Mary's Assumption

[Irish_Catholic_1]

Then please provide any proof from scripture, or the early Church Fathers, or, in fact, anyone that there was any mention of an Assumption before the fourth century…

Biblical evidence:

Several Bible passages offer implicit evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven. Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven (Heb. 11:5, 2 Kgs. 2:11). Also, in Matthew 27:52-53 one can read about saints whose bodies left the grave after the Resurrection of Christ. The early resurrection of these saints anticipated the rising of those who die in faith, all of who will be assumed one day to receive their glorified bodies. Belief in the assumption of Mary is simply the belief that God granted her this gift early, as he appears to have done for others in Matthew 27:52-53.

The Scriptures also promise that those who suffer with Christ will be glorified with him (Rom. 8:17), so it is fitting that she whose heart was pierced through her Son’s suffering would receive her glorification in a unique manner. Paul calls Christians “God’s co-workers” (1 Cor. 3:9), and there was no co-worker of Christ who was linked so intimately in the work of salvation as was Mary.

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.”

Early Christians:

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.

 

[JP_Marat]

Irish Catholic posted:

Originally Posted by JP Marat
Then please provide **any proof **from scripture, or the early Church Fathers, or, in fact, anyone that there was any mention of an Assumption before the fourth century…

Biblical evidence:

Several Bible passages offer implicit evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven. Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven (Heb. 11:5, 2 Kgs. 2:11). Also, in Matthew 27:52-53 one can read about saints whose bodies left the grave after the Resurrection of Christ.

RESPONSE:

There is **no mention of Mary’s Assumption **in any of these passages nor does the Pope cite them in Munificentissimus deus.

One can find “implicit evidence” for virtually anything by twisting what scipture says.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

…One can find “implicit evidence” for virtually anything by twisting what scipture says.

Which is what you have done, because by demanding “scriptural” evidence, you are adhering to the idea of “scripture alone” - Sola Scriptura - which is in itself un-Scriptural and a new-fangled tradition of men.

You show me where the Bible says that all doctrine MUST be explicitely found in the Bible, then we’ll talk. Until then, you are merely posting false doctrine which is compounded by the false methodology on which it is based.

The Church, and Christian beliefs, preceed the Bible, not the other way around.

 

[JP_Marat]

Irish Catholic continues to use Matt 16:18 at the bottom of his posts. But isn’t this a later interpolation (later addition) to scripture? Keep in mind, Matthew’s Gospel used Mark as a source, as did Luke.

Mark 8:27-30
“And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets. And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.”

Luke 9:18-20
“And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am? They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again.He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God.”

Matthew 16:13-20
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ,** the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. **Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

If one eliminates the highlighted portion from Matthew, it’s prety much a verbatim copy of Mark’s gospel.

Where do you think the insert came from? Why isn’t it found in Mark, a source document, nor in Luke’s version?

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

**T.L. Frazier is a convert from Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism. His thoughts on this are very interesting: **http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9205fea2.asp

 

[ccolley2]

The Book is Hidden Politics of the Crucifixion by Glenn Kimball and David Stirland.

To quote: "We only begin to understand Joseph of Arimethea when we begin hearing the echoes of his life from England, where he took the Mother Mary and her associates after the death of Jesus. He later became the “Apostle of Britain” and eventually was canonized with the title of Saint Joseph by the Roman Christians. pp. 74 & 75

I’m not saying it is true, but an interesting story not proven false. Its kind like how did satan get in the Garden of Eden. Lay the time line out and come to your on conclusion If the Garden of Eden was paradise and untainted and he got there second only to God then he tainted The Garden of Eden not Adam and Eve. Another interesting theory.

Jesus gave Mary to St. John…not Joseph of Arimathea…According to Jewish tradition she would have lived with John at least until (according to Sacred Tradition) she was assumed into heaven…
St. John Damascene writes in his homilies on the Dormitian of Mary…
*“In the Euthymian history, Book 3, Chapter 40, it it written…we have received from ancient and most truthful tradition that at the time of her repose all the Holy Apostles who then were dispersed abroad in the world for the salvation of the nations, were in but a moment of time transported through the air to Jerusalem and when they were there an angelic vision appeared to them and the divine chanting…and thus in divine and heavenly glory her holy soul was delivered in a way that no word can describe into the hands of God…and her body which had been the Tabernacle of God was placed in a coffin(in Gethsemane)…in that place the chanting and choral singing of the angels continued without cease for three days after the third day the angelic chanting ceased…Thomas arrived after the third day; and since he wanted to worship the body that had been the Tabernacle of God they opened the coffin. That they were unable anywhere to find her most lauded body…” *(from the Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 3, Jurgens, Wm. ed., paragraph 2390, pg 350).

Sounds like Tradition has proven that story false.

 

[BrianH]

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.

Same book you quoted.

11,3 11,5 I cannot decide for certain, and am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither am I affirming that she died. For scripture went beyond man’s understanding and left it in suspense with regard to the precious and chosen vessel, so that no one would suspect carnal behavior of her. Whether she died, I don’t know; and even if she was buried, she never had carnal relations, perish the thought.

78: 23,8 The holy virgin may have died and been buried-her falling asleep was with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death-as the scripture says, “and a sword shall pierce through her soul-her frame is among the martyrs and her holy body, by which light rose on the world, rests amid blessings. Or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. **No one knows her end. **

The last verse is the most important to me in determining the historicity of her Assumption.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

Same book you quoted.

11,3 11,5 I cannot decide for certain, and am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither am I affirming that she died. For scripture went beyond man’s understanding and left it in suspense with regard to the precious and chosen vessel, so that no one would suspect carnal behavior of her. Whether she died, I don’t know; and even if she was buried, she never had carnal relations, perish the thought.

78: 23,8 The holy virgin may have died and been buried-her falling asleep was with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death-as the scripture says, “and a sword shall pierce through her soul-her frame is among the martyrs and her holy body, by which light rose on the world, rests amid blessings. Or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. **No one knows her end. **

The last verse is the most important to me in determining the historicity of her Assumption.

You need to read what the Dogma of the Assumption actually says. It does not speak to her death. It says she was assumed body and soul into heaven. The question of whether she had passed on or not before that happened is not addressed in the dogmatic definition.

 

[JP_Marat]

**T.L. Frazier is a convert from Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism. His thoughts on this are very interesting: **http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9205fea2.asp

RESPONSE:

But provides no evidence that the Assumption story was not created in the 4th century and thus **is not part of the deposit of faith **(scripture + apostolic teachings).

JPM

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

But provides no evidence that the Assumption story was not created in the 4th century and thus **is not part of the deposit of faith **(scripture + apostolic teachings).

According to who? You?
You don’t actually expect anyone here to think that you are a better judge of what is part of the deposit of faith than Holy Mother Church is, do you?

The Successor of Peter, in his authority speaking from the Chair of Peter, has said it is so. It is so.

 

[BrianH]

You need to read what the Dogma of the Assumption actually says. It does not speak to her death. It says she was assumed body and soul into heaven. The question of whether she had passed on or not before that happened is not addressed in the dogmatic definition.

I quoted him and he says she could have been martyred.
She could have lived on (ie assumed).
She may have died and been buried.
No one knows. If they do not even know if she was martyred…anything else is just speculation.
Nothing can be historically ascertained. Bottom line.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

I quoted him and he says she could have been martyred.
She could have lived on (ie assumed).
She may have died and been buried.
No one knows. If they do not even know if she was martyred…anything else is just speculation.
Nothing can be historically ascertained. Bottom line.

A lot of so-called historians also say the the Bible cannot be historically proven to be true. This, like the Bible, is more a matter of faith.

As for the quote: One person’s opinion on what COULD have happened does not outweigh the fact that the Successor of Peter, in his authority speaking from the Chair of Peter, in light of centirues of tradition, said that it DID happen.

 

[JP_Marat]

A lot of so-called historians also say the the Bible cannot be historically proven to be true. This, like the Bible, is more a matter of faith.

As for the quote: One person’s opinion on what COULD have happened does not outweigh the fact that the Successor of Peter, in his authority speaking from the Chair of Peter, in light of centirues of tradition, said that it DID happen.

RESPONSE:

And, of course, you believe everything the pope says. Right?

How does the pope know exactly? Was he there?

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

And, of course, you believe everything the pope says. Right?

When he speaks Ex Cathedra? Yes, for it is not him who speaks but the Holy Spirit speaking through him

How does the pope know exactly? Was he there?

How do you know who wrote the Bible? Were you there?

 

[BrianH]

A lot of so-called historians also say the the Bible cannot be historically proven to be true. This, like the Bible, is more a matter of faith.

As for the quote: One person’s opinion on what COULD have happened does not outweigh the fact that the Successor of Peter, in his authority speaking from the Chair of Peter, in light of centirues of tradition, said that it DID happen.

Why would a prominant Catholic historian in the 4th century, and that is what Epiphanius was, who is an ardent supporter of the perpetual virginity of Mary and absolutely loves her never have heard of the Assumption? Makes no sense to me unless it is a later developing pious myth.

I understand that as a Catholic you have a much greater stake in this than I do naturally.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

Why would a prominant Catholic historian in the 4th century, and that is what Epiphanius was, who is an ardent supporter of the perpetual virginity of Mary and absolutely loves her never have heard of the Assumption?..

I dunno. Its a fair question.

Maybe communications were bad. Maybe he had heard about it but didn’t believe it. Maybe he didn’t trust the sources through which he may have heard of it. Who can say?

Have you read this?: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105sbs.asp

Here is a quote:

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.

 

[Des]

If you are a Catholic then you are speaking heresy. If not, then at the least you are making assertions that you cannot back up.

Further reading from his posts pretty much tells us he’s not Catholic. I think people like to come in here, and throw up Catholic as their religion of choice just to ruffle some feathers.

 

[yusef]

RESPONSE:

But provides no evidence that the Assumption story was not created in the 4th century and thus **is not part of the deposit of faith **(scripture + apostolic teachings).

JPM

I found the article by T.L, Frazier enlightening as to how the Assumption was historically rooted in early Christianity. There are even arguments from scripture to support the theory. Furthermore, although it is not in the Scriptures, it has some evidence of being a firm belief of early Christianity. It is kind of like the sabbath on Sunday - when did it come about? It is not described in the Scriptures, but it is clearly something that was embraced by early Christianity. Although the evidence is not definitive from the point of view of scripture alone, it is not out of the question if we consider what is called the “deposit of faith”. However, I am wary of requiring the belief since it appears to be divisive and is really not a “core” Christian belief. If it is a belief that is going to separate Christians, it should be something out of the Creed or scripture. Much progress could be made in keeping our focus on the essentials of the faith. Augustine of Hippo wrote: “Unity in the essential, tolerance in what is not essential…”

 

[JP_Marat]

You need to read what the Dogma of the Assumption actually says. It does not speak to her death. It says she was assumed body and soul into heaven. The question of whether she had passed on or not before that happened is not addressed in the dogmatic definition.

RESPONSE:

Have you read Munificentissimus deus yourself?

Tell me, what passage of scripture does it claim supports the Assumption?

Who was the first Father of the Church to specifically allude to the Assumption, and what year was that?

MD section 26 "26. Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathershave been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption. Thus, to mention only a few of the texts rather frequently cited in this fashion, some have employed the words of the psalmist: "Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified"; and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and placed in the Lord’s temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven.

Even Pope Pius XII didn’t take such scriptural claims seriously!

But the first Church Father he refers to is from the 7th century, wasn’t it?

Mary and Joseph died and were buried and no tract of the bodies was kept. In the 4th of 5th century a **wonderous story **was created by spurious writers. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits this point. It caught on, became a “pious legend” and in 1950 an infallible teaching, all without the slightest evidence.

JPM

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

…Tell me, what passage of scripture does it claim supports the Assumption?..

I don’t play on the protestant playing field. Sola Scriptura is bogus, and I feel no need to prove the Assumption from scripture.

The fact is, Mary’s death is not mentioned in Scripture at all. Therefore, neither your position nor mine can be proven or disproven from scripture. (Although there are some that allude to it spiritually, such as Rev 12:1.)

So, with no scripture to turn to, we turn to early Christian writings. In that event, the preponderance of evidence is on MY side, not yours. So if we were in a court of law right now, I would win and you would lose based on the preponderance of evidence

Now, go peddle that Sola Scriptura nonsense to someone gullible enough to bite on it