Name the Patristic Sources that deny the Assumption of Mary?

[justasking4]

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.

The question though is: was Mary assumed and what is the evidence for it?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No, the question is, name the Patristic Sources that deny the Assumption.

 

[VociMike]

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.

I’m amazed that Christians are demanding “secular” proof of their faith. Provide for me the secular proof that God exists. That Jesus is God Incarnate. That the Holy Spirit dwells within each of us. Provide for me the secular proof that the Bible is divinely inspired and the Koran is not.

Once again we have the bizarre but oft-repeated phenomenon of non-Catholic Christians who sound like atheists when they argue against the Catholic faith.

 

[Penitus]

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.

Moses DID die and enter body and spirit into Heaven, but so did Christ.

The Catholic Church has no official position on the subject, but I may therefore believe that Moses went body and soul into Heaven. I suggest you check out Jd 1:9 and Deut 34:6. How else could Peter have recognized Moses and Elijah when Christ was transfigured? Does it say in the Gospels that Elijah had his body, and that Moses did not? Does it say anywhere in the Bible that our souls look like our physical bodies in appearance?

 

[Penitus]

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.

VERY true. Good call. That has rarely crossed my mind. You see no arguments, no schisms, no outcries of heresy.

 

[kaycee]

No, the question is, name the Patristic Sources that deny the Assumption.

Considering the first time anyone ever heard about it was the early 5th century and that from a Gnostic forgery. Pope Gelasius did condemn the Transitus Beatae Marea Pseudo Melito that lays out the assumption story.

Why would the anathema from 2 popes not count?

 

[VociMike]

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.

Likewise, when you have no evidence that the Assumption was rejected, you are forced to rely on speculation. If it was something not handed down from the Apostles, the Church would have condemned it when it first appeared! Since the Church never, ever condemned it, it follows that it was never, ever a new idea.

You must deal with the complete lack of condemnation by the Church. You cannot ignore this lack of condemnation.

 

[VociMike]

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.

The Pseudo Melito Transitus also speaks of the Ascension of Christ into heaven. By your logic, then, the Church (and all Christians) must therefore reject the Ascension. The document also speaks of the Trinitarian nature of God, so we all must reject the Trinity.

I await your post in which you acknowledge that you reject the Ascension and the Trinity.

 

[PhilVaz]

kc << Considering the first time anyone ever heard about it was the early 5th century and that from a Gnostic forgery. >>

I’ve answered this already. Show me the document is “Gnostic” – do you know what Gnosticism is? Let me help…

– Gnosticism differs from orthodox Christianity on God, the world, man, salvation, and morality (basically everything);

– the distinguishing traits of Gnosticism include dualism, emanationism, and salvation through esoteric knowledge (or gnosis in Greek);

– as for soteriology, its most distinguishing feature is that salvation is accomplished not by the power of God nor by human faith nor by cooperation with the will of God, but by assimilation of esoteric knowledge;

– the Gnostic “savior” is scarcely recognizable from the New Testament point of view; he is a semi-divine personage, a messenger from God Himself; but Christ does not become man;

– Gnosticism is Docetic in holding that the redeemer merely seems to become incarnate; various devices are used to explain away the Passion and death of Jesus;

Show any of those in the Transitus literature of the 5th century.

Shoemaker says on the Pseudo-Melito:

“The narrative’s manuscript tradition often includes a brief prologue, in which (Ps.-)Melito explains that he has composed this narrative in response to an earlier narrative written by a certain Leucius. According to (Ps.-)Melito, this narrative was riddled with heresies, and he has composed his own narrative in order to present the truth about the end of Mary’s life in an account that is free from the ‘lies’ and ‘heresies’ of Leucius’ version. It is worth noting that many of the earliest exemplars of this literary tradition are quite heterodox, and (Ps.-)Melito’s narrative is one of the earliest ‘orthodox’ responses to this earlier tradition. Thus this narrative has adjusted these traditions so that the end of Mary’s life could be claimed for the ‘orthodox’ faith.”

It is not gnostic but rather an orthodox response to other literature/stories on Mary. So says Shoemaker, and he has translated into English some of these documents himself.

Phil P

 

[Penitus]

Considering the first time anyone ever heard about it was the early 5th century and that from a Gnostic forgery. Pope Gelasius did condemn the Transitus Beatae Marea Pseudo Melito that lays out the assumption story.

Why would the anathema from 2 popes not count?

Did the Popes condemn the literature, or the doctrine found within?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Likewise, when you have no evidence that the Assumption was rejected, you are forced to rely on speculation. If it was something not handed down from the Apostles, the Church would have condemned it when it first appeared! Since the Church never, ever condemned it, it follows that it was never, ever a new idea.

You must deal with the complete lack of condemnation by the Church. You cannot ignore this lack of condemnation.

Hi,

I get what you are saying but how do you go from that to an infallible teaching that must be believed

Im wondering if this infallible declaration wasnt made out of a knee jerk reaction to protestants not giving enough honor to Mary.

Kinda like protestants not giving Mary enough honor because they felt the CC goes too far and doesnt want to look too catholic like
It seems as if we are kids trying to one up each other–so incredibly stupid–dont ya think.
That is my take on it anyway

 

[VociMike]

Hi,

I get what you are saying but how do you go from that to an infallible teaching that must be believed

That’s a fair question. The answer is, you don’t go from that to an infallible teaching. The Church does not rely on historical evidence for infallible teaching, though she may cite such evidence in support of infallible teaching. Likewise, Christianity does not rely on the historical evidence for Christ to prove Christ’s divinity, but it does cite such evidence to the extent that it supports the Christian teaching of who Christ was and what he did.

Im wondering if this infallible declaration wasnt made out of a knee jerk reaction to protestants not giving enough honor to Mary.

Kinda like protestants not giving Mary enough honor because they felt the CC goes too far and doesnt want to look too catholic like
It seems as if we are kids trying to one up each other–so incredibly stupid–dont ya think.
That is my take on it anyway

It wouldn’t actually matter why the Church chose a particular moment to define an infallible teaching. The teaching must be true regardless of the motives of proclaiming it, if the Church is what she claims she is (and we believe she is )

 

[kaycee]

kc << Considering the first time anyone ever heard about it was the early 5th century and that from a Gnostic forgery. >>

I’ve answered this already. Show me the document is “Gnostic” – do you know what Gnosticism is? Let me help…

– Gnosticism differs from orthodox Christianity on God, the world, man, salvation, and morality (basically everything);

– the distinguishing traits of Gnosticism include dualism, emanationism, and salvation through esoteric knowledge (or gnosis in Greek);

– as for soteriology, its most distinguishing feature is that salvation is accomplished not by the power of God nor by human faith nor by cooperation with the will of God, but by assimilation of esoteric knowledge;

– the Gnostic “savior” is scarcely recognizable from the New Testament point of view; he is a semi-divine personage, a messenger from God Himself; but Christ does not become man;

– Gnosticism is Docetic in holding that the redeemer merely seems to become incarnate; various devices are used to explain away the Passion and death of Jesus;

Show any of those in the Transitus literature of the 5th century.

Shoemaker says on the Pseudo-Melito:

“The narrative’s manuscript tradition often includes a brief prologue, in which (Ps.-)Melito explains that he has composed this narrative in response to an earlier narrative written by a certain Leucius. According to (Ps.-)Melito, this narrative was riddled with heresies, and he has composed his own narrative in order to present the truth about the end of Mary’s life in an account that is free from the ‘lies’ and ‘heresies’ of Leucius’ version. It is worth noting that many of the earliest exemplars of this literary tradition are quite heterodox, and (Ps.-)Melito’s narrative is one of the earliest ‘orthodox’ responses to this earlier tradition. Thus this narrative has adjusted these traditions so that the end of Mary’s life could be claimed for the ‘orthodox’ faith.”

It is not gnostic but rather an orthodox response to other literature/stories on Mary. So says Shoemaker, and he has translated into English some of these documents himself.

Phil P

Is it your position that this forgery attributed to Melito of Sardis is in fact Christian?

You are aware that the Transitus Beatae Mariae Pseudo Melito was condemned by pope Gelasius, correct?

 

[VociMike]

Is it your position that this forgery attributed to Melito of Sardis is in fact Christian?

You are aware that the Transitus Beatae Mariae Pseudo Melito was condemned by pope Gelasius, correct?

If I were to write “Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Incarnate, and he married Mary Magdeline” the Church would rightly condemn my writings as well. But that wouldn’t mean she was denying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Incarnate. It seems we have explained this to you dozens of times now.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

That’s a fair question. The answer is, you don’t go from that to an infallible teaching. The Church does not rely on historical evidence for infallible teaching, though she may cite such evidence in support of infallible teaching. Likewise, Christianity does not rely on the historical evidence for Christ to prove Christ’s divinity, but it does cite such evidence to the extent that it supports the Christian teaching of who Christ was and what he did.

It wouldn’t actually matter why the Church chose a particular moment to define an infallible teaching. The teaching must be true regardless of the motives of proclaiming it, if the Church is what she claims she is (and we believe she is )

Thanks Mike:thumbsup:

 

[kaycee]

The Pseudo Melito Transitus also speaks of the Ascension of Christ into heaven. By your logic, then, the Church (and all Christians) must therefore reject the Ascension. The document also speaks of the Trinitarian nature of God, so we all must reject the Trinity.

I await your post in which you acknowledge that you reject the Ascension and the Trinity.

I cant imagine you actually believe anyone really thinks that.

Do you accept all the Gnostic gospels cause they have some truth in them?

 

[VociMike]

I cant imagine you actually believe anyone really thinks that.

Do you accept all the Gnostic gospels cause they have some truth in them?

No, but neither do I reject whatever truth exists in any false gospels because they have error in them. Such as the truth of the Ascension and the Trinitarian nature of God, both found in the Pseudo Melito Transitus.

 

[kaycee]

Did the Popes condemn the literature, or the doctrine found within?

Considering the Transitus Beatae Mariae is only about the “assumption” there is no distinction.

 

[kaycee]

No, but neither do I reject whatever truth exists in any false gospels because they have error in them. Such as the truth of the Ascension and the Trinitarian nature of God, both found in the Pseudo Melito Transitus.

Any guesses then why it was condemned by 2 popes?

 

[VociMike]

Any guesses then why it was condemned by 2 popes?

Nope, I don’t know enough about the subject.