Sacred Oral and Written Tradition

[Realcatholicgk]

No. The Catholic faith is not a “religion of the book”. All the Catholic teachings come directly from Jesus, through the Apostles and were whole and entire (see quote from Jude) before a word of the NT was written.

guan, My friend, You truely have the patience of Job! As you know patience is not one of the traditional biblical three theological vitues nor one of the traditional four cardinal virtues, but it is one of the seven virtues we all should display.

If our understanding could not develop, we would never have been able to defeat the early heresies of gnosticism and arainism. These controversies required the development of the word Trinity, also not found in scripture, and the hypostatic union. Such developments are all done on the basis of the “once for all” deposit of faith. this is how the contents of the NT was determined as well.

**Like JA4 doesn’t know that! **

Just like all the other doctrines of the faith, the NT scriptures already existed in their inspired-inerrant condition. It was left to the church to identify and proclaim them as such.

No, ja4, most of them don’t. This is spreading misinformation. I am going to assume that you wrote this in ignorance, but please don’t do this again.

Lets just assume that everything JA4T1T writes is in ignorance. After all they do speak for themselves don’t they? You know they wil!

Secondly, were any of these books associated with an apostle? This was crucial since the work had to be either written by an apostle or one associated with one since this inspired work was to come through them.

It is interesting that you acknowledge that the inspired writings can come through the Apostles by the Power of God, but you cannot acknowledge that they were able to live their lives in holiness by the power of God, or to accurately pass on the Teachings of Jesus by that same Power.

Good, you have answered for yourself how the development of doctrine works,a nd what “implicit” means.

This is a logical error. The teachings came from the same Source. It is the Source that inspires. the HS did not lie down on the job after the writing was completed.

Good.

It works equivalently. The Sacred Tradition supports it, that’s how we know it is from the Apostles.

 

[sandusky]

It is demonstrated, it’s called Sacred tradtion The fact that you reject it does not make it any less true.

LOL.

 

[guanophore]

Again, the Papal statement of the dogma condemns those who reject the it; that’s an unbiblical condemnation based upon an unbibilical dogma.

The Papal statement is directed toward the Catholic faithful, to prevent them from falling away from the faith. If a Catholic rejects the doctrines of the Apostles, they will make a shipwreck of their faith. It is the duty of the Church to warn them, just as Paul did.

Gal 1:8-9
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!

 

[guanophore]

The canon is based on the Scriptures being recognized as being inspired. If the Tradition is valid then we should use that as a support. For example since the names are not the gospels and there are some solid traditions that support who wrote them then we should go with that unless there is a counter tradition to is more compelling.

Now I know you must be taking turns at the keyboard.

How does one determine if a “Tradition is valid”?

Who is to determine whether the traditions are “solid”.

Since when does “compelling countertradition” become a factor? Compelling to whom? This is one of the most contradictory things you have ever written.

The canon is a result of what books are inspired and not something that stands alone.

The canon is the list of books that belong in the collection. While it is true that it includes only inspired books, the only reason that it does not “stand alone” is Sacred Tradition.

Each “tradition” must stand on its own. Just because the church got it right on the canon of the NT does not automatically mean they got it right on the assumption of Mary. This fails because:
1- no support for it in Scripture
2- no historical support for it. Its mentioned centuries later
3- Its based on an a fictional gospel.

Now this sounds much more like your usual fare. However, your points are erroneous. None of the traditions “stand on their own”. On the contrary, they all stand together, and none stand without the other. This method of dividing and separating you have is the fruit of the Reformation.

There are scriptural supports for the Assumption, you just don’t accept them. There are historical supports, and you reject those too. It is not based on a gospel at all, but on the faith of the Church, just like the books that belong in the canon. See how that goes together?

True. However it does demonstrate that the church can err. The standard that the Catholic church has set for itself is impossibly high since it can never be wrong on any matters of faith. Here is one such case that shows this is not the case at all.

I know that is why you try so hard to prove error in so many areas, hoping one will work, but the Church cannot err because of the Divine elements. It is Christ the Head, and the soul of the Church, the HS that prevent the error. Saying otherwise is to say that God is a liar.

i’m trying to show what something that is implicit such as the deity of Christ has solid support from the Scriptures.

We see it that way because we believe it already, as with the assumption of Mary. Those that do not, such as JW, do not see or accept the implicit evidence, just as you don’t accept the implicit evidence of Mary.

No. The canon in and of itself is not inspired but the books that make up the canon are.

Do you have any idea what you are saying? Do you think that 'canon" means something besides the list of books that make up the canon? You have already admitted that this decision was inspired by the HS, why are you going back on this now?

The ability of each person to determine who has the better case. Which case incorporates more facts would decide.

This is a totally carnally based method, and leaves no room for divine revelation . Doesnt this humanistic formulation concern you at all?.

However, human nature being what it is is not always able to come to agree based on a number of factors not necessarily related to the issue.

Of course, which is why our faith needs to be based on Divine Revelation instead of our own fallible reasoning.

For example, i see Catholics believing things not so much on facts but on what the church has told them to believe. For many the deciding issue are not the facts but what does the church say. Since the church claims it cannot err in matters of faith it can never be wrong no matter how many facts show otherwise. The Marian doctrines are a case in point.

This is true. Given our fallible reasoning ability, and inability to wrap our puny human minds around the vastness of God, it behooves us to accept His revelation of HImself, rather than trying to figure out out on our own. I see this as one of the major differences in what you believe, and what Catholics believe. Our faith is based on what God has disclosed about HImself, and yours is based on your reasoning ability.

 

[guanophore]

This “implicitedness” is based also on other things to.

Indeed. Like your definition of the Trinity, extrabiblical? For someone who adheres to SS, you certainly seem open to extrabiblical definitions of doctrine…

The Scriptures themselves don’t mention such a criteria. There are other means to determine if they are inspired or not.

Would that be your sacred tradition?

I can use any formula so long as that formula can be supported by the Scriptures.

Hmmm…sounds like the Catholic development of doctrine, a little bit…

For something to be implicit would require some explicit statements in some form that such things are implicitedly true. Take the deity of Christ. He does not come out in His teachings and say “look at Me. I’m God” rather in His teachings and ministry He clearly demonstrates that He is God incarnate.

Well, clearly this does not work for everyone. The Mormons, for example, read it differently.

Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

We would have to lay on the table all the verses and passages and see first how strong our case is. If someone comes and say that there is no evidence or there is counder evidence then we would need to examine that. For example Islam denies the Trinity not on biblical grounds but philosophical grounds.

It is interesting that you would say this, since you claim to believe in doctrines that exclude part of the bible.

i think it can be sustained on Scripture. He was brillant man.

So, if a person is brilliant enough, their opinion is equal to scripture?

 

[sandusky]

The Papal statement is directed toward the Catholic faithful, to prevent them from falling away from the faith. If a Catholic rejects the doctrines of the Apostles, they will make a shipwreck of their faith. It is the duty of the Church to warn them, just as Paul did.

Paul warned the faithful to believe in the bodily assumption of Mary? Where?

 

[AshleyBelle]

Paul warned the faithful to believe in the bodily assumption of Mary? Where?

Gal 1:8-9
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” (1 Cor. 11:2)

Paul encourages us to hold to the traditions handed to us. The gospel includes Sacred tradition, magisterium, and scripture. He warns us that if anyone preaches a gospel contrary to what the apostles proclaimed (THROUGH sacred tradition, magisterium, and scripture) to let that one be accursed.

Just because you do not believe in the FULLNESS of the gospel, does not mean we need to conform it to your narrow standard of scripture alone.

 

[sandusky]

Gal 1:8-9
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” (1 Cor. 11:2)

Paul encourages us to hold to the traditions handed to us. The gospel includes Sacred tradition, magisterium, and scripture. He warns us that if anyone preaches a gospel contrary to what the apostles proclaimed (THROUGH sacred tradition, magisterium, and scripture) to let that one be accursed.

Just because you do not believe in the FULLNESS of the gospel, does not mean we need to conform it to your narrow standard of scripture alone.

LOL.

 

[guanophore]

Paul warned the faithful to believe in the bodily assumption of Mary? Where?

During the two years he was teaching at the lecture hall in Tyrannus.

Where do you think Luke got the material for his gospel?

 

[twb1621]

393?

Sorry…
Again I offer you this post to consider;
Perhaps it would help to understand and to keep in mind not only that the “woman” spoken of in the OT was Mary in the prophecies but also that she was predestined to suffer the pain of the sword as prophesied by Simeon at the temple. This was the reason Jesus referred to her as “woman” at times referring her to those prophacies. In fact, if you make the Compression, Mary’s life was (although a difference in degrees) to parallel the life of Jesus right down to His passion and suffering yet she remained as silent in her suffering as Jesus in His. It is a fact recognized by all Christians that the Blood of Christ is the Blood of our salvation. Mary was born full of grace and created by God with purity to be the ark of the new covenant just as God directed the construction of the ark of the old covenant. Mary was even more precious because it would be the Son of God who she would carry.
But most importantly, it should not be difficult to understand that if the blood of Jesus is the source of our salvation, this very blood pulsating through the veins of Jesus flowed through the veins of Mary and from her through Him. Her devotion and her immaculate nature could not have been flawed to start with and certainly could not have been soiled after sharing the living blood of Christ. If it were, there would be no salvation at all from the spilling of this very same blood and their shared torment and suffering. In sharing such a parallel it would also be a logical expectation that Jesus would have wanted her assumption as well.

As far as scripture, It would also stand to reason that considering the persecution of Christians at that time, the Apostles would have been very protective of Mary in her remaining years avoiding writing or any public proclamations having to do with her that might be used against her in some way. The logical thought would be that information regarding her life and death and assumption was passed on through Sacred Tradition but kept protected until such a time it could more safely be revealed along with the location she was originally laid to rest before the assumption. (Theoretically)

Some excerpts to ponder;
64. “Through the prophets, God forms his people in the hope of salvation, in the expectation of a new and everlasting Covenant intended for all, to be written on their hearts. [Cf. Is 2:2-4 ; Jer 31:31-34 ; Heb 10:16 .] The prophets proclaim a radical redemption of the People of God, purification from all their infidelities, a salvation, which will include all the nations. [Cf. Ezek 3:6; Is 49:5-6; Is 53:11 .] Above all, the poor and humble of the Lord will bear this hope. Such holy women as Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Judith and Esther kept alive the hope of Israel’s salvation. The purest figure among them is Mary. [Cf. Ezek 2:3 ; Lk 1:38 .]”
148. “The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that ‘with God nothing will be impossible’ and so giving her assent: ‘Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be (done) to me according to your word.’ [Lk 1:37-38; cf. Gen 18:14.] Elizabeth greeted her: ‘Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.’ [Lk 1:45 .] It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed. [Cf. Lk 1:48.]”
273. “Only faith can embrace the mysterious ways of God’s almighty power. This faith glories in its weaknesses in order to draw to itself Christ’s power. [Cf. 2 Cor 12:9 ; Phil 4:13.] The Virgin Mary is the supreme model of this faith, for she believed that ‘nothing will be impossible with God’, and was able to magnify the Lord: ‘For he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.’ [Lk 1:37, 49.]”
487. “What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.”
490. “To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary ‘was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.’ [LG 56.] The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as ‘full of grace’. [Lk 1:28 .] In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.”
491. “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, ‘full of grace’ through God, [Lk 1:28 .] was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. [Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803.]”
catscans.com/catholicsite/mary.htm

 

[twb1621]

Lets correct this issue… The assumption is not an addition, it is a conclusion based on the study of existing accumulated information from the OT and the relationship between Mary’s life and the earthly life of her Son. It is a part of interpretation of the Bible that those who limit themselves to scripture alone and limited scripture at that will not get.

 

[twb1621]

I have come across this argument so many times discrediting all but what is written in the bible but no one has given a reasonable answer as to how you can use scripture verse against scripture verse and not recognize the fact your interpretation must be wrong.
If you interprete a verse out of direct wording and it conflicts with a verse that is straight forward in its teaching, the interpretation is corrupt. Secondly, how do you justify discrediting Sacred Tradition when the gospel is portions of the same source… Additionally, the very issues you argue your case with was derived in the same manner as your issues. All y ou are saying is its ok and acceptable if it comes from Sacred Tradition as long as it was written down, but the teachings that they didn’t put to pen are not good enough. There were many reasons only a small portion was written and those who know the history of full Christianity know this.

Do you through out or just distort what this verse says;
15
"…I do not ask that you take them out of the world but that you keep them from the evil one.
16
They do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world.
17
Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth.
18
As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.
19
And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.
20
“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.
22
And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one,
23
I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.” John 17: 15-23

 

[cfrancis]

Your statement demonstrates your ignorance of the definition of Sola Scriptura, as defined by those who adhere to it.

Your statement demonstrates your ignorance of the myriad definitions of sola Scriptura by the myriad users of this non-Biblical doctrine.

Furthermore, it shows as well that the argument you’ve been putting forth is a straw man. SS is a presuppositional position that is based upon the fact that a canon of Scripture exists, both OT, and NT, which is why I stated in my post #559, that you should dispense with that argument.
As I said, SS is based upon the fact that a canon of Scripture exists; again, you should dispense with your straw man, but you probably won’t.

Ah yes, the “SS is a pre-suppositional position” defense. As I said, I recognize and accept your white flag.
Of course you want to run and hide behind the “pre-supposition” argument, for it’s the only thing preventing your position from unraveling.
Still, your presupposition is internally, fundamentally inconsistent with that which it is meant to presuppose!
You’ve proven as much with both your lack of evidence and hding behind the skirt of the illogical “pre-supposition”.
I doubt, however, that you will admit this and address the issues.

He’s certainly not condemning all tradition. However, the assumption of Mary is clearly a tradition that I believe Christ would condemn, as it carries with it the penalty of a loss of salvation for those who reject it.

Yet we’ve proven your belief is based upon an illogical, internally inconsistent pre-supposition!

Clearly the testimony of God does not bind the faithful to believe in that dogma as the dogma has no basis in His testimony, as demonstrated by your inability to produce scriptural support for it.

And here you have, with your own words, sounded the death knell for your pre-supposition, for it cannot withstand the argument that springs from it.
Further, each Scripture given to you (not by, by others) is met with your disapproval based upon nothing but your opinion of your interpretation.
The intellectually honest approach to your definition of SS would be to admit as much, but I doubt you will do that.

Yes, I’m equating “the word of God” with the written word of God because it’s that written word to which Christ is referring.

Christ does refer to what has been written re: Isaiah, but His statement in v13 of Mk 7, taken in its entirety, is clearly not limited to what is written.

It is the written word to which Isaiah refers (cf Is 1:10; 8:16; Lk 16:29).

Please note in Isaiah 8:20:
To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word,

The “law and the testimony” - the written and unwritten wrods of God, are “this word.”

Then you have to deny the NT is a part of God’s testimony, which frankly, wouldn’t surprise me.

I suppose you are accustomed to others letting you twist their comments that you’ve assumed a right to do so. Not surprising such is your only defense of your position.
You statement/position re: Is 8:20 is that Isaiah is referring to all (and only) the written Word of God, including the NT. Based upon your assumption Is 8:20 refers to only the written Word of God, the most proximate, the literal meaning of Is 8:20 is first what is already written by the time.
Your position that Isaiah was referring to what had yet to be written is there, but not as the proximate or literal meaning.

 

[cfrancis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cfrancis
By your own words, If you can’t provide Scriptural references that proves Mary was NOT assumed into heaven, you’re not required to believe that either.

Now you are putting words in my mouth? I trust this is a mistake and not a tactic used by you.

 

[sandusky]

During the two years he was teaching at the lecture hall in Tyrannus.

Where do you think Luke got the material for his gospel?

 

[twb1621]

…

cfrancis, maybe you can tell me… Are my posts difficult to understand or are some individuals just not able to substantiate any argument in them?

 

[sandusky]

Your statement demonstrates your ignorance of the myriad definitions of sola Scriptura by the myriad users of this non-Biblical doctrine.

And your ignorance continues, in that you fail to recognize that though there may be myriad definitions of SS, I have given you point one of the correct definition: SS presupposes a canon of scripture.

cfrancis:

Ah yes, the “SS is a pre-suppositional position” defense. As I said, I recognize and accept your white flag.

Of course you want to run and hide behind the “pre-supposition” argument, for it’s the only thing preventing your position from unraveling.

Still, your presupposition is internally, fundamentally inconsistent with that which it is meant to presuppose!

You’ve proven as much with both your lack of evidence and hding behind the skirt of the illogical “pre-supposition”.

You continue to prove my point made in the preceding post.

cfrancis:

Yet we’ve proven your belief is based upon an illogical, internally inconsistent pre-supposition!

My point has been that you cannot prove the Marian dogmas from scripture. That point has not been refuted.

cfrancis:

And here you have, with your own words, sounded the death knell for your pre-supposition, for it cannot withstand the argument that springs from it.

Further, each Scripture given to you (not by, by others) is met with your disapproval based upon nothing but your opinion of your interpretation.

Marian dogmas…in scripture…where do I find them?

cfrancis:

The intellectually honest approach to your definition of SS would be to admit as much, but I doubt you will do that.

You again prove my first statement in this post.

cfrancis:

Christ does refer to what has been written re: Isaiah, but His statement in v13 of Mk 7, taken in its entirety, is clearly not limited to what is written.

Dude

cfrancis:

The “law and the testimony” - the written and unwritten wrods of God, are “this word.”

That’s your position, it’s not the Jews position.

cfrancis:

I suppose you are accustomed to others letting you twist their comments that you’ve assumed a right to do so. Not surprising such is your only defense of your position.

 

[sandusky]

Sorry…
Again I offer you this post to consider;
Perhaps it would help to understand and to keep in mind not only that the “woman” spoken of in the OT was Mary in the prophecies but also that she was predestined to suffer the pain of the sword as prophesied by Simeon at the temple. This was the reason Jesus referred to her as “woman” at times referring her to those prophacies. In fact, if you make the Compression, Mary’s life was (although a difference in degrees) to parallel the life of Jesus right down to His passion and suffering yet she remained as silent in her suffering as Jesus in His. It is a fact recognized by all Christians that the Blood of Christ is the Blood of our salvation. Mary was born full of grace and created by God with purity to be the ark of the new covenant just as God directed the construction of the ark of the old covenant. Mary was even more precious because it would be the Son of God who she would carry.
But most importantly, it should not be difficult to understand that if the blood of Jesus is the source of our salvation, this very blood pulsating through the veins of Jesus flowed through the veins of Mary and from her through Him. Her devotion and her immaculate nature could not have been flawed to start with and certainly could not have been soiled after sharing the living blood of Christ. If it were, there would be no salvation at all from the spilling of this very same blood and their shared torment and suffering. In sharing such a parallel it would also be a logical expectation that Jesus would have wanted her assumption as well.

As far as scripture, It would also stand to reason that considering the persecution of Christians at that time, the Apostles would have been very protective of Mary in her remaining years avoiding writing or any public proclamations having to do with her that might be used against her in some way. The logical thought would be that information regarding her life and death and assumption was passed on through Sacred Tradition but kept protected until such a time it could more safely be revealed along with the location she was originally laid to rest before the assumption. (Theoretically)

Some excerpts to ponder;
64. “Through the prophets, God forms his people in the hope of salvation, in the expectation of a new and everlasting Covenant intended for all, to be written on their hearts. [Cf. Is 2:2-4 ; Jer 31:31-34 ; Heb 10:16 .] The prophets proclaim a radical redemption of the People of God, purification from all their infidelities, a salvation, which will include all the nations. [Cf. Ezek 3:6; Is 49:5-6; Is 53:11 .] Above all, the poor and humble of the Lord will bear this hope. Such holy women as Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Judith and Esther kept alive the hope of Israel’s salvation. The purest figure among them is Mary. [Cf. Ezek 2:3 ; Lk 1:38 .]”
148. “The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that ‘with God nothing will be impossible’ and so giving her assent: ‘Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be (done) to me according to your word.’ [Lk 1:37-38; cf. Gen 18:14.] Elizabeth greeted her: ‘Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.’ [Lk 1:45 .] It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed. [Cf. Lk 1:48.]”
273. “Only faith can embrace the mysterious ways of God’s almighty power. This faith glories in its weaknesses in order to draw to itself Christ’s power. [Cf. 2 Cor 12:9 ; Phil 4:13.] The Virgin Mary is the supreme model of this faith, for she believed that ‘nothing will be impossible with God’, and was able to magnify the Lord: ‘For he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.’ [Lk 1:37, 49.]”
487. “What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.”
490. “To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary ‘was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.’ [LG 56.] The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as ‘full of grace’. [Lk 1:28 .] In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.”
491. “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, ‘full of grace’ through God, [Lk 1:28 .] was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. [Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803.]”
catscans.com/catholicsite/mary.htm

I’ve read all of your posts that were here this morning, OK?

I understand your points, I’m ex-RC, OK?

 

[justasking4]

Lets correct this issue… The assumption is not an addition, it is a conclusion based on the study of existing accumulated information from the OT and the relationship between Mary’s life and the earthly life of her Son. It is a part of interpretation of the Bible that those who limit themselves to scripture alone and limited scripture at that will not get.

If you are going to limit yourself to the Scriptures alone you will not find anything about her assumption. Nothing. You will also not find any reliable historical support either. For example from a Catholic scholar:
“The Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it …’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:
But if some think us mistaken, 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 … Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).”

 

[sandusky]

If you are going to limit yourself to the Scriptures alone you will not find anything about her assumption. Nothing. You will also not find any reliable historical support either. For example from a Catholic scholar:
“The Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it …’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:
But if some think us mistaken, 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 … Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).”

Amazing; no?