Marys Assumption first mentioned

[TheWhim]

My dear fellow Roman Catholics,

Short time ago I read an introduction to the Marian dogmas, where it was stated that the first mention of Our Ladys Assumption goes back to Epihpanius(who, however, doe not anymore than some kind of brainstorming). The oldest exemple of the transitus-apokryphs dates back to the fifth century. The first sermons on our Layds Assumption were held in the sixth century(all dates given according to the book I read.)

Now, on Catholic Answers, on this very page:

catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

I read as follows:

Pseudo-Melito

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

Timothy of Jerusalem

“Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption” (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

Therefore, the first mention would be around the beginning of the forth century. But I never saw such an early dating of Our Ladys Assumption save on Catholic Answers. Might anybody explain this to me?
Do you know a list of quotes by the church fathers mentioning the BODILY assumption? Please show me that this was a historical happening and that this isn’t just a “theological truth”.

Yours.

 

[Todd_Easton]

TheWhim:

The oldest exemple of the transitus-apokryphs dates back to the fifth century.

The first sermons on our Layds Assumption were held in the sixth century(all dates given according to the book I read.)

Now, on Catholic Answers, on this very page:

catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

I read as follows:

Pseudo-Melito

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

Timothy of Jerusalem

“Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption” (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

Therefore, the first mention would be around the beginning of the forth century. But I never saw such an early dating of Our Ladys Assumption save on Catholic Answers. Might anybody explain this to me?

The date given in the book you read is a bit misleading. This refers to the Passing of the Virgin by Pseudo-Melito mentioned in the Catholic Answers library article. The Catholic Answer library article mentions the date the work was originally written, around A.D. 300; the book you read mentions the date of the oldest extant copy, the fifth century. By using the date of the oldest extant copy instead of the date when the work was originally written, the author of the book is deceptively trying to make the work appear more distant from Apostolic times than it really is.

It is possible that the author of the book uses the same “trick” for the other references it mentions.

 

[mumof5]

TheWhim:

My dear fellow Roman Catholics,

Short time ago I read an introduction to the Marian dogmas, where it was stated that the first mention of Our Ladys Assumption goes back to Epihpanius(who, however, doe not anymore than some kind of brainstorming). The oldest exemple of the transitus-apokryphs dates back to the fifth century. The first sermons on our Layds Assumption were held in the sixth century(all dates given according to the book I read.)

Now, on Catholic Answers, on this very page:

catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

I read as follows:

Pseudo-Melito

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

Timothy of Jerusalem

“Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption” (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

Therefore, the first mention would be around the beginning of the forth century. But I never saw such an early dating of Our Ladys Assumption save on Catholic Answers. Might anybody explain this to me?
Do you know a list of quotes by the church fathers mentioning the BODILY assumption? Please show me that this was a historical happening and that this isn’t just a “theological truth”.

Yours.

How is it possible for Mary to have been taken body and soul to heaven when it says in the Bible that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven? (1 Cor. 15:50-56)

 

[Della]

mumof5:

How is it possible for Mary to have been taken body and soul to heaven when it says in the Bible that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven? (1 Cor. 15:50-56)

So, how can the Risen Christ be in heaven?

All who are resurrected in Christ, including Mary, have (in Mary’s case) or will have the same kind of body he now has–a glorified one–one that has been taken up into the divinity of God and remade fit for heaven. (1Cor.15:35-38, 44)

Besides, where was Elijah taken to when he was carried away in the fiery chariot? And how could he have appeared with Jesus and Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration?

You are making Scripture say more than it does and glossing over whatever Scripture might put the kibosh on your presumptions. How is that good interpretation of the Bible?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

mumof5:

How is it possible for Mary to have been taken body and soul to heaven when it says in the Bible that flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of heaven? (1 Cor. 15:50-56)

So where is Jesus?

 

[mumof5]

Della:

So, how can the Risen Christ be in heaven?

All who are resurrected in Christ, including Mary, have (in Mary’s case) or will have the same kind of body he now has–a glorified one–one that has been taken up into the divinity of God and remade fit for heaven. (1Cor.15:35-38, 44)

Besides, where was Elijah taken to when he was carried away in the fiery chariot? And how could he have appeared with Jesus and Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration?

You are making Scripture say more than it does and glossing over whatever Scripture might put the kibosh on your presumptions. How is that good interpretation of the Bible?

It’s clear from scripture that the body of Jesus was changed so it’s nature was different - i.e. glorified and different to a mortal body and yes, scripture indicates this will happen to all of us in the physical resurrection at the end of time, but where is the evidence this happened to Mary back then - and that she didn’t die at all? Jesus himself died first in his mortal body.

If this can happen to Mary, then maybe the rapture concept isn’t so far fetched after all? Mat 24:40 There’s far more scriptural evidence for that than the assumption.

Writing in 377 A.D., the church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end. (“But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death…for her end no-one knows.” (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by Juniper Carol, OFM, Mariology, vol. II, pp. 139-40).) This dogma unknown in the early Church, even condemned by some Popes.

(Not that this is a huge issue - we simply aren’t told specifically what happened to Mary. Does anyone know of a good Biblical based site that argues for the assumption, or even for and against for balance?)

 

[Joe_Gloor]

mumof5:

How is it possible for Mary to have been taken body and soul to heaven when it says in the Bible that flesh and blood cannot **enter ** the kingdom of heaven? (1 Cor. 15:50-56)

Here is the quote from the NIV:

I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
“Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
1 Cor 15:50-56

I don’t think you are interpretting this portion of Scripture correctly.

 

[TheWhim]

Dear mumof5,

you wrote: "This dogma unknown in the early Church, even condemned by some Popes. "

Can you prove this by references?

Yours.

 

[Lazerlike42]

mumof5:

It’s clear from scripture that the body of Jesus was changed so it’s nature was different - i.e. glorified and different to a mortal body and yes, scripture indicates this will happen to all of us in the physical resurrection at the end of time, but where is the evidence this happened to Mary back then - and that she didn’t die at all? Jesus himself died first in his mortal body.

If this can happen to Mary, then maybe the rapture concept isn’t so far fetched after all? Mat 24:40 There’s far more scriptural evidence for that than the assumption.

Writing in 377 A.D., the church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end. (“But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death…for her end no-one knows.” (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by Juniper Carol, OFM, Mariology, vol. II, pp. 139-40).) This dogma unknown in the early Church, even condemned by some Popes.

(Not that this is a huge issue - we simply aren’t told specifically what happened to Mary. Does anyone know of a good Biblical based site that argues for the assumption, or even for and against for balance?)

Actually, most Catholics use the quote from Epiphanius to argue for the Assumption. Others make the point far better than I, but it basically is that everyone assumes the Assumption, and Epiphanius proves it by debating only whether she died or not. That was the controversy, in other words, not what happened to her body.

On a related note, it is telling that nobody claims to have a Marian relic. In the early Church, relics were contested for fiercly, as were claims to be the burial place of the Saints. We even have relics of the True Cross, but none of Mary. If Mary’s body did remain on earth, there would without queston have been a huge battle over her relics, and places claiming to have them, or to be her burial ground.

I know that Tim Staples is releasing a tape set soon for which he did a lot of new research and supposedly has a number of very early references to the Assumption. I believe there is a new book which contains some of this research too. He mentioned in on the open forum a week or so ago.

 

[Wisdom]

mumof5:

It’s clear from scripture that the body of Jesus was changed so it’s nature was different - i.e. glorified and different to a mortal body and yes, scripture indicates this will happen to all of us in the physical resurrection at the end of time, but where is the evidence this happened to Mary back then - and that she didn’t die at all? Jesus himself died first in his mortal body.

If this can happen to Mary, then maybe the rapture concept isn’t so far fetched after all? Mat 24:40 There’s far more scriptural evidence for that than the assumption.

Writing in 377 A.D., the church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end. (“But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death…for her end no-one knows.” (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by Juniper Carol, OFM, Mariology, vol. II, pp. 139-40).) This dogma unknown in the early Church, even condemned by some Popes.

(Not that this is a huge issue - we simply aren’t told specifically what happened to Mary. Does anyone know of a good Biblical based site that argues for the assumption, or even for and against for balance?)

The Rapture is far fetched. What isn’t far fetched is the resurrection of the dead and those who are alive assumed up during the second coming and yes Mary is precursor of that as is Elijah, Elisah and Moses. So Mary’s assumption is far more biblical than your protestant invetion of the Rapture. Once again your bad exegesis gets in the way of interpreting scripture that is clear to the church.

 

[TheWhim]

I know that Tim Staples is releasing a tape set soon for which he did a lot of new research and supposedly has a number of very early references to the Assumption. I believe there is a new book which contains some of this research too. He mentioned in on the open forum a week or so ago.

Would you tell me the itle of this book? I’m especially interested in the histroical aspect of Marys Assumption(not so much in the theological), would like to see some early references.

Yours.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

This is from a previous thread "The Assumption - something historical"

---

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=11639

Here’s an interesting historical account of the Assumption - The Dormition… You might say this is a case of knowing how to keep a secret. The history of the end of Mary’s life was genuinely new to most of the Church when it was made public in the fifth century. The facts of the matter were kept private among the clergy of the Jerusalem Church, and only became public during the Council of Chalcedon. This was a case where there was a Tradition - a passing-along of knowledge - that was intentionally kept private. I personally suspect the remarkable near-silence of Scripture about the Mother of God was deliberate on the part of the Apostles; St John (her guardian) and the rest of the Evangelists kept her privacy.

The more picturesque details of the “transitus Mariae” literature had yet to be developed, but in the mid-400’s some basic information was revealed by the Jerusalem clergy. I’m attaching a quote from the “Euthymiac History” quoted by St John of Damascus, for details.

---

In his second homily on the Dormition of the Mother of God, Saint John of Damascus refers to events recounted in the 40th chapter of the Life of St Euthymios:

It was said above that Saint Pulcheria erected many churches for Christ in Constantinople. One of these is the church in Blachernae, built at the beginning of the reign of the divinely-appointed Emperor Marcian . When the two of them built a worthy house there for the all-glorious and all-holy Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, and adorned it with every sort of decoration, they hoped to find her holy body, which had been the dwelling-place of God. And summoning Juvenal, the Archbishop of Jerusalem, and those bishops from Palestine who were staying in the capital because of the synod then being held in Chalcedon , they said to them: We have heard that the first and most outstanding church of the all-holy Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, is in Jerusalem, in the place called Gethsemane, where her life-giving body was put in a coffin. We now wish to bring this relic here, to protect this royal city."

continued…

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

…continued

Juvenal answered on behalf of them all:

"There is nothing in the holy, inspired Scripture about the death of Mary, the holy Mother of God; but we know from ancient and wholly reliable tradition that at the time she so gloriously fell asleep, all the holy Apostles who were traveling the world for the salvation of the peoples were lifted up in a single instant of time and were gathered at Jerusalem. And as they stood by her, they saw a vision of angels, and heard the divine chanting of the higher powers. So it was that she gave her soul in an ineffable way into God’s hands, surrounded by the glory of God and all heaven.

“Her body, which had been God’s dwelling place, was brought for burial amidst the singing of the angels and the Apostles, and laid to rest in a coffin in Gethsemane; and the angelic dancing and singing continued without pause in that place for three days. But after three days the song of the angels ceased; the Apostles were there, and since one of them - Thomas - had not been present and came at he end of three days, and wished to reverence that body which had housed God, they opened the coffin. And they could not find her body, which had been the object of such praise; all that they found were her burial wrappings. And being overcome by the ineffable fragrance that came out of the wrappings, they closed the coffin again. Amazed by this miraculous discovery, they could only draw a single conclusion: The one who had deigned to become flesh in her own person and to take his humanity from her, the one who willed to be born in human flesh as God the Word, the Lord of glory, and who had preserved her virginity intact even after childbirth, now chose, after her departure from this world, to honour her pure and immaculate body with the gift of incorruptibility, and with a change of state even before the common, universal resurrection.”

When the imperial couple heard this, they asked Archbishop Juvenal to send them the holy coffin, properly sealed, with the funeral garments in it of the glorious, all-holy Mary, Mother of God. And when he had sent it, they placed it in the church of the holy Theotokos that had been built at Blachernae.

---

Today (26th March) is the commemoration of Saint Macartan of Clogher and the 1500th anniversary of the founding of the diocese
See groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-saints/message/2247

 

[leoni]

Does no one else here find it the least bit anachronistic that it is said that Mary was buried in a coffin? Was that a common practice in ancient Israel?

 

[thistle]

Does no one else here find it the least bit anachronistic that it is said that Mary was buried in a coffin? Was that a common practice in ancient Israel?

While we all agree about Mary’s Assumption (in fact its dogma) there is no teaching as to whether she died first or not before she was assumed into Heaven. We are free to believe she died first or not.
Even in the dogmatic document MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS the actual Assumption declaration paragraph leaves her death open by saying “after she completed the course of her earthly life” which could mean she died and was then assumed or it could mean she was assumed without suffering death.

 

[leoni]

@thistle does not address the point at all. There is a clear difference between holy, inspired Scripture and the concoctions of man. The Bible is truthful and accurate; those who have set out to prove that it has errors in matter of history or science have all eventually themselves been proven to be wrong. The passage quoted above, however, shows, in the first casual glance, that the writer was unfamiliar with the simple historical context of Biblical times. It does not seem wise to rest your beliefs on such flawed, uninspired accounts.

People, God gave us brains with a wonderful capacity for logic and reason. Faith does not demand that we abandon those gifts.