Interesting things found in The Assumption Writings

[ChrisRedfield47]

Interesting things found in The Assumption Writings:

I want to share some particular things I notice about the accounts of the Assumption. These are:
1- St John Theologians account (375- 400 A.D.)
2- The account of Melito of Sardis (300 A.D.)
3- The Passing of Mary, which has two different Latin forms (400 A.D.)
These can be found in the following links:
newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm
rosarychurch.net/answers/ap082000.html

Before continuing, I want to say that these are obviously not the Word of God, and as such are not regarded as inspired. Therefore, we cannot regard every single thing these accounts say to be true. None the less, these are the only accounts that at least have some kind of narrative, as to how the Assumption happened. And are in fact a plausible explanation as to how it happened. But, not considered inspirited. Also, if you find any kind of error on the below statements I made, make me know. I am not an expert on these writings. Keep all of this in mind.

The first thing I notice in these writings, are the locations of the respective Apostles are correct (for examples in St. John the Theologian’s account). It was hard for someone to know at that time (400 A.D.) where all the apostles died in their respective geographical locations (communication was not back then what it is today). Usually only Catholic Bishops (like Eusebius of Caesarea) would know this information. The author here would supposedly be John the Apostle if I am correct (also known as the Theologian). John is in Ephesus (where the Apostle preached) and it says:

“And while she was praying, I John came, the Holy Spirit having snatched me up by a cloud from Ephesus, and set me in the place where the mother of my Lord was lying.” And in another place:

“And I John answered and said: Just as I was going in to the holy altar in Ephesus to perform divine service [In other words, Mass], the Holy Spirit says to me, The time of the departure of the mother of your Lord is at hand; go to Bethlehem to salute her. And a cloud of light snatched me up”

Its interesting how the “Cloud” of “light” symbolism is evident here. Evidently being the Holy Spirit. Supposedly, all the apostles were gathered by being “snatched up” by this cloud of light in their respective geographical locations. This presupposes that the writers of these accounts must know the characteristic of this cloud (which is the Holy Spirit). Such being, that it is bright. In Matthew 17:5 it is written: “a bright cloud overshadowed them”, this is of course the Holy Spirit. And we see the same imagery applied in the Protoevangelium of James (120 A.D.), which says about the account of the Birth of Jesus: “and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave” and in another part it says “immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary.”

The writers also seem to be aware that the Holy Spirit “snatches” people up in a cloud as it is stated in Revelation 10:1, Acts 1:9, Revelations 11:12 and elsewhere. There are some things which I must point out that seem very Catholic/Orthodox on these accounts:

1- Melito’s account acknowledges the Holy Trinity. In this account, Peter is said to have said:
“All things didst Thou foreknow before the words of Thy Father, with whom to Thee and the Holy Ghost there belongeth equal Godhead and infinite power.”

2- The account of the passing of Mary, acknowledges Mary as free of sin and as our Mother:

“Then the most blessed Thomas was suddenly brought to the Mount of Olivet, and saw the most blessed body going up to heaven, and began to cry out and say: O holy mother, blessed mother, spotless mother, if I have now found grace because I see you, make your servant joyful through your compassion, because you are going to heaven.”

3- The account of Melito acknowledges Mary as “Immaculate”:
“Then said Peter and the other apostles: ‘Lord, Thou didst choose this Thine handmaid to become Thine immaculate chamber, and us Thy servants for Thy ministry’”

Part 2 below

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Part 2:

4- The account of the Passing of Mary (first Latin form) calls Mary “Queen” at least 5 times. Here are two of the 5:

“In that time before the Lord came to His passion, and among many words which the mother asked of the Son, she began to ask Him about her own departure, addressing Him as follows:— O most dear Son, I pray Your holiness, that when my soul goes out of my body, Thou let me know on the third day before; and do Thou, beloved Son, with Your angels, receive it. Then He received the prayer of His beloved mother, and said to her: O palace and temple of the living God, O blessed mother, O queen of all saints, and blessed above all women, before you carried me in your womb, I always guarded you, and caused you to be fed daily with my angelic food, as you know, how can I desert you, after you have carried me, and nourished me, and brought me down in flight into Egypt, and endured many hardships for me?” (The Passing of Mary, first Latin form)

“Then at the third hour there were great thunders, and rains, and lightnings, and tribulation, and an earthquake, while queen Mary was standing in her chamber. John the evangelist and apostle was suddenly brought from Ephesus, and entered the chamber of the blessed Mary, and saluted her, and said to her: Hail, Mary, full of grace! The Lord be with you. And she answered: Thanks to God. And raising herself up, she kissed Saint John. And the blessed Mary said to him: O my dearest son, why have you left me at such a time, and hast not paid heed to the commands of your Master, to take care of me, as He commanded you while He was hanging on the cross? And he asked pardon with bended knee. Then the blessed Mary gave him her benediction, and again kissed him.”(The Passing of Mary, first Latin form)

5- The account of the passing of Mary acknowledges the Holy Mass. Further, it talks about an ancient relic which one Orthodox church preserves today, called “The Cincture of the Holy Theotokos”:

“Then the blessed Thomas told them how he was singing mass in India— he still had on his sacerdotal robes. He, not knowing the word of God, had been brought to the Mount of Olivet, and saw the most holy body of the blessed Mary going up into heaven, and prayed her to give him a blessing. She heard his prayer, and threw him her girdle which she had about her. And the apostles seeing the **belt **which they had put about her, glorifying God, all asked pardon of the blessed Thomas, on account of the benediction which the blessed Mary had given him, and because he had seen the most holy body going up into heaven.”

6- The account of Melito, and that of the passing of Mary (second Latin form) acknowledge Peter’s Primacy over the rest of the apostles.
“Then, accordingly, the apostles laid the holy body on the bier, and said to each other: Who is to carry this palm before her bier? Then John said to Peter: Thou, who hast precedence of us in the apostleship, should carry this palm before her couch.” (Passing of Mary, second Latin form).

However, Peter according to this account, lets John carry the mentioned palm arguing that John was the only virgin among the apostles (when they were chosen) and because Jesus entrusted him his Mother. But John clearly acknowledges Peter’s primacy and lets him decide. Peter’s decision, is that of John carrying it.

7- The account of the Passing of Mary (second Latin form) acknowledges Mary as the Tabernacle. An enraged Jew says in paragraph 11:
“Behold, the tabernacle of him who disturbed us and all our race, what glory has it received?”

8- The account of St. John Theologian acknowledges Mary as Mother of God and as Ever Virgin Mary:
“And at this miracle which had come to pass all the people of the Jews who beheld it cried out: Verily, He that was brought forth by you is the true God, O mother of God, ever-virgin Mary.”

Part 3 below

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

9- The account of St. John theologian makes a parallel between the Ark of the OT, and the Ark of the NT (Mary being the New).

In 2 Samuel 6:6-7, Uzzah touched the Ark of the Covenant. In doing so, God struck him down, and Uzzah died. Well In the account of St. John Theologian, an enraged Jew, touched the couch in which Mary was being carried by the Apostles (seems like an allusion to the processions that the Levites did with the Ark in the OT). The account in brief says:

“And, behold, while they were carrying her, a certain well-born Hebrew, Jephonias by name, running against the body, put his hands upon the couch; and, behold, an angel of the Lord by invisible power, with a sword of fire, cut off his two hands from his shoulders, and made them hang about the couch, lifted up in the air…And Jephonias himself, when Peter ordered him, that the wonderful things of God might be showed forth, stood up behind the couch, and cried out: ‘Holy Mary, who brought forth Christ who is God, have mercy upon me’. And Peter turned and said to him: In the name of Him who was born of her, your hands which have been taken away from you, will be fixed on again. And immediately, at the word of Peter, the hands hanging by the couch of the Lady came, and were fixed on Jephonias.”

In the OT, Uzzah died. But here this Jew is forgiven, and his hands are “fixed” to him. The first latin form has the same event, but just narrated a little bit different. The person here (Jephonias) is the same one.

10- These accounts mention the “flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake” mentioned in Revelation 11:19 (just one verse before the Woman of Rev 12:1 is described):

“Then at the third hour there were great thunders, and rains, and lightnings, and tribulation, and an earthquake, while queen Mary was standing in her chamber” (Passing of Mary First Latin form)

The second Latin form and Melito’s account mention only the Earthquake. The event described is an allusion to the “Woman” in Revelation 12:1. In Melito’s account, Jesus calls Mary “Woman”:

“Now this woman did I choose out of the tribes of Israel by the commandment of My Father, to dwell in her.” (Melito’s account of the Assumption of Mary).

There are 3 conclusions which I make from the Assumption narratives (which again, we do not hold as Word of God):

1- These writers are not any regular people. They are highly knowledgeable. Specially, talking about those dates. Clearly, the writers had Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition present in their minds. They also knew the locations of the apostles, and use high and rich symbolism. Whether what they wrote is true or false, this doesn’t take away the fact that they do show much knowledge.
2- The belt which is a relic of these accounts, currently exists. It is said to cure women which suffer of infertility, giving them fertility. Here is a reference to it:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincture_of_the_Theotokos
3- There are plenty of dogmas found in these documents, that are nothing else other than Apostolic. Some of them weren’t even defined completely yet by their time. At least not with the clear picture we have today. This gives a lot of credibility to these accounts on the Assumption, which is like the climax here.

I must be clear, that the Catholic Church does not teach that all the events in these accounts (just as how they are stated in the narratives) did actually happen. We do teach the Assumption, but the events described here are not something we must believe. But, these accounts are a plausible explanations of how the events could have went.
Thoughts?