Name the Patristic Sources that deny the Assumption of Mary?

[kaycee]

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 )

Well, I think that pretty much wraps up any debate at this point.

Once i hear, “it’s true cause the Church says it’s true”, further discussion is pointless.

In Him
Brian <><

 

[Zooey]

OK, I’m jumping in here, without reading all the posts, but there are a couple of points here:

1. It seems to me that non-Catholics asking for extraBiblical sources for the Assumption is more than a tad, well… bizarre.

2.There is a difference between a non-Catholic saying that s/he doesn’t accept it, and having one attack the Assumption. (I speak as a Methodist, remember…who believes in the Assumption, but a Methodist).

1. Following closely on the heels of #2: There should be, IMNSHO, a compartment in every Christian’s head, a mental file called “Awaiting Further Light”. So, if you are a Protestant here, I see a major , major difference between saying, “I don’t see that in the Bible, so I don’t accept it, but I respect your right to disagree”, and coming along & slinging around lines like “gnostic fables”, and the like.
2. If you all can’t find the Assumption in the Bible…you all need to re-read the Bible. I’m serious. I am dead serious.

 

[VociMike]

Well, I think that pretty much wraps up any debate at this point.

Once i hear, “it’s true cause the Church says it’s true”, further discussion is pointless.

Another “I’m a non-Catholic Christian but I argue exactly like an atheist when debating Catholics” comment. How is what I said any different in substance than “it’s true because the bible says it’s true” or “it’s true because the Holy Spirit convicted me that it’s true”?

Non-Catholic Christians hold themselves to one standard of truth, which in their minds they always manage to uphold, and they hold the Catholic Church to another standard of truth, which in their minds the Church always fail to uphold. What a coincidence.

Either hold your own faith up to the same historical, intellectual skepticism that you hold Catholicism to, or just come out and admit you have a double standard when it comes to Catholicism.

 

[historyb]

Well, I think that pretty much wraps up any debate at this point.

Once i hear, “it’s true cause the Church says it’s true”, further discussion is pointless.

In Him
Brian <><

It is true because the Church says it’s true. The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth, not the bible.

 

[mlchance]

So, after five pages, precisely how many Patristic sources deny the Assumption? More broadly, precisely how many times has the Catholic Church denied the Assumption?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Penitus]

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

Again, Jesus’ glorious Ascension is also mentioned in the literature, so apparently there IS a distinction. Otherwise, by the same argument you could say these Popes declared Christ’s Ascension to be heretical as well.

 

[PhilVaz]

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

Sure why not? They are simply stories about Mary and the apostles. They reflect a genuinely pious Christian insight (according to Walter Burghardt’s chapters from Carol’s Mariology) that the body of Mary should not see corruption, just like her Son. These documents don’t deny the Incarnation of Christ, nor speak of attaining salvation by “knowledge” or such beliefs of gnosticism. They are not gnostic in theology.

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

(1) It might not even be Pope Gelasius who wrote that, as pointed out by Shoemaker and others. Documentation provided in article linked above.

(2) The “Gelasian Decree” simply calls one of the Transitus documents “apocryphus” or “non-canonical.” That’s it. There is nothing in that “Gelasian Decree” about the Assumption doctrine itself. It is simply a list of canonical vs. non-canonical books. Just read the Decree and you’ll see, and stop relying on William Webster to read it for you. :yawn:

Phil P

 

[Zooey]

So, after five pages, precisely how many Patristic sources deny the Assumption? More broadly, precisely how many times has the Catholic Church denied the Assumption?

– Mark L. Chance.

          [SIGN1] 
                       **0**

Again, that’s 0;** zero; **zilch; none.
[/SIGN1]

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Mannyfit check out this book,

Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption by Shoemaker, Stephen

He brings out over sixty sources in nine languages on this topic that have not been translated into English before.

“The ancient Dormition and Assumption traditions are a collection of over 60 different narratives, preserved in 9 ancient languages, that commemorate the end of the Virgin Mary’s life. This study aims to make this collection more accessible by analyzing the liturgical, archaeological, and narrative sources of the earliest traditions of Mary’s death. Several of the most important narratives appear here in English for the first time.”

us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/Ancient/?view=usa&ci=9780199210749

 

[MariaG]

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.

Hi

You did catch that the CC does not teach that one has to be alive to be assumed body and soul into heaven didn’t you?

In fact, although Mary’s death is not part of the “official” declaration, in the document leading up to the “official” declaration, the consensus is in fact that Mary died.

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.

Good thing there are those of us who do so based on Scripture:thumbsup:

Psalm 132:8
Rev. 12:1
Thess. 2:15

OK, I’m jumping in here, without reading all the posts, but there are a couple of points here:

1. It seems to me that non-Catholics asking for extraBiblical sources for the Assumption is more than a tad, well… bizarre.

Yeah, that one struck me too!

2.There is a difference between a non-Catholic saying that s/he doesn’t accept it, and having one attack the Assumption. (I speak as a Methodist, remember…who believes in the Assumption, but a Methodist).

1. Following closely on the heels of #2: There should be, IMNSHO, a compartment in every Christian’s head, a mental file called “Awaiting Further Light”. So, if you are a Protestant here, I see a major , major difference between saying, “I don’t see that in the Bible, so I don’t accept it, but I respect your right to disagree”, and coming along & slinging around lines like “gnostic fables”, and the like.
2. If you all can’t find the Assumption in the Bible…you all need to re-read the Bible. I’m serious. I am dead serious.

:clapping: Well said!

 

[Larry1700]

Fr. Ambrose,

The other thread you linked to ends with an unanswered question:

What happened to the coffin and garments of the BVM, and the Church of the Theotokos?

Also, what is the name of the document in which Pope Pius XII declares the Assumption as doctrine, and therein quotes John of Damascus?

 

[historyb]

Fr. Ambrose,

The other thread you linked to ends with an unanswered question:

What happened to the coffin and garments of the BVM, and the Church of the Theotokos?

Also, what is the name of the document in which Pope Pius XII declares the Assumption as doctrine, and therein quotes John of Damascus?

In all likely hood, in fact there was no coffin. It was a tomb and she was most like placed in their with garments on and they most likely went with her like Elijah took all his and if it wasn’t for Elisha wanting a double portion he would of had all his clothes too.

MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS is the document.

 

[Larry1700]

Thanks, historyb.

 

[historyb]

No problem, I didn’t know the document existed so I learned something today.

 

[Whemsworth]

IT was never mentioned by any church father in the first seven centuries because it was not something they believed. The first mention was in the Transitus literature where Pope Gelasius said it, and all the teachings it contained, were heretical.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

IT was never mentioned by any church father in the first seven centuries because it was not something they believed. The first mention was in the Transitus literature where Pope Gelasius said it, and all the teachings it contained, were heretical.

This thread is nine years old.

 

[Novocastrian]

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

In fact, Jerome sought out the final resting places of the Apostles, John the Baptist, Ignatius, Polycarp, and several OT Patriarchs.

Jerome also prayed to Mary, asking her for his prayers, so of course Mary was important to Jerome.

Yet even with all this, he never once mentions Mary’s tomb.

For what it’s worth, there is a sepulchre of the Blessed Virgin at Gethsemane in Jerusalem; it’s rather beautiful. Attested in written documents from the fourth century onwards, so before any written reference to the assumption that I know of. And possessing of an empty sarcophagus.

 

[Novocastrian]

This thread is nine years old.

Wow, that I didn’t notice…