Name the Patristic Sources that deny the Assumption of Mary?

[Catholic_Mike]

True true–but to infallibly declare something that binds people to have to believe----- that is a different story.

I think if the CC just said it could have happened and left it at that–I dont think most people would have a problem with it or at least go after the CC the way they do:shrug:

Well, when a thing is infallibly taught, our confidence in it doesn’t come from the ability of a pope to be a fantastic historian or theologian - it comes from our belief that God will protect the Church from error. So, as a Catholic, I don’t feel like I *need *proof of the Assumption because I think the evidence shows that God guides the Church to teach the truth. On the other hand, a Protestant is obviously going to evidence about the assumption to be convinced because he has to approach the whole thing from the ground up.

So I think the “just leave it open” strategy you suggest makes sense only from a standpoint where you already assume that infallibility doesn’t exist. I mean if you were a pope, and you believed God would make sure you didn’t screw up the faith of the Church, and you decided that you thought a doctrine was true - would you hold back the proclimation of that doctrine as truth so that you could please people in other denominations?

And anyway I don’t think attacks against Catholicism over this really achieve that much becuase it’s such a secondary or tertiary issue, I mean, the real deciding factors are things like the authority of the church and sola scriptura and stuff. I doubt anyone is going to become Catholic because they decide the Assumption is true, and I don’t think anyone who becomes convinced that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ is going to refuse to sign up because the Assumption doesn’t make sense to them.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Well, when a thing is infallibly taught, our confidence in it doesn’t come from the ability of a pope to be a fantastic historian or theologian - it comes from our belief that God will protect the Church from error. So, as a Catholic, I don’t feel like I *need *proof of the Assumption because I think the evidence shows that God guides the Church to teach the truth. On the other hand, a Protestant is obviously going to evidence about the assumption to be convinced because he has to approach the whole thing from the ground up.

So I think the “just leave it open” strategy you suggest makes sense only from a standpoint where you already assume that infallibility doesn’t exist. I mean if you were a pope, and you believed God would make sure you didn’t screw up the faith of the Church, and you decided that you thought a doctrine was true - would you hold back the proclimation of that doctrine as truth so that you could please people in other denominations?

And anyway I don’t think attacks against Catholicism over this really achieve that much becuase it’s such a secondary or tertiary issue, I mean, the real deciding factors are things like the authority of the church and sola scriptura and stuff. I doubt anyone is going to become Catholic because they decide the Assumption is true, and I don’t think anyone who becomes convinced that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ is going to refuse to sign up because the Assumption doesn’t make sense to them.

Yeah I agree with your post Points taken:thumbsup:

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Thanks Pax and Fr.

I read the info. Im sure you already know my reaction to it being a protestant and all

It didnt convince me at all that the assumption is a fact.

 

[Harpazo]

Thanks Pax and Fr.

I read the info. Im sure you already know my reaction to it being a protestant and all

It didnt convince me at all that the assumption is a fact.

Have you read Apocalypse 11:19 and chapter 12? While Apocalypse is layered with imagery, one can deduce that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary did happen.

Also, if one were to accept that she was given graces by God to be conceived immaculately, why would God allow for her body to be corrupted in the grave. Elijah didn’t die, but was rather assumed. Why wouldn’t the Mother of God be assumed into Heaven?

In Pax Christi
Andrew

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Have you read Apocalypse 11:19 and chapter 12? While Apocalypse is layered with imagery, one can deduce that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary did happen.

Also, if one were to accept that she was given graces by God to be conceived immaculately, why would God allow for her body to be corrupted in the grave. Elijah didn’t die, but was rather assumed. Why wouldn’t the Mother of God be assumed into Heaven?

In Pax Christi
Andrew

Hi,

I do not believe Chapter 12 is speaking of Mary. I believe God could absolutely have assumed Mary into heaven. The fact is no one speaks of it until what the 600’s. So it is my HO that the CC should simply have never infallibly declared this with no proof.

 

[kaycee]

I haven’t yet read the article but as far as I am aware the earliest reference is in the mid 400’s

Here is some information, in the first 2 messages in this thread…

**The Assumption - something historical **

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

I believe the earliest reference is the Transitus Beatae Mariae from Pseudo Melito, a Gnostic forgery that was condemned by Pope Gelasius in 490 AD and again in 520 by Pope Horsmisdas.

This Gnostic fable crept into the church and was accepted by the 7th century.

 

[kaycee]

What good is faith, then, if you always have to have proof?

Should’nt the source of doctrine be Christian not Gnostic?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Kaycee, you keep posting the same old assertion of ‘gnostic fable’ and never any proof whatsoever.

 

[kaycee]

Kaycee, you keep posting the same old assertion of ‘gnostic fable’ and never any proof whatsoever.

"Thus, the Transitus literature is the real source of the teaching of the assumption of Mary and Roman Catholic authorities admit this fact. Juniper Carol, for example, writes: ‘The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’ (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149). Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, likewise affirms these facts when he says:

The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).

Pope Gelasius explicitly condemns the authors as well as their writings and the teachings which they promote and all who follow them. And significantly, this entire decree and its condemnation was reaffirmed by Pope Hormisdas in the sixth century around A.D. 520. (Migne Vol. 62. Col. 537-542). These facts prove that the early Church viewed the assumption teaching, not as a legitimate expression of the pious belief of the faithful but as a heresy worthy of condemnation."

christiantruth.com/assumption.html

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yep, that same old web site with its errors is dragged out again and again. It is an assumption on the web site writers part about ‘heresy’, it is a speculation about this being the very first mention (even if one or two theologians, none of whom are given the courtesy of noting EXACTLY what they said, in context, may have expressed their OPINION regarding it), etc.

So how come for 1000 years this ‘heresy’ was the ONLY ONE that was never ‘dealt’ with? Or are you going to tell me that not only did the Church fall into heresy here, but elsewhere? I do hope that you have more on your side than a web site though. . .because quite frankly, web sites are not exactly primary source material, unless they provide the primary sources themselves (and no, ‘references’ to a document or unqualified speculations are not primary sources).

 

[andzy]

Exactly, Kaycee. If you’re even a bit serious, please present more serious arguments (or at least try to listen to responses others give to them).
You could learn a bit from Bible_Student, who’s not a Catholic and doesn’t agree with the teachings of the Church, yet approaches the subject constructively and with respect, and does quite a bit of research.

 

[mlchance]

I believe the earliest reference is the Transitus Beatae Mariae from Pseudo Melito, a Gnostic forgery that was condemned by Pope Gelasius in 490 AD and again in 520 by Pope Horsmisdas.

This Gnostic fable crept into the church and was accepted by the 7th century.

This claim of yours and its bogus documentation have been refuted before. IIRC, the Assumption is also positively mentioned by Timothy of Jerusalem and John the Theologian (in the early 5th century), and Gregory of Tours (in the late 6th century). At no point in time was belief in the Assumption ever condemned, contrary to your assertion above.

Should’nt the source of doctrine be Christian not Gnostic?

Shouldn’t Christians not repeat the lies of others like you did in the first block of quoted text above?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Penitus]

IMHO—probably because God knew people would make a shrine out of it and He didnt want that to happen. Just like God took care of Moses burial so the Jews would not have done the same thing.
And you know this would have happened!

Easily refuted.

(1) I don’t believe you could pull together strong enough evidence to support Jews building a shrine to Moses’ body.

(2) Even if your hypothesis is correct, that doesn’t explain why God didn’t stop thousands other “shrines” to various saints. We see clear examples of the early Christians praying at grave sites of many martyrs, bishops, and Christian heroes.

(3) That didn’t stop many, many Churches picking Mary as their patroness.

(4) I believe it’s likely that Moses was assumed into Heaven, even if Scripture doesn’t explicitly mention it…JUST.LIKE.MARY.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Easily refuted.

(1) I don’t believe you could pull together strong enough evidence to support Jews building a shrine to Moses’ body.

(2) Even if your hypothesis is correct, that doesn’t explain why God didn’t stop thousands other “shrines” to various saints. We see clear examples of the early Christians praying at grave sites of many martyrs, bishops, and Christian heroes.

(3) That didn’t stop many, many Churches picking Mary as their patroness.

(4) I believe it’s likely that Moses was assumed into Heaven, even if Scripture doesn’t explicitly mention it…JUST.LIKE.MARY.

Hi,
I wasnt looking to refute it.

BTW Moses died so he couldnt have been assumed into heaven. I dont think the CC teaches that he was assumed.

Check out Deuteronomy 34-it tells about Moses death and burial. Looks pretty explicit to me.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

All, where does it state that a person must be assumed into heaven BEFORE death?

Is it not possible that after death a person’s body, prior to corruption, could be assumed to join the soul? Since we were told only that God was going to ‘bury’ Moses, could God not immediately have assumed Moses’ body afterward?

When you think of the fact that at the Last Judgment we are ALL going to be assumed–either to heaven or hell–‘assumed’ meaning that body will join soul–it makes perfect sense to believe that Moses --whose glorified body was seen with that of Elijah at the Transfiguration–was assumed very soon after death. He was one of the very ‘first’ to be assumed thus–especially since it was prior to Christ’s resurrection–but it is not outside the realm of Scriptural possibility.

 

[kaycee]

This claim of yours and its bogus documentation have been refuted before. IIRC, the Assumption is also positively mentioned by Timothy of Jerusalem and John the Theologian (in the early 5th century), and Gregory of Tours (in the late 6th century). At no point in time was belief in the Assumption ever condemned, contrary to your assertion above.

The documentation has certainly NOT been refuted but admitted to by Catholic historians.

Timothy of Jerusalem lived in the 7th century hardly an eye witness.

John the Theologian is in Fact the Apostle John. You are talking about a Gnostic forgery called the Dormition written in the early 5th century. This is ascribed to John the Theologian aka John the apostle.

This Gnostic tale tracks fairly closely to the condemned Pseudo Melito Transitus document, another Gnostic forgery attributed to Melito of Sardis, condemned by Pope Gelasius.

Both stories vary somewhat from each other but are essentially the same.

Shouldn’t Christians not repeat the lies of others like you did in the first block of quoted text above?

– Mark L. Chance.

I think you need to know what your talking about before you falsely accuse someone of lying. Everything I have stated is easily verifiable if you actually look for it.

What i find bothersome is to see the missinformation you have put forth to stand as the truth when in fact it is not.

 

[VociMike]

Should’nt the source of doctrine be Christian not Gnostic?

The source of Catholic doctrine is always God.

 

[VociMike]

For me, the best evidence of Mary’s Assumption is the lack of any mention of a Tomb etc.

For me, the best evidence is that when the Assumption is first mentioned in the historical record, nobody disputes it. This is in stark contrast to the various heresies which the Church battled during the same centuries. When those heresies first appeared, the Church immediately denounced them, and we find evidence of that denunciation in the historical record. But we find no evidence of any denunciation of the Assumption.

If one cannot point to the Church saying “the Church has never taught this - it is not a part of the faith” then the fact that the historical record that has survived doesn’t mention this or that belief until year X is no evidence whatsoever against the belief. In fact, the lack of reaction is evidence for the belief.

I hope those who reject the Assumption will address this lack of reaction and offer their own explanations for it.

 

[justasking4]

OK,

I scanned them. That is too much reading for me Am I correect to say that the earliest mention of this is 687AD??

If so, I think that is just way too much time after the fact(especially of something so important)to not be taught right away.

I dont know guys I think this is a huge stretch for the CC to make an infallible statement on, thus making it so all have to believe it. If the CC presented it as a possiblity, that would be fine–but to say it definitely happened with no proof --wellll— you see where Im coming from
Please feel free to point to a specific part of that article if necessary.

You make some excellent points here. I don’t think many catholics who accept the assumption of Mary on such a very late basis i.e. centuries after the supposed assumption, would accept the same kinds of claims in secular history. What we here is the stuff legends and myths are made of.

 

[justasking4]

For me, the best evidence is that when the Assumption is first mentioned in the historical record, nobody disputes it. This is in stark contrast to the various heresies which the Church battled during the same centuries. When those heresies first appeared, the Church immediately denounced them, and we find evidence of that denunciation in the historical record. But we find no evidence of any denunciation of the Assumption.

If one cannot point to the Church saying “the Church has never taught this - it is not a part of the faith” then the fact that the historical record that has survived doesn’t mention this or that belief until year X is no evidence whatsoever against the belief. In fact, the lack of reaction is evidence for the belief.

I hope those who reject the Assumption will address this lack of reaction and offer their own explanations for it.

Huh? When you have no evidence for a claim you are forced to rely on speculation. These speculations about Mary have go far far beyond the Mary we know in the NT. The scriptures never teach that she was assumed, queen of heaven or even prayed to. Only speculations could lead to what the catholic church teaches about her.