The Assumption!

[JP_Marat]

Since the bishops of the Church were quick to respond to false teachings (such as Jerome’s response to Helvidius’ denial of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary), perhaps you could provide some quotes from or links to the Fathers refutation of the novelty that Mary was assumed into heaven.

Thanks in advance.

RESPONSE:

Since the Assumption yarn didn’t even exist in the time of the Early Church Farthers nor in scripture, obviously they didn’t write disputation of what didn’t yet exist.

That would be like me demanding that you show proof that the Early Church Fathers didn’t refute the claim that St Peter had a halo.

And regarding the claim of the “perpetual virginity of Mary,” I assume you are aware that that story didn’t start to the late third or early fourth century. If you claim otherwise, please cite an earlier teaching.

 

[NotWorthy]

RESPONSE:

Since the Assumption yarn didn’t even exist in the time of the Early Church Farthers nor in scripture, obviously they didn’t write disputation of what didn’t yet exist.

I think you are missing Randy’s point. If the Assumption was an invention in (insert your own time period here), then where was the clamor when it was invented.

 

[kepha1]

JP Marat:

The folklore about the Assumption began in the 4th or 5th century. There is nothing about it in scripture or the writings of the Church Fathers until about the 7th century.

Early Church Fathers regarding the Assumption of Mary:

Pseudo – Melito
If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: “Be it done according to your will” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300]).

Timothy of Jerusalem
Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

John the Theologian
The Lord said to his Mother, “Let your heart rejoice and be glad. For every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens”. . . And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise (The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).

Gregory of Tours
[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones. . .
(Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 [A.D. 575]).

Theoteknos of Livias
It was fitting … that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory … should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.
(Homily on the Assumption [ca. A.D. 600]

Sorry Marat, you are dead wrong.

 

[kepha1]

First, a word about infallible dogma. It is not possible to declare a doctrine as infallible unless that doctrine was part of the deposit of faith from the beginning of the Church. No Pope or council can invent new doctrine; they can merely clarify and define already taught and believed doctrine.

The reason that a Pope or Council makes such an extraordinary proclamation is because the doctrine in question has been a doctrine of the Church from the beginning, the details and precise definition and understanding of what the doctrine means may be in dispute among theologians. Thus, to settle the debate the Pope or a Council makes a formal definition which must be adopted and held by all the faithful.

Often Protestants, and even some Catholics, think that these defined dogma are “new” dogma, and they are not and can’t be.

The basis of all the Marian Doctrines goes back to the Old Testament where we learn about the nature of the sacred.

Anyway, from the Old Testament we learn that when God sets aside something as sacred and imprints it with His own hand (such as the Ark of the Covenant) that it must be made of the purest materials, unblemished, untouched, and never used for non-sacred purposes either before, during, or after its purpose for being. **What is once touched by God in this way must remain pure forever. **

In the Holy of Holies where dwelt the Ark of the Covenant no one could enter except the High Priest once a year. A rope was tied to the ankles of the High Priest before he entered the Holy of Holies. This rope would be used to drag out his body in case he died while in the Holy of Holies. That is how important that the Holiest of holy things that God has set his finger upon MUST be kept untouched and undefiled.

Again in the Old Testament we see this theology of the Sacred in the manner of the Old Testament Sacrifice of the lamb. The lamb had to be a lamb, and not a sheep (in other words, pre-sexual so that the lamb was of course virginal), the lamb had to be free of all blemish and pure. Only then could it be used for sacrifice to God.
This is why the Lamb who took away the sins of the world had to be virginal and
unblemished (without sin or flaw). Jesus Christ was that Lamb.

Now with this said, we can begin to understand the Marian doctrines. Mary was the Ark of the NEW Covenant. Like the Ark of the Mosaic Covenant she was to hold the very presence of God in her womb. Thus that womb MUST be pure, unblemished, untouched.

Thus Mary HAD to be immaculately conceived to be free from the blemish of original sin. She HAD to live a sinless life (by virtue of being free from the stain of original sin) in order to remain unblemished and pure to be the Ark of God. She had to be virgin and give virgin birth for the same reason. As the Ark of God she had to be unblemished, pure, and untouched.

But after the birth of Jesus she HAD to remain a virgin because of the nature of the holiness and sacredness that God made her womb. Can you imagine let’s say, the Chalice of the Blood of our Lord, once it has worn out and cannot be used for the Holy Mass anymore, being used to remove water from the toilet? Such an idea is loathsome. Even though the Chalice is no longer used in Sacred Ministry, it MUST STILL be treated as a Sacred object and if disposed of, disposed of properly.

Although Mary’s main mission to give birth to the Savior was over, the sacred vessel of her womb, made holy by the very touch of God, had to remain pure, undefiled, and unblemished. She HAD to be perpetually virgin. If she was not then God was lying about the nature of the sacred in the Old Testament.

Finally, Mary HAD to be assumed into heaven. We do not know for sure if Mary died and then was assumed or if she was assumed without dying. Either way, the sacred vessel of her womb could not be allowed to decay. She HAD to be assumed body and soul into heaven, or otherwise, again, God would have lied in the Old Testament about the nature of the Sacred.

Mary was free from the stain of original sin, but not the effects of original sin – as in the effects of the world. She suffered worldly sufferings, and was subject to the evils in the world of weather and men. But she was free from the stain of original sin, a singular grace given to her, that allowed her be made sanctified by the merits of the Cross, before the Cross. Thus she was able to remain sinless all her life. This is a singular and wondrous grace given by God to Mary because she HAD to be this way or God could not used her womb as the most sacred Holy of Holies where His presence would dwell in the Ark of the New Covenant.

by Bro. Ignatius Mary

 

[panevino]

RESPONSE:

The folklore about the Assumption began in the 4th or 5th century. There is nothing about it in scripture or the writings of the Church Fathers until about the 7th century.

The fact that the bishops in 1950 were “almost unanimous” about the Assumption is no evidence at all. The bishops were unanimous prior to 1633 that the earth did not move and the sun revolved around the earth. Until 1900 they were unanomous that slave ownership was in keeping with the divine and natural law.

are these matters of faith/morals? Were they declared as dogma?
If not then it’s not compareable right. Ie Rules of infallability etc

 

[panevino]

RESPONSE:
…And regarding the claim of the “perpetual virginity of Mary,” I assume you are aware that that story didn’t start to the late third or early fourth century. If you claim otherwise, please cite an earlier teaching.

I don’t mind the below early ref detailing that the bretheren/brothers were children of the other Mary.

The work of Papias was evidently written in his old age, say between the years 115 and 140. called by St. Irenæus “a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time”.

Fragments of Papias (X)

(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.
newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm

 

[JP_Marat]

Kepha posted:

First, a word about infallible dogma. It is not possible to declare a doctrine as infallible **unless that doctrine was part of the deposit of faith **from the beginning of the Church. No Pope or council can invent new doctrine; they can merely clarify and define already taught and believed doctrine. <<

RESPONSE:

That’s exactly the point. The Assumption story dates from the 4th or 5th century long after the close of the apostolic age (deposit of faith) and thus can’t really be infallible after all.

 

[JP_Marat]

I don’t mind the below early ref detailing that the bretheren/brothers were children of the other Mary.

The work of Papias was evidently written in his old age, say between the years 115 and 140. called by St. Irenæus “a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time”.

Fragments of Papias (X)

(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.
newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm

RESPONSE:

THere’s nothing about perpetual virginity in there.

 

[JP_Marat]

kepha1
Junior Member Join Date: August 10, 2004
Posts: 476
Religion: Catholic

Re: The Assumption !

---

JP Marat:
Quote:
The folklore about the Assumption began in the 4th or 5th century. There is nothing about it in scripture or the writings of the Church Fathers until about the 7th century.

Early Church Fathers regarding the Assumption of Mary:

Pseudo – Melito
If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: “Be it done according to your will” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. **300]).

Timothy of Jerusalem
Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. **400]).

John the Theologian
The Lord said to his Mother, “Let your heart rejoice and be glad. For every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens”. . . And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise (The Dormition of Mary A.D. 400]).

Gregory of Tours
[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones. . .
(Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 [A.D**. 575]).

Theoteknos of Livias
It was fitting … that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory … should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.
(Homily on the Assumption [ca. **A.D. 600]

Sorry Marat, you are dead wrong.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for providing evidence that the claims of the Assumption are all later than the 4th century.

Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 4, Number 6:
"For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter **not so **that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles"

The apostles stopped expounding the “deposit of faith” when they died. This was long before the fourth century.

Catholic Encyclopedia"
"The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century."

 

[Randy_Carson]

RESPONSE:

Since the Assumption yarn didn’t even exist in the time of the Early Church Farthers nor in scripture, obviously they didn’t write disputation of what didn’t yet exist.

That would be like me demanding that you show proof that the Early Church Fathers didn’t refute the claim that St Peter had a halo.

To the contrary, you stated that the “yarn” did not appear until the fourth century which is well-within the boundaries of the patristic period. Where is the opposition from this period?

Additionally, you stated that the eariest writings on the Assumption did not appear until the 7th century which is also within the patristic period.

Thus, your response above fails and fails miserably. I ask again: where are the writings from the Early Church Fathers condeming the Assumption of Mary as a spurious, theological novelty?

And regarding the claim of the “perpetual virginity of Mary,” I assume you are aware that that story didn’t start to the late third or early fourth century. If you claim otherwise, please cite an earlier teaching.

This is exactly my point. It wasn’t until Helvidius DENIED something that was previously taught and believed that Jerome took up his pen to defend a universally held belief.

However, it is my contention that Scripture itself proves the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, so this doctrine is far more ancient than you allege.

 

[Randy_Carson]

RESPONSE:

Thank you for providing evidence that the claims of the Assumption are all later than the 4th century.

So are the doctrines concerning the Trinity and transubstantiation and the canon of Scripture.

So what?

The apostles stopped expounding the “deposit of faith” when they died. This was long before the fourth century.

Yet the Church continues…that’s right, CONTINUES…to peel back the layers of the deposit of faith left by the Apostles to expound upon truths hidden therein.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Peter-

I am aware of the fact that Strong’s is a Protestant publication, thank you. Sheesh. Is everyone who disagrees with you a complete idiot? Or have we studied, also?

The best I can see for your “Jewish” rendering is two sequential events. Enoch 1) walked with God and 2) he was not.

Since you believe “walked with God” means “assumed”, let’s simply substitute it into the passage.

Enoch was assumed, and he was not; for God took him. Why is it that “he was not”? Because God took him (ie, assumed him).

Your rendering says that Enoch A) was “taken into heaven” and B) was not because God assumed him.

Since A and B are the same things, this is absurdly redundant.

Nah! Scripture is jammed with redundancies! They weren’t editors trying to limit column inches in the New York Times!

Note that the entire CHAPTER in which the assumption of Enoch is declared redundantly states that all of the other people “died.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nah! Scripture is jammed with redundancies! They weren’t editors trying to limit column inches in the New York Times!

Note that the entire CHAPTER in which the assumption of Enoch is declared redundantly states that all of the other people “died.”

Your ultimate argument is that the same phraseology is used with reference to Noah and that Noah must have been assumed, also.

I’m open to Noah’s assumption since, IMO, that strengthens the arguments for Mary’s Assumption.

Can you refer me to any Church document that speaks of Noah being assumed?

 

[JP_Marat]

Do you have credible evidence? If so, please post your evidence and citations.

Not just an undocumented ramble.

RESPONSE

Sure. Here is a summary of official Church teaching as of 1912

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

" From the beginning the Christian moralist did not condemn slavery as in se, or essentially, against the natural law or natural justice. The fact that slavery, tempered with many humane restrictions, **was permitted under the Mosaic law **would have sufficed to prevent the institution form being condemned by Christian teachers as absolutely immoral. They, following the example of St. Paul, implicitly accept slavery as not in itself incompatible with the Christian Law. "

This constant teaching (infallible by way of the universal, ordinary Magisterium) was reversed by Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes, 23, Veritatis Splendor,80, and the Catholicism of the Catholic Church 1995:

CCC #2414 "The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that … lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard of their personal dignity … "

So in 1964 slave ownership became a sin against the seventh commandment and contrary to the natural law.

About 100 years earlier, in 1866, the Instruction of the Holy Office (Pius X) had taught** just the opposite.**

“Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, .… It is **not contrary to the natural and divine law **for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.”

 

[nuntym]

RESPONSE

Sure. Here is a summary of official Church teaching as of 1912

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

" From the beginning the Christian moralist did not condemn slavery as in se, or essentially, against the natural law or natural justice. The fact that slavery, tempered with many humane restrictions, **was permitted under the Mosaic law **would have sufficed to prevent the institution form being condemned by Christian teachers as absolutely immoral. They, following the example of St. Paul, implicitly accept slavery as not in itself incompatible with the Christian Law. "

This constant teaching (infallible by way of the universal, ordinary Magisterium) was reversed by Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes, 23, Veritatis Splendor,80, and the Catholicism of the Catholic Church 1995:

CCC #2414 "The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that … lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard of their personal dignity … "

So in 1964 slave ownership became a sin against the seventh commandment and contrary to the natural law.

About 100 years earlier, in 1866, the Instruction of the Holy Office (Pius X) had taught** just the opposite.**

“Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, .… It is **not contrary to the natural and divine law **for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.”

Did I ask about slavery?

 

[panevino]

Originally Posted by panevino
I don’t mind the below early ref detailing that the bretheren/brothers were children of the other Mary.

The work of Papias was evidently written in his old age, say between the years 115 and 140. called by St. Irenæus “a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time”.

Fragments of Papias (X)

(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.
newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm

RESPONSE:

THere’s nothing about perpetual virginity in there.

Correct, but It is my understanding that it does provide a detailed family tree that illustrates that all the brehteren/brothers were cousins of Jesus.

So at the least it is provding support that there were no other children from BVM after Jesus.

 

[adrift]

The Deuterocanonical books (called “the Apocrypha” by Protestants) are inspired and part of the canon of the Catholic Church.

This is true. However the Deuterocanonical Books were not the subject that we were considering. What was being referenced were the Gospel of Peter, According to the Hebrews, Gospels of Thomas, Marcion, the Twelve Apostles, Philip, Gospel of Thomas, the History of Joseph the Carpenter, and the Departure of Mary. There is record of twenty-one apocryphal Gospels.

 

[JP_Marat]

Correct, but It is my understanding that it does provide a detailed family tree that illustrates that all the brehteren/brothers were cousins of Jesus.

So at the least it is provding support that there were no other children from BVM after Jesus.

RESPONSE:

No. It provides a very confused attempt to explain who some individuals were. However, the gospels name Jesus’ brothers as does Paul and Acts. Even the Jewish historian Josephus recognized Jesus’ brother James.

The cousins story doesn’t wash on a number of accounts. It was really the product of Jerome c 383. Although Origin 248 tried to push the virgin in partum story.

The “perpetual virgin” story is really a third and fourth century creation.

 

[panevino]

RESPONSE:

No. It provides a very confused attempt to explain who some individuals were. However, the gospels name Jesus’ brothers as does Paul and Acts. Even the Jewish historian Josephus recognized Jesus’ brother James.

The cousins story doesn’t wash on a number of accounts. It was really the product of Jerome c 383. Although Origin 248 tried to push the virgin in partum story.

The “perpetual virgin” story is really a third and fourth century creation.

won’t try to debate this on this thread.
Papias clearly does show early 2nd century understanding that they were cousins, Way before Jerome.

Children of these cousins were probably alive when this was written.

At the very least I don’t see how u can refuse it exists.

 

[adrift]

RESPONSE:

No. It provides a very confused attempt to explain who some individuals were. However, the gospels name Jesus’ brothers as does Paul and Acts. Even the Jewish historian Josephus recognized Jesus’ brother James.

The cousins story doesn’t wash on a number of accounts. It was really the product of Jerome c 383. Although Origin 248 tried to push the virgin in partum story.

The “perpetual virgin” story is really a third and fourth century creation.

Your however does not follow. It is a poor attempt to cover over the fact that Jesus brothers are not children of Mary. Paul and Josephus both use brother in the broader term just like in Gen 13:8

8 So Abram said to Lot, "Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers.

Abraham and Lot were uncle and nephew.

About the fourth century St Jerome complained about Helvetius who interpreted Matt 1:25 to mean that Mary had other children. Jerome said this is ‘novel.’ So late in the fourth century it was a novel and new interpretation of Scripture to suggest that Mary had other children. In the early centuries Mary was always understood to be a virgin.

That Mary was not always a virgin is a relatively modern invention.