Ex Cathredra Teachings

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

1. When did the interest in relics begin? Evidence.

This seems to have spuing from the Christian’s earliest days, when they actually hid and worshipped God within catacombs to avoid persecution. Consequently, there is ample evidence of Christian tombs throughout history.

From the time of the apostles to the first persecution of Domitian, Christian tombs, whether above or below ground, were built with perfect impunity and in defiance of public opinion. We have been accustomed to consider the catacombs of Rome as crypts plunged in total darkness, and penetrating the bowels of the earth at unfathomable depths. This is, in a certain measure, the case with those catacombs, or sections of catacombs, which were excavated in times of persecution; but not with those belonging to the first century. The cemetery of these members of Domitian’s family who had embraced the gospel — such as Flavius Clemens, Flavia Domitilla, Plautilla, Petronilla, and others — reveals a bold example of publicity.

So, to be fair, I would say that an interest in relics was actually very deeply interwoven into the Christian faith from the very beginning. The tombstones, inscribed as they were with Christian effigies, played a powerful role in the continuum of the Catholic faith, especially during times of terrible persecution.

1. What evidece do you have that relics of mary did not exist in the early centuries before the Assumption legend was developed?

Well, we do have ample evidence of the Christian faith worshipping within catacombs from the earliest times. Certainly, if Mary had a tomb, it would be considered a place of holiness where people could worship safely, just like all the other inscriptons we have verified archeologically. Nonetheless, we don’t appear to have any record of any tombs assigned to her if I recall correctly.

I’d have to look into this more.

Consequently, by the end of the fourth century burials in catacombs became rare, and still more between 400 and 410. They were apparently given up altogether after 410. On August 10, 410, Rome was stormed by Alaric, and the suburbs devastated. This fatal year marks the end of a great and glorious era (p324) in Christian epigraphy, and in the history of catacombs the end of the work of the fossores.

Interestingly enough, it appears to be around this time in Church History that thoughts concerning some kind of supernatural elevation for the Mother of God appear to surface. For example, Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11).

Nonetheless, after 410 we see the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary within 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, however, 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.

1. What is the earliest evidence you can document that belief in the Assumption existed?

Perhaps 1 Thessalonians 4:17 alludes to it, since Mary’s Assumption is indeed a perfect preview of the the Great Resurrection (alive or dead) that all believers will participate in on the last day. Indeed, she may have been someone who was still alive and left and caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Or perhaps she was deceased after all prior to her assumption into heaven. Either way, she is also indeed bodilly alive with the Lord forever too.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I’d have to look into this more.

As a follow up here’s Father Clifford Stevens’ thoughts on the Assumption of Mary.

First this…

That belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves. What was clear from the beginning was that there were no relics of Mary to be venerated, and that an empty tomb stood on the edge of Jerusalem near the site of her death. That location also soon became a place of pilgrimage. (Today, the Benedictine Abbey of the Dormition of Mary stands on the spot.)

And this too…

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven.”

This seems to have come after 410, during Council of Chalcedon in 451, approximately 40 years after the fatal year which marks a distinct ending of marvelous Christian epigraphy.

Nonetheless, I find the lack of relics for Mary, noting the historically verified practices of the early Christians in association with tombs, really does make a powerful argument in favor of something extra-ordinary having happened to her body.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

1. When did the interest in relics begin? Evidence.

The Martyrdom of Polycarp is probably the earliest account of Christians putting importance on the remains of dead saints and martyrs. He was martyred in 86AD.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrdom_of_Polycarp

We can see a development even in the time period that the new testament was written where the focus started shifting away from the expectation of an immediate return of Christ, to preparing for a long wait. The importance of Mary and the Saints only became understood when the Christians realized that generations were going to pass while they were waiting for Christ to return.

1. What evidece do you have that relics of mary did not exist in the early centuries before the Assumption legend was developed?

It’s hard to prove a negative… can you find any reference to the existence of relics from Mary?

1. What is the earliest evidence you can document that belief in the Assumption existed?

You’ve said that there aren’t any surviving writings that mention it explicitly until the 4th century, so I’m taking your word for it. But we both know that Christian writings from before the 4th century are scarce, so the lack of writing about the Assumption isn’t conclusive.

The ‘lack of relics’ argument seems worthy of consideration to me, and I think if you’re honest you should at least consider it. I’m not saying its bullet-proof evidence, but its something a historian would have to consider when investigating how far back the idea of the Assumpton goes.

Would you at least agree that it’s something a neutral historian would consider?

 

[Little_Les]

The Martyrdom of Polycarp is probably the earliest account of Christians putting importance on the remains of dead saints and martyrs. He was martyred in 86AD.

No. He was thought to have been age 86 when he was martyred.

“The Martyrdom of Polycarp is one of the works of the Apostolic Fathers, and as such is one of the very few genuine such writings from the actual age of the persecutions. The work details Polycarp’s death at the age of 86 years old, at the hands of the Romans, in the second century AD. It is among the first recorded Acts of the Martyrs.” (Wikipedia)

The Catholic Encyclopedia agrees: St. Polycarp, Martyr (A.D. 69-155).

So he died about 155 A.D. I’d agree that his remains seem to be the first recorded regarding relics.

 

[Little_Les]

We can see a development even in the time period that the new testament was written where the focus started shifting away from the expectation of an immediate return of Christ, to preparing for a long wait. The importance of Mary and the Saints only became understood when the Christians realized that generations were going to pass while they were waiting for Christ to return.
QUOTE]

Yes. The immance of the second coming during Jesus’ generation was stated by both Jesus (if we believe Matthew and Mark) and Paul in 1 Thessolonians.

But they were in error.

 

[Little_Les]

You’ve said that there aren’t any surviving writings that mention it explicitly until the 4th century, so I’m taking your word for it. But we both know that Christian writings from before the 4th century are scarce, so the lack of writing about the Assumption isn’t conclusive.

The ‘lack of relics’ argument seems worthy of consideration to me, and I think if you’re honest you should at least consider it. I’m not saying its bullet-proof evidence, but its something a historian would have to consider when investigating how far back the idea of the Assumpton goes.

Would you at least agree that it’s something a neutral historian would consider?

No. Unless he was very third rate. It is rather improbable that there was any belief in the fact of the Assumption but, not only was there a total lack of reporting, but a 4th century Church father said he knew nothing about it.

Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11).”

“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…”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

No. He was thought to have been age 86 when he was martyred.

“The Martyrdom of Polycarp is one of the works of the Apostolic Fathers, and as such is one of the very few genuine such writings from the actual age of the persecutions. The work details Polycarp’s death at the age of 86 years old, at the hands of the Romans, in the second century AD. It is among the first recorded Acts of the Martyrs.” (Wikipedia)

The Catholic Encyclopedia agrees: St. Polycarp, Martyr (A.D. 69-155).

So he died about 155 A.D. I’d agree that his remains seem to be the first recorded regarding relics.

Oops, sorry…

 

[Little_Les]

You’ve said that there aren’t any surviving writings that mention it explicitly until the 4th century, so I’m taking your word for it. But we both know that Christian writings from before the 4th century are scarce, so the lack of writing about the Assumption isn’t conclusive.

QUOTE]

Are you serious?

Early Church Fathers Special Catholic Edition
logos.com/products/details/631?googleads&gclid=CP33no_l8I8CFQl0gwodmk23MQ

Ante-Nicene Fathers
Volume 1: Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Inrenaeus
Volume 2: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria
Volume 3: Tertullian
Volume 4: Tertullian (IV), Minucius Felix, Origen
Volume 5: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix
Volume 6: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius
Volume 7: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, and Liturgies
Volume 8: Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementina, Aprocryphal Gospels and Acts, Syriac Documents
Volume 10: Gospel of Peter, Diatessaron, Testament of Abraham, Epistles of Clement, Origen and Miscellaneous Works
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series
Volume 1: Augustine: Prolegomena, Confessions, Letters
Volume 2: Augustine: City of God, Christian Doctrine
Volume 3: Augustine: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises
Volume 4: Augustine: Anti-Manichaean, Anti-Donatist Writings
Volume 5: Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings
Volume 6: Augustine: Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels
Volume 7: Augustine: Gospel of John, First Epistle of John, Soliloquies
Volume 8: Augustine: Expositions on the Psalms
Volume 9: Chrysostom: On the Priesthood, Ascetic Treatises, Select Homilies and Letters, Homilies on the Statues
Volume 10: Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew
Volume 11: Chrysostom: Homilies of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans
Volume 12: Chrysostom: Homilies on Corinthians, 1st and 2nd
Volume 13: Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon
Volume 14: Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Hebrews
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series
Volume 1: Eusebius Pamphilus
Volume 2: Socrates Scholasticus, Hermias Sozomen
Volume 3: Theodoret, Jerome and Gennadius, Rufinus
Volume 4: Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria
Volume 5: Gregory of Nyssa
Volume 6: St. Jerome

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Yes, I have a set of the early church fathers. But most of it is from after the council of Nicea in the 4th century. Most of what you listed below is 4th century or later.

Neil_Anthony;2998580:

You’ve said that there aren’t any surviving writings that mention it explicitly until the 4th century, so I’m taking your word for it. But we both know that Christian writings from before the 4th century are scarce, so the lack of writing about the Assumption isn’t conclusive.

QUOTE]

Are you serious?

Early Church Fathers Special Catholic Edition
logos.com/products/details/631?googleads&gclid=CP33no_l8I8CFQl0gwodmk23MQ

Ante-Nicene Fathers
Volume 1: Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Inrenaeus
Volume 2: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria
Volume 3: Tertullian
Volume 4: Tertullian (IV), Minucius Felix, Origen
Volume 5: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix
Volume 6: Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius and Minor Writers, Methodius, Arnobius
Volume 7: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, and Liturgies
Volume 8: Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementina, Aprocryphal Gospels and Acts, Syriac Documents
Volume 10: Gospel of Peter, Diatessaron, Testament of Abraham, Epistles of Clement, Origen and Miscellaneous Works
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series
Volume 1: Augustine: Prolegomena, Confessions, Letters
Volume 2: Augustine: City of God, Christian Doctrine
Volume 3: Augustine: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises
Volume 4: Augustine: Anti-Manichaean, Anti-Donatist Writings
Volume 5: Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings
Volume 6: Augustine: Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels
Volume 7: Augustine: Gospel of John, First Epistle of John, Soliloquies
Volume 8: Augustine: Expositions on the Psalms
Volume 9: Chrysostom: On the Priesthood, Ascetic Treatises, Select Homilies and Letters, Homilies on the Statues
Volume 10: Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew
Volume 11: Chrysostom: Homilies of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans
Volume 12: Chrysostom: Homilies on Corinthians, 1st and 2nd
Volume 13: Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon
Volume 14: Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Hebrews
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series
Volume 1: Eusebius Pamphilus
Volume 2: Socrates Scholasticus, Hermias Sozomen
Volume 3: Theodoret, Jerome and Gennadius, Rufinus
Volume 4: Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria
Volume 5: Gregory of Nyssa
Volume 6: St. Jerome

 

[Little_Les]

Yes, I have a set of the early church fathers. But most of it is from after the council of Nicea in the 4th century. Most of what you listed below is 4th century or later.
Little Les;2998680:
No. Writers such as Tertullian, Oregin, Clement, Justin Martyr,and Ignatious of Antioch wrote earlier. And yet with them even among the later writers, there still is no reference to any Assumption. That’s because the legend doesn’t appear until the late fourth or early fifth century just like the Catholic Encyclopedia reports. So clearly the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers reported nothing of it. The folklore hadn’t been created yet.

That’s the point.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Writers such as Tertullian, Oregin, Clement, Justin Martyr,and Ignatious of Antioch wrote earlier. And yet with them even among the later writers, there still is no reference to any Assumption. That’s because the legend doesn’t appear until the late fourth or early fifth century just like the Catholic Encyclopedia reports. So clearly the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers reported nothing of it. The folklore hadn’t been created yet.

That’s the point.

That’s a good point. Maybe I should convert to Orthodox.

 

[tdgesq]

That’s a good point. Maybe I should convert to Orthodox.

It wouldn’t do you any good. The Orthodox also believe in the Dormition of the Theotokos.

 

[Little_Les]

It wouldn’t do you any good. The Orthodox also believe in the Dormition of the Theotokos.

Yes, you’d be better off sticking with the western Church. The Assumption story got going there in the 6th century, first through
St. Gregory of Tours Born in 538 or 539 at Arverni, the modern Clermont-Ferrand; died at Tours, 17 Nov., in 593 or 594.

On the other hand, the Domation story didn’t get started in the east until about the seventh century through:

St. Modestus of Jerusalem, In the early part of the seventh century, Modestus, Bishop of Jerusalem, located the passing of Our Lady on Mount Sion,

St. Andrew of Crete (Sometimes called Andreas in English biography), theologian, homilist, hymnographer, b. at Damascus about the middle of the seventh century; d. 4 July, 740 (or 720),

St. John Damascene Born at Damascus, about 676; died some time between 754 and 787.

This is admitted in the Catholic Encyclopedia. If there are earlier reports especially about the Assumption or Dormation in the east, I’d like to know the source with a reference.

 

[Little_Les]

And from Munificentissimus, there is this,

1. “…Consequently it seems impossible to think of her, the one who conceived Christ, brought him forth, nursed him with her milk, held him in her arms, and clasped him to her breast, as being apart from him in body, even though not in soul, after this earthly life. Since our Redeemer is the Son of Mary, he could not do otherwise, as the perfect observer of God’s law, than to honor, not only his eternal Father, but also his most beloved Mother. And, since it was within his power to grant her this great honor, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that he really acted in this way.”

This is another of those, “Jesus could have, he should have, therefore he must have” arguments.

 

[Little_Les]

Perhaps 1 Thessalonians 4:17 alludes to it, since Mary’s Assumption is indeed a perfect preview of the the Great Resurrection (alive or dead) that all believers will participate in on the last day. Indeed, she may have been someone who was still alive and left and caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Or perhaps she was deceased after all prior to her assumption into heaven. Either way, she is also indeed bodilly alive with the Lord forever too.

That’s really a stretch, isn’t it? Perhaps you would want to argue that Gensis “alludes to it” too. After all, it mentions a woman.

 

[Little_Les]

Little Les;2996294:

Wow.

You are in essence saying that, if it’s not in the Bible, it didn’t happen. By that rationale:

1. Jesus never skinned a knee when he was a child.
2. Jesus only ate a few times – those which were reported by Scripture.
3. The Apostles never spoke to Jesus, except for those moments which are recorded.

…and so on.

Please note that, although the Gospels may record only one visit to the tomb, they do not say there was only one visit.

Peace,
Dante

The gospels are suppose to report significant events.

The gospels don’t say Peter didn’t have a halo either. .Based on that, would you argue that he did?

 

[Little_Les]

Mr. Ex Nihil posted:

As a follow up here’s Father Clifford Stevens’ thoughts on the Assumption of Mary.

Quote:
That belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves. What was clear from the beginning was that there were no relics of Mary to be venerated, and that an empty tomb stood on the edge of Jerusalem near the site of her death. That location also soon became a place of pilgrimage. (Today, the Benedictine Abbey of the Dormition of Mary stands on the spot.) "<<

Unless Fr. Stevens can present any evidence earlier than the 4th or 5th century that the belief in the Assumption existed, his assertion is merely an assertion without evidence.

In short, his unfounded opinion.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Ah, yes. The old fallback “It’s a mystery” explanation. I remember it from Catholic elementary school. To be used whenever Sister didn’t have an answer to questions raised in catechism.

What religion are you now?

 

[Little_Les]

What religion are you now?

Still Catholic.

However, “When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.”

Many don’t.

 

[EphelDuath]

Psalms 131:8. “Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified.”