N
New_Life
Guest
I would like to repeat here what I said elsewhere in another topic (John Piper’s the Passion of the Christ). I think it adds relevant information to the discussion of Rome’s dogma of Mary’s bodily assumption.
The early Church did not hold (or know of) the bodily assumption of Mary. Epiphanius in 377 AD says that “no one” really knows what happened to Mary:
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).If this was an apostolic tradition handed down and preserved, I wonder why Epiphanius and the rest of his contemporaries knew not of Mary’s bodily assumption? In fact, Roman Catholic historians admit that there is no early patristic evidence for this doctrine.
In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts…Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).
The first recorded appearance of Mary’s assumption in history is found in an apocryphal gospel called the Transitus Beatae Mariae dated near the end of the 5th century, which Pope Gelasius, between 494 to 496 AD (along with other writtings) declared heretical. Here is where the assumption of Mary doctrine finds its roots historically.
“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).
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).
There is much more to be said about this: I recommend the following article: The Assumption of Mary by William Webster. I believe this demonstrates how badly Rome has erred in her teaching.
The early Church did not hold (or know of) the bodily assumption of Mary. Epiphanius in 377 AD says that “no one” really knows what happened to Mary:
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).If this was an apostolic tradition handed down and preserved, I wonder why Epiphanius and the rest of his contemporaries knew not of Mary’s bodily assumption? In fact, Roman Catholic historians admit that there is no early patristic evidence for this doctrine.
In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts…Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).
The first recorded appearance of Mary’s assumption in history is found in an apocryphal gospel called the Transitus Beatae Mariae dated near the end of the 5th century, which Pope Gelasius, between 494 to 496 AD (along with other writtings) declared heretical. Here is where the assumption of Mary doctrine finds its roots historically.
“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).
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).
There is much more to be said about this: I recommend the following article: The Assumption of Mary by William Webster. I believe this demonstrates how badly Rome has erred in her teaching.
