Mary buried in Ephesus?

[NotWorthy]

Well, in answer to your never hearing about the tradition is another case of cleaning up what the laity hear and read to support a specific doctrine of the church. The traditions that led to the doctrine on the assumption were really gnostic traditions that held popular sway and eventually permeated the church, including the reformers for that matter. The traditions of England are ancient and Augustin, sent by Gregory to bring the Catholic Church of England into conformity with their traditions…placement of Easter on calandar, gregorian chant etc, attests the the longevity of the English Catholic Church. Their most sacred place was Glastonbury. You can read a lot about on the web, esp. Joseph of Arimathia. I am basing my assertion on a book called The Traditions of Glastonbury E. Raymond Capt. There are many other books out there that make the case. The fact is before it was common for any church north of the Mediterrian to be dedicated to St. Mary we have an ancient chapel, St. Mary at the Abby in Glastonbury believed to be built over the house she lived in and where she was buried. It was the desire of many in England to be buried near her, as well as Joseph of Arimathia. When Joseph returned to Britain with Mary and other disciples he brought his staff of Hawthorn, planted the staff and it grew the famous Silverthorn tree that blooms at Christmas and again in the spring. He also brought two cruets, one with the sweat, the other with the blood of our blessed Lord, Jesus Christ. as well as the Chalice of the Last Supper…

Is there any legitimate source that verifies that Joseph of Arimithea and Mary ended up in England. The Bible attests that John took Mary into his home, doesn’t it?

 

[NotWorthy]

By the way, when you mentioned Augustin, were you referring to Augustine? If so, when did he claim that Jesus was in Britian?

 

[jmcrae]

By the way, when you mentioned Augustin, were you referring to Augustine? If so, when did he claim that Jesus was in Britian?

Were the Romans themselves even in Britain yet, at that time?

But even if they were, I am having a hard time imagining the mother of our Lord following the Romans to Britain. It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[motstraumen]

By the way, when you mentioned Augustin, were you referring to Augustine? If so, when did he claim that Jesus was in Britian?[/QUOT

Yes, St. Augustine of Cantebury, apostle to the English, as opposed to the already established faith amoung the Britains or British ie Celts of Western Britain… He does not refer to Jesus being in Britain although local tradition of the Celts of Southwest Britain claim that Joseph did bring young Jesus to England in those “missing years” 12-30, on one of his trips there to trade for tin. Capt also points to a tradition that both Mary and young Jesus came with Joseph and lived in a small wattle and mud house built by Christ. Other traditions say that Joseph returned much later, in the sixties a.d. with twelve or eleven disciples of Philip. This house later when Joseph and the 12 came was rebuilt and Mary lived there, and later after her death became her resting place as well as then Mary’s Chapel. This was built over in later centuries with a stone structure conforming to the outside of this “Ancient Church” and is claimed to be the first above ground church in Christendom. Later in devotion St. Patrick came back from Ireland and was Abbot at Glastonbury, gathering the hermits into a community, and is buried there. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06579a.htm

Here is a page from the online Catholic Encyclopedia. Legend/tradition-truth/faith…mystery of the Church that as with all mysteries must be contemplated.
Is there things to be disputed? yes, of course…I remember my visit to Malta and my bringing up of an Island of the coast of Greece Milete also claiming to be the place of Paul’s apperance. My Maltese hosts were aghast, they had never heard of such a thing…We have selective memory and sometimes selective desire to wade into controversial issues that have become part of our “faith story”. God’s Peace.

 

[BRZ]

I would like to see any legitimate sources you have on Mary because I don’t believe that for the first 700 years that everyone believed Mary was buried and her body was on the Earth. Nor have I seen anything that implies that.

 

[jmcrae]

NotWorthy;5176432:

By the way, when you mentioned Augustin, were you referring to Augustine? If so, when did he claim that Jesus was in Britian?

Yes, St. Augustine of Cantebury, apostle to the English, as opposed to the already established faith amoung the Britains or British ie Celts of Western Britain… He does not refer to Jesus being in Britain although local tradition of the Celts of Southwest Britain claim that Joseph did bring young Jesus to England in those “missing years” 12-30, on one of his trips there to trade for tin.

There are considerable distances involved, not to mention a lot of water to cross over. Not even the Romans travelled to Britain very easily, and they didn’t have the same distance to travel - and they had horses and boats. You are saying that Joseph and the Child Jesus walked/swam all the way from Nazareth to Glastonbury (nearly 1500 miles), and back again, once a year for the tin trade?

Capt also points to a tradition that both Mary and young Jesus came with Joseph and lived in a small wattle and mud house built by Christ.

Baby Jesus built his own house, while still in the arms of Mary?

 

[NotWorthy]

Were the Romans themselves even in Britain yet, at that time?

But even if they were, I am having a hard time imagining the mother of our Lord following the Romans to Britain. It makes absolutely no sense.

I can’t vouch for the Romans, but the Phoenicians evidently had.

 

[NotWorthy]

What about John’s Gospel where **John **claims that **John **took Mary into John’s home? Does anyone have anything more reliable than that which says that Mary went to England instead?

 

[hosemonkey]

Our Blessed Mother is in heaven, body and soul. If she were anywhere else, the Church would have known about it and venerated her properly there. Anything else is protestant nonsense.

 

[motstraumen]

Our Blessed Mother is in heaven, body and soul. If she were anywhere else, the Church would have known about it and venerated her properly there. Anything else is protestant nonsense.

Well, it is amazing that anything that points to questioning an adiapora doctrine is considered protestant nonsense. The average Catholic has been cut off from a good healthy debate for so long that it is laughable. I am not saying that the tradition of Mary going to England is fact, and you cannot say that her living in Ephesus is fact or for that matter Jerusalem. All of this extra-biblical stuff is based on tradition! I am sorry if that hurts your feelings and it is very sad if it hurts your faith. Questioning is the gift that Jesus Christ gave to his church. Above when it is mentioned that a child in his mother’s arms built a house…I would hope that at 13 or 14 (the age of manhood for a Jew, especially in this time period) would not still be in his mother’s arms. I am just pointing out this tradition as equally valid as anything else the ancient church grabbed on to. The protestant leaders, Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, believed in the assumption of Mary and the perpetual virginity of Mary, but again for Protestants it is an adiapora. As to whether in the ancient world it was possible for a Jew to travel to England the respondant who brought up Phoenicians is spot on. The Phoenicians were excellent seamen and the tradition says that it was Joseph’s connection to this other (neighbor to Judean semites) semitic group that brought him to England. Roman historians of that period attest to their (the phonecians) sailing beyond the straits of Gilbraltor and making their way to britannica. As to whether Romans ever got there, yes they did and they conquered much of the Island…Remember Hadrian’s wall in the North of England. Please, do some of your own searching and you will find supporting material. Remember, it is ok to question.

 

[motstraumen]

What about John’s Gospel where **John **claims that **John **took Mary into John’s home? Does anyone have anything more reliable than that which says that Mary went to England instead?

I invite you all to look at this site: cabiz.net/heartlink/joseph_of_arimathea.htm
Yes, the above point about John is a valid point, although this is what Capt writes: pages 50 of The Traditions of Glastonbury: " Jesus definitely entrusted His mother to the care of John but the request did not necessarily mean that John would see her safel provided for. In any case, it seems quite reasonable to expect John to turn to Joseph of Arinmathea for the necessary prtection. One Early document (Magna Glastoniensis Tabula, at Naworth Castle) bears this out. It reads: “St. John, while evangelizing Ephesus, made Joseph Paranymphos.” (meaning Guardian)…According to one Tradition of Glastonbury, after Mary’s death, a building of wattle construction, sixty feet in length and twenty-six feet wide (following the pattern of the Wilderness Tabernacle) was built over her home. This building became known as the “Lignea basilica” or the “Vetusta Eccesia” and the Ealdechurche" or “Old Church.”…the exisence of a mud and wattle church at Glaston bury is historically proven by two royal Charters which are still extant. both were actuall signe in the “Lignea Basilica” one by King Ina, in A.D. 704, and the other by King Cnut in A.D. 1032…" You can find this little book in many libraries and via used book shops I invite you to read it yourself for the proofs that it refers to which again are just as valid as the 7 and 8th centuries proofs that the Roman Church grabs onto.

 

[motstraumen]

I would like to see any legitimate sources you have on Mary because I don’t believe that for the first 700 years that everyone believed Mary was buried and her body was on the Earth. Nor have I seen anything that implies that.

What can we say as legitimate? The gnostic sources used by the medieval church to support the doctrine of assumption and immaculate conception promulgated ex cathedra in the 1870s and 1950s? It is very subjective when it comes to the use of tradition. That is what I am trying to point out. The source material is there and I invite you to look at E. Raymond Capt’s book to see these or do a search on the internet. Tradition is very important, but to create absolute doctrine from it is shakey ground. Do I require my Lutheran members to adhere to my reading of the tradition of Glastonbury for their salvation? No! Do I require them to adhere to every piece of utterance that Luther spouted to be good Lutherans? No! Must they adhere to Christ alone and him crucified? Yes, that is based not only on tradition but is supported by Scripture. Anything that requires them to go beyond them is adiaphora and actually is dangerous as Paul points out to the circumsion party. Peace.

 

[jam070406]

What can we say as legitimate?

How bout the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom? 4th Century Saint.

“In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.” [Byzantine Liturgy, Troparion, Feast of the Dormition, August 15th.]"

The gnostic sources used by the medieval church to support the doctrine of assumption and immaculate conception promulgated ex cathedra in the 1870s and 1950s?

How about the orthodox teachings of the Early Church Fathers?

Tradition is very important, but to create absolute doctrine from it is shakey ground.

Yes, Tradition is very important, as is obediance to that Tradition.
Absolute doctrine is not created, it is revealed by God. Those that deny Divinely revealed Truth are on shakey ground.

Do I require my Lutheran members to adhere to my reading of the tradition of Glastonbury for their salvation? No!

Doesn’t quite carry the weight of the doctrine of the Assumption which Pius XII stated:

"Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death. [LG 59; cf. Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (1950): DS 3903; cf. Rev 19:16.]

Do I require them to adhere to every piece of utterance that Luther spouted to be good Lutherans? No!

Good! Alot was heresy! Especially the ideas of Sola Scriptura & Sola Fide.

Must they adhere to Christ alone and him crucified? Yes, that is based not only on tradition but is supported by Scripture.

Yes, like obeying Christ’s commandments & Church, Loving your neighbor & enemies, performing works, the sacraments…

Anything that requires them to go beyond them is adiaphora and actually is dangerous as Paul points out to the circumsion party. Peace.

Good thing Christ left an infallible guide, the Catholic Church!

 

[hosemonkey]

Well, it is amazing that anything that points to questioning an adiapora doctrine is considered protestant nonsense.

The dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary has been believed by Catholics for millenia and is NOT an adiapora doctrine. This doctrine was solemnly and infallibly affirmed in 1950. We do not question an infallibly revealed truth. Protestants have never been able to come up with a plausible explaination for the absence of a tomb for Our Blessed Mother, nor for a place of veneration, which would naturally have grown up over her resting place, had there been one. Rest assured, that even had she died in England, her final resting place would have been venerated. There is no explicit statement in the New Testament that proclaims Mary’s Assumption. This is not surprising because it is likely that most of the New Testament was written before Mary was assumed. Although if one looks in the book of Revelation she is described as being in heaven. “A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.” (Rev 12:1). Scholars throughout the ages have interpreted this passage as referring to Mary’s assumption.
The Bible gives three instances of people being assumed into heaven. The first example is Enoch. “Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him” (Gen 5:24). St. Paul tells us in (Heb 11:5) that Enoch did not experience death and he was not found, because God had taken him. The prophet Elijah is our second case history. "As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. " (2 Kgs 2:11). Moses is our third and final example of assumption. We are told in the (Deut 34:6) that Moses was buried but no one has ever known the location. Next, Michael,the archangel, contended with the devil for the body of Moses (Jude 9), and last Moses appeared with Christ during the transfiguration. “Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with Him” (Mt 17:3). The Biblical evidence is overwhelming that holy people have been assumed into heaven.
So don’t you think that Mary, the favorite daughter of the Father, the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and the Mother of God would have been worthy of being assumed into heaven? The answer is a resounding yes! Mary experienced the fruits of Jesus’ redemption and was bodily assumed into heaven by our Lord, and we Catholics celebrate this glorious event every year on August 15th.
I regard these protestant speculations as being on a par with the Da Vinci code or lost treasures of the templars, interesting, but merely pop speculative pseudo-history.

 

[rtibs]

The dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary has been believed by Catholics for millenia and is NOT an adiapora doctrine. This doctrine was solemnly and infallibly affirmed in 1950. We do not question an infallibly revealed truth. Protestants have never been able to come up with a plausible explaination for the absence of a tomb for Our Blessed Mother, nor for a place of veneration, which would naturally have grown up over her resting place, had there been one. Rest assured, that even had she died in England, her final resting place would have been venerated. There is no explicit statement in the New Testament that proclaims Mary’s Assumption. This is not surprising because it is likely that most of the New Testament was written before Mary was assumed. Although if one looks in the book of Revelation she is described as being in heaven. “A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.” (Rev 12:1). Scholars throughout the ages have interpreted this passage as referring to Mary’s assumption.
The Bible gives three instances of people being assumed into heaven. The first example is Enoch. “Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him” (Gen 5:24). St. Paul tells us in (Heb 11:5) that Enoch did not experience death and he was not found, because God had taken him. The prophet Elijah is our second case history. "As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. " (2 Kgs 2:11). Moses is our third and final example of assumption. We are told in the (Deut 34:6) that Moses was buried but no one has ever known the location. Next, Michael,the archangel, contended with the devil for the body of Moses (Jude 9), and last Moses appeared with Christ during the transfiguration. “Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with Him” (Mt 17:3). The Biblical evidence is overwhelming that holy people have been assumed into heaven.
So don’t you think that Mary, the favorite daughter of the Father, the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and the Mother of God would have been worthy of being assumed into heaven? The answer is a resounding yes! Mary experienced the fruits of Jesus’ redemption and was bodily assumed into heaven by our Lord, and we Catholics celebrate this glorious event every year on August 15th.
I regard these protestant speculations as being on a par with the Da Vinci code or lost treasures of the templars, interesting, but merely pop speculative pseudo-history.

 

[hosemonkey]

Thank you, but the matter will never be put to rest as long as protestants and other skeptics do not accord to Our blessed mother the veneration and honor that she deserves. They can believe in UFOs and the power of crystals and all sorts of other nonsense, but cannot believe that Jesus Christ Himself, the King of the Universe, could love His mother so much that He would save her from the darkness of the grave and take her to Himself as a Mother and intercessor for we poor banished children of Eve. She, who alone was conceived without sin, the proudest boast of our flawed humanity. I have two mothers in heaven, the woman who gave me life and my Holy Mother, who intercedes for me before her Holy Son, who can deny her nothing. I feel sorry for those who reject this wonderful gift of Jesus’ holy mother to suffering mankind.

 

[Holly3278]

I guarantee you won’t find her there. She was assumed body and soul in to Heaven.

 

[motstraumen]

I never said I did not believe in her assumption body and soul and spirit! (In Hebrew thought they are inseparable) I just said it was a doctrine that was not needed for my or anyone’s salvation. I actually hold to it. If God could do it for Enoch and Elijah he certainly could do it for not only the mother of Jesus but as pointed out earlier from the quote from John, the mother of the Church, the most blessed Virgin Mary. I even believe in the perpetual Virginity… And it is not because of Pope Pius, it is from my understanding of of Scripture and yes Tradition. But I am not going to force a “doctrine” on my people that is not salvific. You can toss all the dirt on us you want, it just goes to show how uninformed and unchanged you Catholics are, mister hosemonkey. Sola Scriptura is so misunderstood by the Roman Church that it is laughable. Also Sola Fide et Sola Gratia…You are so caught up in yourselves that you do not take the time to find out the fuller beauty of these theological premises that truly let God be God and humanity be humanity loved by God.

 

[motstraumen]

I have two mothers in heaven, the woman who gave me life and my Holy Mother, who intercedes for me before her Holy Son, who can deny her nothing. I feel sorry for those who reject this wonderful gift of Jesus’ holy mother to suffering mankind.

 

[jam070406]

I never said I did not believe in her assumption body and soul and spirit! (In Hebrew thought they are inseparable) I just said it was a doctrine that was not needed for my or anyone’s salvation. I actually hold to it. If God could do it for Enoch and Elijah he certainly could do it for not only the mother of Jesus but as pointed out earlier from the quote from John, the mother of the Church, the most blessed Virgin Mary. I even believe in the perpetual Virginity. Put that in your divisive pipe and smoke it. And it is not because of Pope Pius, it is from my understanding of of Scripture and yes Tradition. But I am not going to force a “doctrine” on my people that is not salvific. You can toss all the dirt on us you want, it just goes to show how uninformed and unchanged you Catholics are, mister sailor man. Sola Scriptura is so misunderstood by the Roman Church that it is laughable. Also Sola Fide et Sola Gratia…You are so caught up in yourselves that you do not take the time to find out the fuller beauty of these theological premises that truly let God be God and humanity be humanity loved by God.

Well there must be something compelling about Catholicism that brings you to these boards or else YOU just came to “throw dirt” (along with your little condescending snipes)
Nobody is throwing dirt at you, rather conveying Truth. Perhaps the fact that you get so upset should be an indicator of your own pride. If in fact you are so correct then why would the Catholic positions upset you so? Are you not comfortable in your brand of faith?
As far as sola scriptura, your argument is just laughable. It has lead to DIRECT denial of Apostolic Traditions. Some of the most basic tenents of the Faith such as Baptism or the Eucharist are denied or/and misunderstood by ALOT of Protestant sects because they rely soley on the scriptures alone. Anyone that applies reason and is honest can see this.

Btw, nobody “forces” doctrine on Catholics. Catholics that wish to please and love the Lord fall in love with His Truth. We embrace such doctrines as the Assumption out of LOVE! Love of God and love of our Mother, Mary! Catholics that feel something is forced on them usually leave and join a Protestant sect. I pray Mary, our Mother, leads you closer to her son, Jesus who wishes you to have the fullness of Truth.