Assumption of the Theotokos debunked...

[Gregorios]

To clarify, I refer to assumption in the catholic belief of Mary being assumed into heaven before dying, as opposed to the dormition where she died and then was taken to heaven.

You are correct in your...assumption

 

[Gregorios]

The Church is quite clear about that, but this person that the OP is refering to is denying the dormition as well as the assumption and also conflating the two.

 

[Damaris]

No I am extremely furious right now that I might blow steam out of my ears.

All the more reason to stay away from him and leave him alone. He's not doing you any good, and you're not going to do him any good by losing your temper.

 

[Ignatius21]

You know your friend's beliefs and I've never heard of him, but given all his links to Reformed sites and resources, pictures of Jonathan Edwards and the like, I'd find it hard to believe he's into the "rapture" theology. That's almost entirely part of dispensationalism which is in some ways diametrically opposed to the covenantal theology that the Reformers and their heirs held to (and still do). It's hard to find harsher critics of the Rapture than some of the Reformed bloggers and scholars he links to from his site.

That said, he seems to base his appraisal of the "assumption" on a series of...well, assumptions...that I don't think are necessarily fair.

For example, to cite works falsely attributed to people (technically pseudepigrapha) as "forged" isn't entirely fair, since it implies to modern minds a sort of dishonest motive, or an attempt to advance one's own interests by stealing someone else's reputation. Works of these kinds are all over history and very often they were written in another person's name almost as a way of honoring that person...or in sincere belief that the writer's views are in line with the person who is no longer living. Many scholars (including some generally conservative people) do at least hold open the possibility that letters of the NT, including some of Paul's and 2 Peter are works written by their disciples and attributed to them. To call them "forgeries" therefore isn't probably accurate.

Secondly, he assumes that anything not mentioned in Scripture isn't something that could have happened. His facts about the deaths of the apostles necessarily happening before Mary's death are based on the assumption that, since Mary's death (and assumption!) aren't recorded by Luke, they must not have happened yet. Joseph's death isn't recorded either but it's very likely he DID die sometime before the crucifixion (and most conservative, Reformed people are just fine with believing that). Of course that's no article of dogma.

Thirdly he assumes that because something doesn't appear in written record until several centuries later, it must have suddenly appeared at that time and therefore wasn't believed earlier. It may also be that someone finally recorded something that had been believed for a very long time but hadn't been formally recorded.

He also cites Schaff, who was quite a famous historian, but whose works had a definite polemical bent and interpreted much of history as a record of fables and legends simply growing over time. I think he was predisposed to see things that way.

As someone remarked earlier, his facts do appear to be right. The problem is that the facts by themselves don't prove or disprove anything. It may be that the beliefs about Mary took shape over time and within a given community of believers (i.e. the Christians!). It's just as true that your friend's hermeneutical paradigm, which he uses to refute things he disagrees with, likewise evolved over time (in the late middle ages) in reaction against a particular tradition (Roman Catholicism) and within a given community of believers (i.e. Protestants). Yet he is treating it as a neutral, unbiased factual platform from which to critique other viewpoints. It may be that Mary's assumption didn't appear in writing until the 4th century as he says. It's also true that sola scriptura and the other Protestant distinctives didn't appear in writing until the 16th century. That doesn't seem to keep him from believing that they actually were the beliefs of the early church, which requires an awful lot of selective reading between the lines.

So having said all that, I don't actually see malice on the part of your friend's article. I can't see that he's trying to attack Mary, for instance. It's quite likely he believes he's defending her against the mythical figure he thinks was invented by Catholics and Orthodox. To stop praying for him would seem a little unwarranted...unless he is "committing the sin leading to death" (1 John) I can't see a reason to stop praying. But forgive me for presuming to say such things.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Well, I thank you guys for the responses, especially wturri78 thanks (you should plaster your response on his blog so you can see what kind of "I am never wrong" type of personality I have dealt with over the couple years I have known him) He causes me stumble so I need a break from him. I did take a break from him last year when he left the church and sent me a similar blog post type of reason why he left the church based on many similar assumptions however after a few months I had cooled down and added him back to my contacts. No I am not doing that anymore. He posted that during Lent to attack the apostolic church, any other reason considering his history?

 

[Ignatius21]

Well, I thank you guys for the responses, especially wturri78 thanks (you should plaster your response on his blog so you can see what kind of "I am never wrong" type of personality I have dealt with over the couple years I have known him) He causes me stumble so I need a break from him. I did take a break from him last year when he left the church and sent me a similar blog post type of reason why he left the church based on many similar assumptions however after a few months I had cooled down and added him back to my contacts. No I am not doing that anymore. He posted that during Lent to attack the apostolic church, any other reason considering his history?

I think I know well the "I am never wrong" mentality, because it manifests itself on virtually every blog site on the Internet

I have noticed a certain zeal on the part of converts to anything who seem to feel as though they've been cheated out of so many years of life, by whatever beliefs they formerly held. Now they have to go out and prove to the world that they've changed, and try to pummel everyone else into following them.

Among Reformed Christians who fall into this convert zeal, yes, I've found a lot of the "I can't be wrong" attitude and it tends to manifest itself as an overwhelming amount of data they absorb and then send back at you. "You think YOU have an opinion? Go read these 4,000 books and then come back to me and we'll talk." There's an implied "you don't know enough to disagree with me" in there. That's followed by "Oh, you read them? Well now go read them in Greek and Aramaic." Their new viewpoint basically becomes the lense through which they now view everything, and therefore becomes "neutral" to them, which means they can't ever actually look back at themselves again.

I'm sure you've seen converts to Catholicism who suddenly start lobbing Church Father quote-bombs at everyone to show them that the whole church has always and unquestionably followed the Pope, and it's SO OBVIOUS, and why can't you see it too???

Personally I don't see the need to become vicious against our former beliefs unless we feel really, really compelled to always justify our new beliefs to ourselves, in which case maybe we aren't really as certain as we think we are. I seem to be on a trajectory away from the Calvinist theology I was absorbed in for several years, and while i'm finding many things I disagree with (or at least see very valid reasons why people can and do disagree), I don't feel any animosty toward it. Nor a compelling reason to try and pry others loose to follow me wherever it is I'm going. But that's me.

If your friend is causing you to stumble, then staying away from him and especially his blog for a while is probably a good idea. But that's different from not praying for him anymore. I hope he also prays for you.

Pray for me!

I thought of a case in point...have you observed any debates between James White (Reformed) and various opponents, particularly Catholic apologists? You'll see that each participant is already so confirmed in his beliefs that he can't be shaken, and most of the audience is present simply to cheer for the side they already agree with. On all sides there's the attitude of "Oh, you haven't learned enough." But it's particularly prominent with Dr. White becuase the man is a walking encyclopedia of religious facts (and sincerely, he's really quite a scholar). But often I noticed a pattern of debate, particularly on his blog interactions, that showed him ultimately to be unchallengable on the basis of knowledge alone, if nothing else. He's always read more, or in more languages, or he's read the better sources. You may have read a mountain of history, but the author you read? Well, you know, he's kind of liberal, and probably not the most reliable...so really, you can't challenge him on his facts because your facts are inferior. He can never lose because he can always point to something he knows that you don't.

Anyway, I tended to see that a lot in Reformed discussions. When I started seriously questioning some of the foundations and assumptions about Scripture and its interpretation and the nature of the "church," I was given books by Warfield and other scholars who wrote massive tomes. I got many recommendations to read books by Cornelius van Til, whose writings are so dense as to be almost totally incomprehensible. But until I had read them (which I never did), I never really was able to fully discuss matters...there was always something more to study before reaching a conclusion.

OK, I'll quit now.

 

[Ignatius21]

The irony is of course that by rejecting our tradition, he is also rejecting scripture itself. Who decided what books were authoritative and inspired by God?...so if we were wrong about the Assumption, we must be wrong about Holy Scripture right? I mean if you throw out the infallability of the Church, who knows what else we were wrong about?

This is simple to solve. You just apply John Calvin's reasoning that the inspiration of canonical books is so clear, that to ask which are inspired is like discerning "light from dark, or bitter from sweet."

Nothing therefore can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends. When the Church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted but, acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bounds shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent. As to the question, How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to a decree of the Church? It is just the same as if it were asked, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their colour, sweet and bitter of their taste.

Book I, Ch. 7.

Those who discern the right canon are led by the Spirit. And we know this because their canon will agree with Calvin's, who was unquestionably led by the Spirit. You see? Quit worrying

 

[laconicstudent]

Sorry to hear Bushmaster. Naturally, someone in GH got a hold of that blog and gleefully used his point #3.

I had to point out that the disappearance of bodily remains being used to assume divine intervention is fairly key to Christian theology.

 

[Macarius]

Sorry to hear Bushmaster. Naturally, someone in GH got a hold of that blog and gleefully used his point #3.

I had to point out that the disappearance of bodily remains being used to assume divine intervention is fairly key to Christian theology.

Zing! I like that point - that we as Christians accept the absence of the body of Christ as a sign of the Resurrection, but many would readily forward the exact same arguments used by atheists against the Resurrection when attacking the Dormition of Mary.

Honestly, though, I don't see how the Dormition can be attacked. We all believe that, at some point, Mary died. There's no reason aside from rank speculation to say that she had to die AFTER the Apostles. Yes - she MAY have been a source for Luke, but those sources could have been compiled during the 50's and 60's (shortly before her death and before the death of most of the Apostles). It needn't be the case that he interviewed her right AS he was composing the Gospel of Luke (if it was even written in the 70's, as some think).

Even still, the presence of the Apostles at her death isn't the main thrust (theologically speaking) any more than (in the Gospels) the EXACT people that St. Peter denied Christ to aren't the central point (and indeed, in the three synpotic gospels, it is three different sets of people who are depicted as hearing Peter's denials). The point, in the later, is that Peter DID deny Christ three times. In the former, the point is that Mary fulfilled the hope of Christians by dying a holy death and being recieved into the arms of Christ. The center of the icon for the Dormition is Christ holding Mary much like Mary (in most icons) holds Christ. Having held God-Incarnate as her child, Mary was recieved into the arms of her Father in Heaven as HIS child.

THAT is the point - and THAT is the hope of all Christians: to become children of God.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I am sorry to hear about your friend, and I agree that you should probably minimize contact with him, but you should always pray for him. always, always, always. there are more than enough "reverts" to the faith to show that prayer works, not to mention St Xenia always praying for her husband.

God gave his own betrayer every oppertunity to repent and return, so we should never give up on others.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

In the availability of the counter arguments from Orthodox, he just plays the "show me in the scripture" trumpet over and over again, even when we showed him from the Early Fathers that leaving the Orthodox faith and Holy Communion is very dangerous to his soul. As you see, he commits to a million logical fallacies, he doesn't realize his arguments can be used against him. I understand he is young and immature, but it almost feels like he is feeling a void in his soul. He almost wants to become some type of authority in what he studies which brings lots of pride.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

I thought of a case in point...have you observed any debates between James White (Reformed) and various opponents, particularly Catholic apologists? You'll see that each participant is already so confirmed in his beliefs that he can't be shaken, and most of the audience is present simply to cheer for the side they already agree with. On all sides there's the attitude of "Oh, you haven't learned enough." But it's particularly prominent with Dr. White becuase the man is a walking encyclopedia of religious facts (and sincerely, he's really quite a scholar). But often I noticed a pattern of debate, particularly on his blog interactions, that showed him ultimately to be unchallengable on the basis of knowledge alone, if nothing else. He's always read more, or in more languages, or he's read the better sources. You may have read a mountain of history, but the author you read? Well, you know, he's kind of liberal, and probably not the most reliable...so really, you can't challenge him on his facts because your facts are inferior. He can never lose because he can always point to something he knows that you don't.

Anyway, I tended to see that a lot in Reformed discussions. When I started seriously questioning some of the foundations and assumptions about Scripture and its interpretation and the nature of the "church," I was given books by Warfield and other scholars who wrote massive tomes. I got many recommendations to read books by Cornelius van Til, whose writings are so dense as to be almost totally incomprehensible. But until I had read them (which I never did), I never really was able to fully discuss matters...there was always something more to study before reaching a conclusion.

OK, I'll quit now.

You have nailed this guy on the head, typical mirror image. He was muslim for a couple years, then Orthodox, now Reformed. He says he is staying there. About the zeal of the converts, I experienced similar feelings when I converted from Islam 10 years ago. Not much of those left. I will definitely pray for you.

 

[buzuxi02]

The article makes strange arguments. There is no mention of the death or funeral of the blessed Virgin Mary at all in the bible. Does this presuppose she didnt die at all?

Writing in 95 a.d. John says Mary moved in with the beloved disciple ,since the gospel was written from Ephesus does it mean she resided for a time in Ephesus ? Why doesnt John record her death? Why doesnt Luke record how and where Peter and Paul were martyred? How about James? He was stoned to death in 62 a.d., yet this account comes from Josephus the historian and no scripture attests to it.

The earliest christian account of James martyrdom comes from Hegessipus in 160 a.d, actually it comes from Eusebius the historian in 300 a.d. who quotes from lost fragments of Hegessipus. If it werent for Eusebius we would not have even known that a christian wrote of James death so early.

Paul is the earliest writer of the NT, he makes no mention of a virgin birth, the closest thing he says about the Theotokos is that when the fullness of time came Christ was born of woman, born under the law. Does that meam we should reject the virgin birth, afterall Paul says Christ is of the seed of David according to the flesh.

Can this person then using scripture or even the ealiest fathers tell us with certainty how Mary died? Was it natural or violent death? How about what year it happened in?

The fact remains that there arent any bodily relics of the Virgin Mary. There are of St John the baptist. The emperor Leo I in 473 a.d built a chapel at Blachernae to house the veil of the Virgin, one of the few relics that existed of the Virgin. The relics were brought to Constantinople by Anastasius of Jerusalem in 469 a.d. THis is WHY the earliest writing concerning the assumption date to the late 5th century, this church was the catalyst needed to clarify what end the Virgin met. The St Mary Church of Blachernae was one of the great churches of Christendom, before hagia Sophia was built and it brought out the vague tradition(s) concerning the Theotokos end to the general population where it was finally confronted. The church historian and monk Cyril of Scythopoulos in 550 a.d while residing in the Euthymian monastery in Palestine. tells us it all started unraveling in about 451 a.d. when the emperor asked Juvenal to bring the relics of the Theotokos to Chalcedon, where Juvenal responded that no such relics exist, that the tomb only contains some garments only.

In the early church (pre 400ad) there was a tradition among the pious that she was martyred. St Epiphanius in 370 a.d gives the three prevailing theories of his time. That she either died a natural death, was martyred, or still remains alive. The Church Fathers agreed that she was not martyred and this pious myth based on the scriptural passage that a sword shall pierce her heart does not allude to a violent death.
Numerous pre 4th century apocryphal (about 50) speak of the death of the Theotokos and by 320 a.d. Helen mother of the emperor Constantine erected a basilica over an empty tomb identified as the burial place of Mary. Regardless the tradition originates directly from Jerusalem
As st Ignatius taught, God keeps many of the mysteries secret until the time is right:

"And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary, and her giving birth, and likewise the death of the Lord: three mysteries crying out to be told, but wrought in the silence of God" (Ephesians 19.1). ​

 

[Tigg]

Zing! I like that point - that we as Christians accept the absence of the body of Christ as a sign of the Resurrection, but many would readily forward the exact same arguments used by atheists against the Resurrection when attacking the Dormition of Mary.

Honestly, though, I don't see how the Dormition can be attacked. We all believe that, at some point, Mary died. There's no reason aside from rank speculation to say that she had to die AFTER the Apostles. Yes - she MAY have been a source for Luke, but those sources could have been compiled during the 50's and 60's (shortly before her death and before the death of most of the Apostles). It needn't be the case that he interviewed her right AS he was composing the Gospel of Luke (if it was even written in the 70's, as some think).

Even still, the presence of the Apostles at her death isn't the main thrust (theologically speaking) any more than (in the Gospels) the EXACT people that St. Peter denied Christ to aren't the central point (and indeed, in the three synpotic gospels, it is three different sets of people who are depicted as hearing Peter's denials). The point, in the later, is that Peter DID deny Christ three times. In the former, the point is that Mary fulfilled the hope of Christians by dying a holy death and being recieved into the arms of Christ. The center of the icon for the Dormition is Christ holding Mary much like Mary (in most icons) holds Christ. Having held God-Incarnate as her child, Mary was recieved into the arms of her Father in Heaven as HIS child.

THAT is the point - and THAT is the hope of all Christians: to become children of God.

Tip toeing in here to say thank you for your post. Beautifully put.

"The center of the icon for the Dormition is Christ holding Mary much like Mary (in most icons) holds Christ. Having held God-Incarnate as her child, Mary was recieved into the arms of her Father in Heaven as HIS child." -Macarius

Take care and God bless.

Edit: Thanks to all in this thread.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Edit: Thanks to all in this thread.

Ditto

 

[Dylan Michael]

I'll be praying for your friend.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Interesting that I noticed a word document my wife downloaded sometime ago in this subject, I would like to quote it here, there is no mention of an author....

The circumstances of the Dormition of the Mother of God were known in the Orthodox Church from apostolic times. Already in the first century, the Hieromartyr Dionysius the Areopagite wrote about Her “Falling-Asleep.” In the second century, the account of the bodily ascent of the Most Holy Virgin Mary to Heaven is found in the works of Meliton, Bishop of Sardis. In the fourth century, St Epiphanius of Cyprus refers to the tradition about the “Falling Asleep” of the Mother of God. In the fifth century, St Juvenal. Patriarch of Jerusalem. told the holy Byzantine Empress Pulcheria: “Although there is no account of the circumstances of Her death in Holy Scripture, we know about them from the most ancient and credible Tradition.” This tradition was gathered and expounded in the Church History of Nicephorus Callistus during the fourteenth century.

At the time of Her blessed Falling Asleep the Most Holy Virgin Mary was again at Jerusalem. Her fame as the Mother of God had already spread throughout the land and had aroused many of the envious and the spiteful against Her. They wanted to make attempts on Her life: but God preserved Her from enemies. Day and night she spent her time in prayer. The Most Holy Theotokos went often to the Holy Sepulchre of the Lord, and here She offered up fervent prayer. More than once, enemies of the Savior sought to hinder her from visiting her holy place and they asked the High Priest for a guard to watch over the Grave of the Lord. The Holy Virgin continued to pray right in front of them, yet unseen by anyone. In one such visit to Golgotha, the Archangel Gabriel appeared to her and announced her approaching departure from this life to eternal life. In pledge of this, the Archangel gave her a palm branch. With these heavenly tidings the Mother of God returned to Bethlehem with the three girls attending her (Sepphora, Abigail, and Jael). She summoned Righteous Joseph of Arimathea and other disciples of the Lord, and told them of her impending Repose.

The Most Holy Virgin prayed also that the Lord would have the Apostle John come to her. The Holy Spirit transported him from Ephesus, setting him in that very place where the Mother of God lay. After the prayer, the Most Holy Virgin offered incense, and John heard a voice from Heaven, closing her prayer with the word “Amen.” The Mother of God took it that the voice meant the speedy arrival of the Apostles and the Disciples and the holy Bodiless Powers. The faithful, whose number by then was impossible to count, gathered together, says St John of Damascus, like clouds and eagles, to listen to the Mother of God. Seeing one another, the Disciples rejoiced, but in their confusion they asked each other why the Lord had gathered them together in one place. St John the Theologian, greeting them with tears of joy, said that the time of the Virgin’s repose was at hand. Going in to the Mother of God, they beheld her lying upon the bed, and filled with spiritual joy. The Disciples greeted her, and then they told her how they had been carried miraculously from their places of preaching. The Most Holy Virgin Mary glorified God, because He had heard her prayer and fulfilled her hearts desire, and She began speaking about her imminent end. During this conversation the Apostle Paul also appeared in a miraculous manner together with his disciples Dionysius the Areopagite, St. Hierotheus, St Timothy and others of the Seventy Apostles. The Holy Spirit had gathered them all together so that they might be granted the blessing of the All-Pure Virgin Mary, and more fittingly to see to the burial of the Mother of the Lord. She called each of them to herself by name. She blessed them and extolled them for their faith and the hardships they endured in preaching the Gospel of Christ. To each she wished eternal bliss, and prayed with them for the peace and welfare of the whole world.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Continued...

Then came the third hour (9A.M.), when the Dormition of the Mother of God was to occur. A number of candles were burning. The holy Disciples surrounded her beautifully adorned bed, offering praise to God. She prayed in anticipation of her demise and of the arrival of her longed-for Son and Lord. Suddenly, the inexpressible Light of Divine Glory shone forth, before which the blazing candles paled in comparison. All who it saw took fright. Descending from Heaven was Christ, the King of Glory, surrounded by hosts of Angels and Archangels and other Heavenly Powers, together with the souls of the Forefathers and the Prophets, who had prophesied in ages past concerning the Most Holy Virgin Mary. Seeing her Son, the Mother of God exclaimed: “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God My Savior, for He hath regarded the low estate of His Handmaiden” (Luke 1:46-48) and, rising from her bed to meet the Lord, She bowed down to Him, and the Lord bid her enter into Life Eternal. Without any bodily suffering, as though in a happy sleep, the Most Holy Virgin Mary gave her soul into the hands of her Son and God.
Then began a joyous angelic song. Accompanying the pure soul of the God-betrothed and with reverent awe for the Queen of Heaven, the angels exclaimed: “Hail, Full of Grace, the Lord is with Thee, blessed art Thou among women! For lo, the Queen, God’s Maiden comes, lift up the gates, and with the Ever-Existing One, take up the Mother of Light; for through her salvation has come to all the human race. It is impossible to gaze upon her, and it is impossible to render her due honor” (Stikherion on “Lord, I Have Cried”). The Heavenly gates were raised, and meeting the soul of the Most Holy Mother of God, the Cherubim and the Seraphim glorified her with joy. The face of the Mother of God was radiant with the glory of Divine virginity, and from her body there came a sweet fragrance.
Miraculous was the life of the All-Pure Virgin, and wondrous was her Repose, as Holy Church sings: “In Thee, O Queen, the God of all hath given thee as thy portion the things that are above nature. Just as in the Birth-Giving He did preserve Thine virginity, so also in the grave He did preserve Thy body from decay” (Canon 1, Ode 6, Troparion 1).

Kissing the all-pure body with reverence and in awe, the Disciples in turn were blessed by it and filled with grace and spiritual joy. Through the great glorification of the Most Holy Theotokos, the almighty power of God healed the sick, who with faith and love touched the holy bed. Bewailing their separation from the Mother of God, the Apostles prepared to bury her all-pure body. The holy Apostles Peter, Paul, James and others of the Twelve Apostles carried the funeral bier upon their shoulders, and upon it lay the body of the Ever-Virgin Mary. St John the Theologian went at the head with the resplendent palm-branch from Paradise. The other saints and a multitude of the faithful accompanied the funeral bier with candles and censors, singing sacred songs. This solemn procession went from Sion through Jerusalem to the Garden of Gethsemane.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Continued...

With the start of the procession there suddenly appeared over the all-pure body of the Mother of God and all those accompanying her a resplendent circular cloud, like a crown. There was heard the singing of the Heavenly Powers, glorifying the Mother of God, which echoed that of the worldly voices. This circle of Heavenly singers and radiance accompanied the procession to the very place of burial.
Unbelieving inhabitants of Jerusalem, taken aback by the extraordinarily grand funeral procession and vexed at the honor accorded the Mother of Jesus, complained of this to the High Priest and scribes. Burning with envy and vengefulness toward everything that reminded them of Christ, they sent out their own servants to disrupt the procession and to set the body of the Mother of God afire. An angry crowd and soldiers set off against the Christians, but the circular cloud accompanying the procession descended and surrounded them like a wall. The pursuers heard the footsteps and the singing, but could not see any of those accompanying the procession. Indeed, many of them were struck blind.
The Jewish priest Athonios, out of spite and hatred for the Mother of Jesus of Nazareth, wanted to topple the funeral bier on which lay the body of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, but an angel of God invisibly cut off his hands, which had touched the bier. Seeing such a wonder, Athonios repented and with faith confessed the majesty of the Mother of God. He received healing and joined the crowd accompanying the body of the Mother of God, and he became a zealous follower of Christ
When the procession reached the Garden of Gethsemane, then amidst the weeping and the wailing began the last kiss to the all-pure body. Only towards evening were the Apostles able to place it in the tomb and seal the entrance to the cave with a large stone. For three days they did not depart from the place of burial, praying and chanting Psalms. Through the wise providence of God, the Apostle Thomas was not to be present at the burial of the Mother of God. Arriving late on the third day at Gethsemane, he lay down at the tomb and with bitter tears asked that he might be permitted to look once more upon the Mother of God and bid her farewell. The Apostles out of heartfelt pity for him decided to open the grave and permit him the comfort of venerating the holy relics of the Ever Virgin Mary. Having opened the grave, they found in it only the grave wrappings and were thus convinced of the bodily ascent of the Most Holy Virgin Mary to Heaven.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Continued...

On the evening of the same day, when the Apostles had gathered at a house to strengthen themselves with food, the Mother of God appeared to them and said: “Rejoice! I am with you all the days of your lives.” This so gladdened the Apostles and everyone with them, that they took a portion of the bread, set aside at the meal in memory of the Savior (“the Lord’s Portion&#8221, and they exclaimed: “Most Holy Theotokos, save us”. (This marks the beginning of the rite of offering up the “Panagia” (“All-Holy&#8221, a portion of bread in honor of the Mother of God, which is done at monasteries to the present day).
The sash of the Mother of God, and Her holy garb, preserved with reverence and distributed over the face of the earth in pieces, have worked miracles both in the past and at present. Her numerous icons everywhere pour forth signs and healings, and her holy body, taken up to Heaven, bears witness to our own future life there. Her body was not left to the vicissitudes of the transitory world, but was incomparably exalted by its glorious ascent to Heaven.
The Feast of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos is celebrated with special solemnity at Gethsemane, the place of her burial. Nowhere else is there such sorrow of heart at the separation from the Mother of God, and nowhere else such joy, because of her intercession for the world.
The holy city of Jerusalem is separated from the Mount of Olives by the valley of Kedron on Josaphat. At the foot of the Mount of Olives is the Garden of Gethsemane, where olive trees bear fruit even now.
The holy Ancestor-of-God Joachim had himself reposed at 80 years of age, several years after the Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos into the Temple (November 21). St Anna, having been left a widow, moved from Nazareth to Jerusalem, and lived near the Temple. At Jerusalem she bought two pieces of property: the first at the gates of Gethsemane, and the second in the valley of Josaphat. At the second locale she built a tomb for the members of her family, and where also she herself was buried with Joachim. It was there in the Garden of Gethsemane that the Savior often prayed with His disciples.
The most-pure body of the Mother of God was buried in the family tomb. Christians honored the sepulchre of the Mother of God, and they built a church on this spot. Within the church was preserved the precious funeral cloth, which covered her all-pure and fragrant body.