Mary's Assumption

[Randy_Carson]

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

Have YOU read Munificentissimus Deus?

If you have, then you know that the Holy See was beseiged with requests that this dogma be proclaimed. Consequently, the Holy Father sent out a letter to all of the Bishops of the world asking whether the doctrine was believed and should be proclaimed. The response was OVERWHELMINGLY positive. This is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church at work. Subsequently, the Pope defined the dogma ex cathedra. Since the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium and the Pope are infallible, the doctrine is beyond question.

However, I have asked you repeatedly to provide some evidence of contemporary writings objecting to the “pious” novelty.

You have nothing.

 

[adrift]

spurious writers. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits this point. It caught on, became a “pious legend” and in

It does no such thing. You have taken a statement out of context.
The Encyclopedia does say.

1. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition.
2. 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.
3. 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; where from the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

 

[JP_Marat]

It does no such thing. You have taken a statement out of context.
The Encyclopedia does say.

1. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition.
2. 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.
3. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours , 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; where from the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

RESPONSE:

1. Apostolic tradition? How can that be when all apostles were dead by the end of the second century and the Assumption legend didn’t start until the 4th or 5th century. That’s stretching it.

2 " Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours" CHeck out the dates when they lived. I think you’ll find they lived in the 7th century or later. By then the legend had spread.

1. " St. Modestus of Jerusalem " told a tall tail. He died in 634 AD. That again would be the 7th century.

Anything earlier than the 7th century yarns?

 

[ChadS]

Have YOU read Munificentissimus Deus?

If you have, then you know that the Holy See was beseiged with requests that this dogma be proclaimed. Consequently, the Holy Father sent out a letter to all of the Bishops of the world asking whether the doctrine was believed and should be proclaimed. The response was OVERWHELMINGLY positive. This is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church at work. Subsequently, the Pope defined the dogma ex cathedra. Since the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium and the Pope are infallible, the doctrine is beyond question.

However, I have asked you repeatedly to provide some evidence of contemporary writings objecting to the “pious” novelty.

You have nothing.

I think that document provides one of the clearest and most concret examples of the magisterium at work. It lays out in clear language what question was being considered who was consulted and how. If anybody reads that and still insists that we make things up or the Pope can do whatever he wants unilaterally then they just aren’t reading the document carefully.

ChadS

 

[ChadS]

RESPONSE:

1. Apostolic tradition? How can that be when all apostles were dead by the end of the second century and the Assumption legend didn’t start until the 4th or 5th century. That’s stretching it.

2 " Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours" CHeck out the dates when they lived. I think you’ll find they lived in the 7th century or later. By then the legend had spread.

1. " St. Modestus of Jerusalem " told a tall tail. He died in 634 AD. That again would be the 7th century.

Anything earlier than the 7th century yarns?

Can you offer any proof that the Tradition concerning the Assumption does not predate the written record? Is it not possible that it was believed for quite a long time before it was written down, perhaps as a response to some heretical unbelief? Is there a long list of early Church Fathers objecting to this belief in other writings contemporary with the ones mentioned above?

ChadS

 

[JustaServant]

Anything earlier than the 7th century yarns?

Let me be the one to ask the hard question of you:
Are you saying they (the ancient sources) are lying?

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

Anything earlier than the 7th century yarns?

An excerpt from How to “Argue for Mary’s Assumption” by Jason Evert.
source: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105sbs.asp

But where is the 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.

But that’s circumstantial evidence. Face it, the Bible never mentions Mary’s Assumption.

Keep in mind that if Scripture does not record an event, it does not follow that the event did not happen. Scripture does not record Paul or Peter’s journey to Rome, and they were both martyred there while the Bible was still being written. With this in mind, it would be unscriptural and unreasonable to conclude that the dogma of Mary’s Assumption is false because it is not mentioned explicitly in Scripture.

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.”

In the book of Revelation we read, “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple” (Rev. 11:19). “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; . . . she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev. 12:1,5). The arbitrary break here between chapters, done long after the Bible was written, makes it easy to overlook how John mentions the mother of the Messiah in conjunction with the Ark of the Covenant.

Considering God’s reverence towards an inanimate Ark, St. Robert Bellarmine asked a fitting question: "Who could believe that the ark of holiness, the dwelling of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit , crumbled into dust? I shudder at the very thought that the virginal flesh of which God was conceived and born, which nourished him and carried him should have turned to ashes or been given as food to worms."

Read the rest here:
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105sbs.asp

 

[JP_Marat]

Irish Catholic copied and pasted:

But that’s circumstantial evidence. Face it, the Bible never mentions Mary’s Assumption.

Keep in mind that if Scripture does not record an event, it does not follow that the event did not happen. Scripture does not record Paul or Peter’s journey to Rome, and they were both martyred there while the Bible was still being written. With this in mind, it would be unscriptural and unreasonable to conclude that the dogma of Mary’s Assumption is false because it is not mentioned explicitly in Scripture.<<

RESPONSE:

There is **not even circumstantial evidence **that anyone thought of the Assumption story before the 4th or 5th century. And until the 7th century, the writings about the assumption are recognized as spurious.

Therefore, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence is that we are dealing with 4th century folklore.

The Gospels, Epistles of Paul, and Acts of the Apostles do record Paul’s being in Rome. However, they says nothing about Peter being there. In fact, in Timothy written (supposedly) just before Paul died, Paul says he is alone except for Luke.

The First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians (c 96 AD), indicates that **Peter was not in the West. **Only Paul. The Peter at Rome legend started later on in the second century.

 

[adrift]

1. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours , 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; where from the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

They are telling him of TRADITION that has been passed on to them by the Apostles. Please provide evidence that the Assumption was denied before the fourteenth century.

 

[adrift]

Irish Catholic copied and pasted:

Was there a point to this statement.

RESPONSE:

There is **not even circumstantial evidence **that anyone thought of the Assumption story before the 4th or 5th century. And until the 7th century, the writings about the assumption are recognized as spurious.

You have been presented evidence that you reject. You again claim that all writings were spurious when this is both untrue and taken out of context.

Therefore, the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence is that we are dealing with 4th century folklore.

The evidence shows that this was a TRADITION from the Apostles.

The Gospels, Epistles of Paul, and Acts of the Apostles do record Paul’s being in Rome. However, they says nothing about Peter being there. In fact, in Timothy written (supposedly) just before Paul died, Paul says he is alone except for Luke.

There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”The First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians (c 96 AD), indicates that **Peter was not in the West. **Only Paul. The Peter at Rome legend started later on in the second century.

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s. …evidence had mounted to the point that Pope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussed in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.

The First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians (c 96 AD), indicates that **Peter was not in the West. **Only Paul. The Peter at Rome legend started later on in the second century.

It doesn’t indicate where Peter was at all. Or did you not actually read it?

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

.

Let’s put aside the Pope and Catholic Dogma for a moment. Here is an exchange with an Eastern Orthodox Priest from another forum:

EO Priest: “…you will get positive response at least from me. Orthodox Christians also believe that Mary reposed, that her soul was received by our Lord upon death, and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her death and that she was taken up into heaven bodily, and that her tomb was found empty on the third day.”

Catholic: “Now that is interesting. In another forum, I was told by an EO that you do not neccessarily believe that, although he did say that you do not deny it either. Are all EO’s unfied in their belief on this?”

EO Priest: "Yes, although we consider it part of the “inner tradition” of the Church, not part of Kerygma, and not in the realm of dogma, but it penetrates the entirety of Orthodox liturgical texts for the feast day of the Dormition (also called Translation; i.e. assumption) For example, here is a verse from Vespers for August 15:

“It was fitting for the eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word to see the Falling Asleep of his Mother according to the flesh, the final mystery concerning her, that they might not only see the Ascension of the Saviour from the earth, but also be witnesses to the Translation from earth of her who bore him. Therefore, carried over from all parts by divine power, they came to Zion and escorted her, as she who is higher than the Cherubim hastened towards heaven. With them we venerate her as she intercedes for our souls.” "

Catholic: “Thats pretty nice. And as a side note, I personally understand wht you mean by “worship” in that verse, but there are those who would freak out over that language. But I digress.”

EO Priest: “Actually, the word “worship” there is proskynesis, veneration or honor, not latreia, worship, and so I changed it accordingly. Sorry for mistranslation.”

Catholic: “I do get it. Hopefully others will now too.”

source:
true2ourselves.com/forum/theology/1698-assumption-blessed-virgin-7.html

 

[Timothy_Piper]

If all public revelation stopped after the Ascension, none of the Gospels are to be believed all of which were written and codified many years after Christ. Tradition precedes the Gospels and the Gospels themselves were the subject of selection by the Church.

If a person has a problem with dogma, humility is required.

“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” The Word was around long before tradition of men or before the Word was written down. Nothing concerning immaculate conception was ever spoken by God; it is a clear invention of religion to be believed by those who take part in that religion. 2 cents worth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Irish Catholic copied and pasted:

But that’s circumstantial evidence. Face it, the Bible never mentions Mary’s Assumption.

As I have pointed out to you twice previously, there is not even circumstantial evidence that anyone objected to the introduction of what you call “pious folklore.” Given how vigorously the ECF’s fought against other heresies that were rampant in the third, fourth and fifth centuries, this silence is deafening.

The Gospels, Epistles of Paul, and Acts of the Apostles do record Paul’s being in Rome. However, they says nothing about Peter being there. In fact, in Timothy written (supposedly) just before Paul died, Paul says he is alone except for Luke.

Peter himself recorded that he was in Rome.

“The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox).

Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

Rome is also referred to as “Babylon” repeatedly in the Book of Revelation.

The First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians (c 96 AD), indicates that **Peter was not in the West. **Only Paul. The Peter at Rome legend started later on in the second century.

Second century? You see that as a fault?

How much earlier do you expect to have documentation? I’ve already provided scriptural evidence above, but do you know who Ignatius of Antioch was? Ignatius was a disciple of Peter and succeeded him as Bishop of Antioch. He wrote:

“Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict” (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).

Catch that? He says, “I’m not commanding you Romans like Peter and Paul did…” Thus, he tells us that Peter was in Rome.

Dionysius of Corinth

“You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time” (*Letter to Pope Soter *[A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

Peter and Paul were in Rome…

Irenaeus

“Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church” (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp who was the disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus testifies that Peter was in Rome.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops qf the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid. 3:3:2).

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles.” (ibid. 3:3:3 [inter AD. 180-190]).

 

[adrift]

“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” The Word was around long before tradition of men or before the Word was written down. Nothing concerning immaculate conception was ever spoken by God; it is a clear invention of religion to be believed by those who take part in that religion. 2 cents worth.

The subject is not the Immaculate Conception. If you wish to discuss it, search for a thread, there are many, or start your own. Not only is your statement false but off topic.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

As I have pointed out to you twice previously, there is not even circumstantial evidence that anyone objected to the introduction of what you call “pious folklore.” Given how vigorously the ECF’s fought against other heresies that were rampant in the third, fourth and fifth centuries, this silence is deafening.

The Gospels, Epistles of Paul, and Acts of the Apostles do record Paul’s being in Rome

Would it not make sense to listen to the words of Jesus and the writers, else you are relying on the words of mere men and not of God. Right?

 

[adrift]

Would it not make sense to listen to the words of Jesus and the writers, else you are relying on the words of mere men and not of God. Right?

If you listen to Jesus, you would listen to the Church He established and sent the Holy Spirit to protect.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Would it not make sense to listen to the words of Jesus and the writers, else you are relying on the words of mere men and not of God. Right?

Would it also make sense to listen to those who listened personally to the Apostles?

Otherwise, you are relying on the words of mere Protestant men and not of the leaders of the Church that Jesus founded upon Peter the rock.

Right? :yup:

And since I quoted from 1 Peter to support the fact that Peter was in Rome, it is obvious that I have listened to the Word of God.

Apparently, you were not listening to me.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

Would it not make sense to listen to the words of Jesus and the writers, else you are relying on the words of mere men and not of God. Right?

Its a matter of history.

Do I need the Bible to tell me George Washington was the first American President? No, because its a matter of history.

History tells us Peter was in Rome. Very simple

 

[JP_Marat]

Have YOU read Munificentissimus Deus?

If you have, then you know that the Holy See was beseiged with requests that this dogma be proclaimed. Consequently, the Holy Father sent out a letter to all of the Bishops of the world asking whether the doctrine was believed and should be proclaimed. The response was OVERWHELMINGLY positive. This is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church at work. Subsequently, the Pope defined the dogma ex cathedra. Since the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium and the Pope are infallible, the doctrine is beyond question.

However, I have asked you repeatedly to provide some evidence of contemporary writings objecting to the “pious” novelty.

You have nothing.

RESPONSE:

So if a lot of people want a dogma proclaimed, that’s what the pope does? As he did in this case.

Until about 1700 the universal ordinary magisterium claimed that the sun revolved around the earth and the earth didn’t move because this was evidenced by scripture. Does that make it so? Until 1964, the universal ordinary magisterium taught that slave ownership was morally licit via scripture and the natural law. Does that make it so? Until 1750 loaning anything for interest was a sin requiring restitution. Does that make it so? Etc.

provide some evidence of contemporary writings objecting to the “pious” novelty. <<
What pious novelty would that be?

You have nothing.<< Just the evidence that I’ve presented.

 

[JP_Marat]

Its a matter of history.

Do I need the Bible to tell me George Washington was the first American President? No, because its a matter of history.

History tells us Peter was in Rome. Very simple

RESPONSE:

Does history talk to you?

Then please present your evidence . And not some mere assertion made hundreds of years after his death.

Why don’t you start with the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul? They were contemporary writings.