[Hercules253]

They were committed to holding the traditions that were committed to them by the Apostles. They never had any expectation that everything should be written down. Why didn’t they write the table of contents of the NT?

And you know this because of what??? answering a question with another question isn’t an answer.
Also if your answer is correct, then why were the church fathers 400 years later debating on what happened to Mary assumption? Wasn’t it passed down? What documents says that “the belief that Mary assumed body and soul was originally passed down from the apostles of Jesus”?? Even the Church realizes there aren’t any so what are they basing it on then? Key words: assumed body and soul.
I know that the Trinity was being argue but it didn’t happen 400 years later, it happened immediately and lasted almost that long before they officially made it into a dogma. But that shows that people were giving it attention. Bad attention is still better than no attention because its still attention. That wasn’t the case for Mary’s assumption. The reason why they didn’t give it any attention is because:

1. They were hiding it on purpose
2. They didn’t know anything about it
3. Or it didn’t happen

Like I said earlier, yes there was no need to write everything down but the fact is that they wrote everything about Mary EXCEPT the assumption. That’s unusual to not write about an important event like that because its worthy of being written down. Its like reading about Lincoln’s bio for the first 100 years after he died and not including his presidency and assassination. Do you see what I mean. Why write anything about him at all in the first place?
If you were an early church father and decided to write that Mary was sinless, God-bearer, and ever-virgin, would you just decide that was enough and be too lazy to spend 10 extra seconds to write about one of the biggest highlights about her? Her assumption? This was the case for EVERY single church father for the first 400 years…everytime…hmmmm…Did they all huddle together and say “lets write stuff down about Mary but leave out the assumption every single time…i mean every single time and tell everyone is succession to promise to do the same”

Now you have to ask the question of why they even wrote about Mary in the first place. They wrote that stuff down to tell the Church officially what the truth and to prevent heresy in the church right? They were laying the foundation in their writings. So why didn’t they include the assumption as a foundation of the truth???

You are focusing on the wrong parts. Mary’s heavenly elevation is not what is central. What is central is the identity and ministry of Christ. Anyway Mary did not ascend.

In other words you don’t know the answer. I’m not focusing on salvation, I’m focusing on the title of this forum which is “Challenging Mary’s Assumption” and sticking to the subject. You’re just avoiding the question.

I also understand that not everything was in the Bible (This is like the third time I mentioned this)…i understand that but I wasn’t talking about the Bible, I was talking about the early church fathers writings…every single one of them for the first 400 years.

Also people here keeping saying not everything was in the Bible but at the same time they keep using Revelation and the Ark of the Covenant verses from the Bible…that’s too funny.

Anyways, John’s Revelation 12 talks about a great sign in Heaven. OK just because it may talk about Mary being in Heaven it DOES NOT talk about “by what means she entered Heaven” and “How” she got into Heaven. Eastern Christians say she died first and then went to Heaven but Catholics say that she went up body and soul and never died…
How can you determine if the Catholics view is true from Rev 12 alone?

Once again, the argument is not if she went to Heaven or Not but “how she entered Heaven”…

So who’s right, did she die first and assumed into Heaven or are Catholics right, that she assumed into Heaven body and soul? And most importantly, how do you know who’s right and with what evidence?

 

[Hercules253]

Guanophore, I wanted to add a few more things if you don’t mind.

What is considered Truth is either met with one or more of the following criteria:
*

1. Its found in Scriptures
2. There is concrete evidence for it (someone could see it or someone saw it)
3. Apostolic tradition passed down (orally or written) from the first apostles
4. Divine Revelation*

Here is the problem with Mary’s assumption of body and soul.
Its not found in Scriptures. There is no concrete evidence for it. There is no reason to believe it was passed down through apostolic tradition because it wasn’t even written out originally for the first 400 years.
Even though the Trinity was debated it started out with confusion and disagreement and then became official as a dogma as people finally agreed. However, that process was the total opposite for Mary’s assumption. If you say it was a oral tradition then why did the Church all agree for the first 400 years and then become confused and in disagreement after bringing the issue up 400 years later?? It then took hundreds and thousands of years to finally agree and make it official? That doesn’t make any sense. Instead of just arguing for thousands of years about Mary’s assumption, then why didn’t they just start off by saying “Look, its from Apostolic tradition passed on from one of the first apostles who told us that Mary assumes into Heaven” and close the argument and save thousands of years of endless debates?
It only leaves us with 2 valid reasons: It didn’t happen at all or the Church had to make up their own theology as time passed to satisfy that question.
Finally if you say it was from Divine Revelation, then who had it, when was it, and where does it say that?

 

[Good_Fella]

Also if your answer is correct, then why were the church fathers 400 years later debating on what happened to Mary assumption?

The assumption was never debated among the Church Fathers. But the Fathers of the eastern and western bishoprics held differing notions of original sin and sanctification in the early centuries. The Scriptures are ambiguous with regard to these concepts. As I said above, the Bible is formally insufficient as a medium of divine revelation. The fragmentation of Protestantism can attest to that. Jesus promised to send the Advocate, the Spirit of truth, to help us gradually comprehend the fullness of divine revelation: not a definitive book. The Bible is only materially sufficient, and so it must be interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition. The question of whether Mary had actually died before her assumption - not the assumption itself which had never been debated among the Church Fathers - belongs to the oral Tradition. Even though the East and West held opposing views on original sin and sanctfication before a resolution was reached, that doesn’t necessarily mean that our belief in the existence of original sin is false. Now that it has been defined and declared a dogma of the Church, we must give our full sacred assent to this teaching. The same can be said for the Assumption of Mary.

It is Sacred Tradition which comprises the deposit of faith together with Sacred Scripture and is infallible. In this tradition of the Church, the patristic Fathers never differed with each other over the belief in the assumption. There are differing non-infallible traditions in the Church with respect to the end of Mary’s life on earth and her burial place. Neither of these traditions, notwithstanding any veracity, belong to the deposit of faith. Meanwhile we do know that by the late 4th century a traditional belief in the Assumption had existed in the Greco-Roman world - a private tradition that had originated in Palestine. This tradition wasn’t very widespread by this time or given sufficient consideration in view of primary matters of a Trinitarian and Christological character that still had to be resolved in the wake of numerous heresies.

Wasn’t it passed down? What documents says that “the belief that Mary assumed body and soul was originally passed down from the apostles of Jesus”?? Even the Church realizes there aren’t any so what are they basing it on then? Key words: assumed body and soul.

The tradition of Mary’s assumption was passed down through a private oral Tradition. It was known by a minority that the apostles had discovered Mary’s tomb in the valley of Josaphat (near Gethsemane) empty three days after she had been interred, and that the apostles believed Jesus had taken his mother body and soul into heaven. Bishop Juvenal, of Jerusalem, related this account to the emperor at the Council of Chalcedon. Since this tradition wasn’t widespread in the early centuries and was oral, we mustn’t expect to find any extant copies of documentation from among just a few that may have survived the great Roman persecutions which destroyed or misplaced most of our early Church literature. Perhaps someday an archeologist will satisfy your curiosity.

I know that the Trinity was being argued but it didn’t happen 400 years later, it happened immediately and lasted almost that long before they officially made it into a dogma. But that shows that people were giving it attention.

That’s because heretics challenged a central tenet of our faith which we profess in the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed. Even today we do not profess belief in the Assumption when reciting these creeds during the liturgy of the Mass. Mary’s unique privilege, by virtue of her divine maternity and sinlessness, has no primary soteriological significance.

… yes there was no need to write everything down but the fact is that they wrote everything about Mary EXCEPT the assumption.

They wrote everything about her that scripturally warrants belief in the assumption.

If you were an early church father and decided to write that Mary was sinless, God-bearer, and ever-virgin, would you just decide that that was enough and be too lazy to spend 10 extra seconds to write about one of the biggest highlights about her? Her assumption?

I would have if I were aware of that early private tradition or if a heretic had dared to publicly deny the assumption as he had Mary’s other unique privileges which were more widely known by oral Tradition and discerned at this time. Mary’s divine maternity, her sinlessness, and chastity would first have to be widely known before belief in the assumption could ever be universally received and assented to. Moreover, if I were wrestling to prevent my sheep from falling victim to the Trinitarian and Christological heresies that were threatening the unity of the Apostolic Catholic faith, I’d have more important things on my mind.

PAX :harp:

 

[Good_Fella]

Here is the problem with Mary’s assumption… Its not found in Scriptures. There is no concrete evidence for it. There is no reason to believe it was passed down through apostolic tradition because it wasn’t even written out originally for the first 400 years.

The actual event of the assumption of Mary wasn’t witnessed firsthand by the apostles as was the resurrection and ascension of Christ. Mary never appeared to the apostles as Christ had to tell them that she was resurrected from the dead by the power of her divine Son. An empty tomb in the valley of Josaphat wasn’t tangible enough for the apostles to record in writing in accordance with what they personally believed, that our Lord himself received his blessed mother in the privacy of her tomb and took her to heaven body and soul. It was in the privacy of her womb that Mary received her Son, but she was alive and present to relate what had happened at the Annunciation to our Lord’s disciples. Still the Assumption of Mary and her Coronation in heaven as Queen Mother are found in the Scriptures, but not as explicitly and literally as you would like them to be. These events are revealed by way of allusion and allegory in a purely spiritual sense. Observe the Gospel of Luke in light of the Old Testament prophecies.

And coming to her the angel said, "Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you."
Luke 1, 28

Daughters of kings are your lovely wives;
a princess arrayed in Ophir’s gold
comes to stand at your right hand.
All glorious is the king’s daughter as she enters,
her raiment threaded with gold;
in embroided apparel she is led to the king.
Psalm 45, 10,14-15

Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
Luke 1, 30-33

Then Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, and the king stood up to meet her and paid her homage. Then he sat down upon his throne, and a throne was provided for the king’s mother, who sat at his right.
1 Kings 2, 19

And the angel said to her in reply, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore* the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God**."*
Luke 1, 35

Behold, my beloved speaks to me;
Arise, make haste my love, my dove,
my beautiful one, and come.
For winter is now past, the rain is
over and gone.
Song of Songs 2, 10-11

You are all fair, my love, and there is no spot in you.
A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse;
a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.
Song of Songs 4, 7,12

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring.”
Genesis 3, 15

Mary said, ** "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord*. Let it be done to me according to your word."*
Luke 1, 38

And lighting up lights they all gathered round about her; and* she went up to a higher place, and commanded silence to be made**. And when all had made their peace, Judith said, “Praise you, the Lord our God, who has not forsaken them that hope in you. And by me his handmaid he has fulfilled his mercy, which he promised to the house of Israel: and he has killed the enemy of his people by my hand this night.”*
Judith 13, 16-18

Then Uzziah said to her: "Blessed are you daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, who guided your blow at the head of the chief of our enemies."
*Judith 13, 18

“Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”*
Luke 1, 42

“You are the glory of Jerusalem,
the surpassing joy of Israel;
you are the splendid boast of our people.
With your own hand you have done all this;
you have done good to Israel,
and God is pleased with what you have wrought.
May you be blessed by the Lord Almighty
forever and ever!”
Judith 15, 9-10

“Behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.
The Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.”
Luke 1, 48-49

:harp:

 

[jlhargus]

What scriptural proof tells you that Mary assumed body and soul into Heaven? If you’re talking about Revelation, its ONLY proof that she went to heaven and was crowned.

JL: Mary’s BODY is the ark of the covenant not her soul. We see in Rv that the ark of the covenant is in heaven. That would be Mary’s body. Also we see she is clothed with the sun, with her feet on the moon and a crown of twelve stars on her head. Rv is describing her BODY from head to toe.

 

[phoenix3212]

1. Apostolic tradition passed down (orally or written) from the first apostles

The successors of the apostles, who are charged with protecting Sacred Tradition (see: Benedict XVI) hold the Assumption to be an infallible truth. I’d rather trust the Church founded by Christ himself than anyone else on matters of faith.

Tradition guided the Church in doctrinal and dogmatic matters during the 400 years before the canon was formalized. No reason to think it can’t define such things today.