Assumption of Mary and dogmatic statement

[MarkRohfrietsch]

We read about this in scripture. But nothing about the assumption of Mary is in the scripture. I guess it is a tradition but one that cannot be proven with Gods own written word. Elijah was taken for a reason. There were two actually taken. Kind of like the rapture.

There is some (circumstantial and questionable, but some none the less) extra Biblical support, certainly not enough to unequivocally state that it did indeed happen.

One of our Lutheran Pastors in a sermon on this festival stated that Jesus loved His mother, and as God is omnipotent, doing such out of love for His mother is indeed possible. He went on to state that while tradition has held this for about as long as the Church has existed, there is no support for this in Scripture. He added that while we can not state that the assumption did actually happen, we certainly should be assured that assumed or not, the Blessed Virgin Mary is indeed in Heaven with her beloved Son Jesus, and such is the reason that we continue to mark this day in the year of the Church.

 

[MamaZ]

Well when one dies they go to be with the Lord but her Body has yet to be ressurected. It will be when the return comes for the dead in Christ shall rise first. His love for all is shown on the Cross. For He died for all men and all sin. Mary included. I do believe that God has plans for Elisha and Elijah who were taken by the Lord. Different thread though.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well when one dies they go to be with the Lord but her Body has yet to be ressurected. It will be when the return comes for the dead in Christ shall rise first. His love for all is shown on the Cross. For He died for all men and all sin. Mary included. I do believe that God has plans for Elisha and Elijah who were taken by the Lord. Different thread though.

Believing such is quite acceptable in our Church.

 

[pshun2404]

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 century (a intentional falsified document written by members of a goddess cult within the church of Rome). It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite” (see Catholic Encyclopedia).

Pope Gelasius in 495 A.D. declared an anathema upon all those who would choose to adopt what he considered the heresy of the "Assumption of Mary" as a dogma in the Church, this decision was again supported by Pope Hormisdas of the 6th century, when the alleged heresy began to resurface. Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose and other Church Fathers said nothing about it. Writing in 377 A.D., church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end. By 1100 the whole church, even the Orthodox, considered it a true event that really happened, and in 1950, Pope Pius XII infallibly declared this formerly considered heresy an "official Catholic Doctrine which all Catholics are required to believe"! Which Popes were correct? Is the “assumption” even mentioned once by the early Church fathers that were taught by the Apostles or their students?

The first church author to speak on the assumption, Gregory of Tours arounf 580 A.D., based his teaching on the Transitus, a confirmed false document condemned by two popes.

In His name

Paul

 

[Kristos]

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 century (a intentional falsified document written by members of a goddess cult within the church of Rome). It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite” (see Catholic Encyclopedia).

Pope Gelasius in 495 A.D. declared an anathema upon all those who would choose to adopt what he considered the heresy of the "Assumption of Mary" as a dogma in the Church, this decision was again supported by Pope Hormisdas of the 6th century, when the alleged heresy began to resurface. Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose and other Church Fathers said nothing about it. Writing in 377 A.D., church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end. By 1100 the whole church, even the Orthodox, considered it a true event that really happened, and in 1950, Pope Pius XII infallibly declared this formerly considered heresy an "official Catholic Doctrine which all Catholics are required to believe"! Which Popes were correct? Is the “assumption” even mentioned once by the early Church fathers that were taught by the Apostles or their students?

The first church author to speak on the assumption, Gregory of Tours arounf 580 A.D., based his teaching on the Transitus, a confirmed false document condemned by two popes.

In His name

Paul

There were many apocryphal writings concerning the end of the Virgin's life that appeared in 5th Century. Indeed there was a wide variety of narratives between these documents that needed to be sorted out. The condemnation attributed to Pope Gelasius was essentially a list of apocryphal writings, not a condemnation in general. This is attested to by the fact that the Dormition entered into the liturgical life of the Church soon there after.

The condemnation attributed to Pope Gelasius is actually part of the Catholic apologetic for their version of the Dormition because it condemned a conflicting narrative, so asserting that there is somehow a contraction within their defense is not really correct.

I'm not sure what you are referring to regarding Pope Hormisdas, so if you have a citation I would take a look.

 

[pshun2404]

Christos I have to ask, why didn't any of the early church fathers for over 300 years mention this wonderous miraculous occurrence even once? Why do none of them (or any of the Apostles or deacons in the book of Acts) EVER point us to Mary as an object/person of worship? Were all of these who were taught by Christ, the Apostles, and those they appointed as Bishops over the first churches (even Clement of Rome who sat at the feet of Peter) all mistaken?

Paul

 

[Kristos]

Christos I have to ask, why didn't any of the early church fathers for over 300 years mention this wonderous miraculous occurrence even once? Why do none of them (or any of the Apostles or deacons in the book of Acts) EVER point us to Mary as an object/person of worship? Were all of these who were taught by Christ, the Apostles, and those they appointed as Bishops over the first churches (even Clement of Rome who sat at the feet of Peter) all mistaken?

Paul

You seem to be changing the subject. I don't know of anyone that promote worship of Mary. WRT to the Dormition narrative, scholars seem to place the earliest version (the Palms) in second Century. Why isn't there more from the early Church under persecution? I would say simply because it's not part of the Gospel message that they were most focused on spreading. Even the basic doctrines of the Trinity and Christology had not been fully worked out by the time the Church emerged from the catacombs. Why would any ECF of this era both to write about the Dormition when much weightier issues were in dispute? As the doctrine of the Trinity and nature of Christ solidified, only then did these narratives of the Dormition appear, almost on queue. Personal hunch is that based on the diversity in language/culture/theology these narratives developed internally from relatively early. When they came to light in the 5th century, the Church rejected some, and embraced others as coinciding with her doctrine. The embraced narrative and the liturgical practices surrounding came to represent spiritual truths that had been solidified in the 4th Century, that Christ is fully man and fully God and that we are able to participate in His death and Resurrection eschotologically and mystically in the present.

 

[pshun2404]

Well this is a discussion and I am sure neither of us will convince the other of what we cannot believe but for me since the early church fathers (and I can provide quotes) even beyond Nicea declare the final authority in all matter of faith and doctrine to be the Holy Scriptures and that nothing should be accepted that cannot be proven therein then I cannot see how the Church can insist it must be accepted.

You mentioned the Trinity and Christology, but though both of these are not finalized and codified until later all of the church fathers do in fact speak of these things (both the one God as being Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the deity of Christ).

And sorry to tell you, but though you may not (and correctly understand veneration) worship Mary many others do and were taught to in their local Churches. I love Mary and revere her as the mother of my (and her own) Savior. she is Holy because God chose her and honored her for this awesome privilege and she is the mother of God (not the progenitor of eternal deity). I also know and recognize as true apostolic doctrine the communion of saints and have no problem calling on the whole body of Christ to pray for things. Among the early Church she has my esteem but the assumption is an assumption, and if you or anybody wished to believe it that is fine, since it is an unessential, but since I cannot see this emphasized or even mentioned by any authority of significance I cannot accept it as dogma (required doctrine). It may be required by the institution of the church but not by Christ or the Apostles and I follow Jesus as Lord and Savior and obey His directions and commandments and do appreciate and take into account the traditions passed on by the Apostles but as for later additions invented by men that are not directed therein I cannot in good conscience go along with such an assumption.

I know that "worshipping" Mary is not the official doctrinal position of the RCC and I appreciate that but in effect this is what has happened and these people need the RCC to correct them for they are in grave error and I fear for their souls.

Love in Christ

Paul

 

[Kristos]

I don't know exactly what the RCC dogmatized concerning the Assumption. I personally don't see the point of doing such a thing. There is nothing new theologically in the narrative. It follows within Scriptural based doctrine. Was Mary human? Yes - she was human. Was she therefore subject to death and in need of salvation? Yes - she was subject to death and needed to be saved just like the rest of us. Did any ECF say this? Maybe not, but is it really necessary?

 

[pshun2404]

I don't know exactly what the RCC dogmatized concerning the Assumption. I personally don't see the point of doing such a thing. There is nothing new theologically in the narrative. It follows within Scriptural based doctrine. Was Mary human? Yes - she was human. Was she therefore subject to death and in need of salvation? Yes - she was subject to death and needed to be saved just like the rest of us. Did any ECF say this? Maybe not, but is it really necessary?

Yes because if it was being raved about right after the event we could at least think these to be testimonies regarding an actual event, but no one mentioning
it, where it would be such a miraculous thing, would make no sense if it were remotely true.

Paul

 

[Kristos]

Yes because if it was being raved about right after the event we could at least think these to be testimonies regarding an actual event, but no one mentioning
it, where it would be such a miraculous thing, would make no sense if it were remotely true.

Paul

Raving about it would tend to support a conspiracy theory regarding the absence of her body and tomb. Instead we hear nothing for 300 years, all the while there is no body, no relics and no tomb. The resurrection of the body, while miraculous, is central to the entire gospel. Should we really be so reluctant to actually believe in it?

 

[pshun2404]

Raving about it would tend to support a conspiracy theory regarding the absence of her body and tomb. Instead we hear nothing for 300 years, all the while there is no body, no relics and no tomb. The resurrection of the body, while miraculous, is central to the entire gospel. Should we really be so reluctant to actually believe in it?

Well first of all, if bodily resurrected then that would be the first resurrection and we all missed out which means everyone else is under the power of the second death (condemned). So yes you are correct it is not mentioned (as I previously pointed out) for 300 years so if it happened why not?

I'll bet for the first 100 or so they knew exactly where her burial was. It just was not significant so after 2 more 100's of years people forgot...if it was important I am sure some near-pagan who worshipped the dead would have set up a shrine. We have found many such shrines in Israel and the Mediterranean area for heroes and holy persons.

Paul

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well first of all, if bodily resurrected then that would be the first resurrection and we all missed out which means everyone else is under the power of the second death (condemned). So yes you are correct it is not mentioned (as I previously pointed out) for 300 years so if it happened why not?

I'll bet for the first 100 or so they knew exactly where her burial was. It just was not significant so after 2 more 100's of years people forgot...if it was important I am sure some near-pagan who worshipped the dead would have set up a shrine. We have found many such shrines in Israel and the Mediterranean area for heroes and holy persons.

Paul

The cult of relics developed much later in Christianity and reached a zenith in the late Middle Ages. While the first-century pagans engaged in such practices, there is absolutely no historical record that Christianity had yet adopted it (the practice of venerating relics). Thus, it is absolutely no surprise that there is no archeological record.

I entirely agree with you that if this amazing miracle had actually occured, then there would have been much written about it. The Assumption is a miracle that is not far from the Ascension in significance. We have much recorded concerning the Ascension, but nothing about the Assumption. Why is that?

 

[Kristos]

Well first of all, if bodily resurrected then that would be the first resurrection and we all missed out which means everyone else is under the power of the second death (condemned). So yes you are correct it is not mentioned (as I previously pointed out) for 300 years so if it happened why not?

I'll bet for the first 100 or so they knew exactly where her burial was. It just was not significant so after 2 more 100's of years people forgot...if it was important I am sure some near-pagan who worshipped the dead would have set up a shrine. We have found many such shrines in Israel and the Mediterranean area for heroes and holy persons.

Paul

Death of the body is not death at all - the first death is with Christ in baptism, hence all Christians are already dead to this world and eschatologically already resurrected with Christ as well. The time of this world is irrelevant. We are between the first and second coming and 1000 years is but a moment to God, so we haven't missed out on anything. This is all completely scriptural, so I don't see any issue. Your rejection seems to be based on conjecture that there was a pagan conspiracy and subsequent apostasy by those who "worship" Mary. I can't speak for the RCC, but I have NEVER witnessed anyone worshiping Mary or being taught to do so in the EOC, and we celebrate the Dormition of Mary, so it would seem that one does not necessarily lead to the other. If you want to base your opinion on hard evidence, then the conspiracy theory would not be an option either - at best you could only say "I don't know".

 

[Kristos]

The cult of relics developed much later in Christianity and reached a zenith in the late Middle Ages. While the first-century pagans engaged in such practices, there is absolutely no historical record that Christianity had yet adopted it (the practice of venerating relics). Thus, it is absolutely no surprise that there is no archeological record.

I entirely agree with you that if this amazing miracle had actually occured, then there would have been much written about it. The Assumption is a miracle that is not far from the Ascension in significance. We have much recorded concerning the Ascension, but nothing about the Assumption. Why is that?

I don't know how you are defining "cult of relics", but the early church was built on the relics of the martyrs - figuratively and literally. This evidence comes right from the catacombs of the 2nd century.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well first of all, if bodily resurrected then that would be the first resurrection and we all missed out which means everyone else is under the power of the second death (condemned). So yes you are correct it is not mentioned (as I previously pointed out) for 300 years so if it happened why not?

Your argument that we would be under the power of the second death and condemned seems to hold no water in light of the Biblical accounts of the of the Widow's son, the resurrection of Lazaris and the opening of the tombs at Christ's crucifixion; and there are other accounts as well.

I'll bet for the first 100 or so they knew exactly where her burial was. It just was not significant so after 2 more 100's of years people forgot...if it was important I am sure some near-pagan who worshipped the dead would have set up a shrine. We have found many such shrines in Israel and the Mediterranean area for heroes and holy persons.

Paul

As I recall, there is an account of her tomb being found and that it was empty in the 3rd or 4th cent. and that there was a shrine or chapel built. I believe that the account also stated that it was buried or partially buried by rubble at that time.

An empty tomb is not "proof" of anything other than an empty tomb though.

Where is it now, if indeed it was her tomb? The same place that many ancient sites are; buried or destroyed by the progression of time. Be mindful that even today archaeologists are rediscovering sites and places that were previously lost to the mists of time. If it's still there, it may be rediscovered.

Some other traditions hold that her Dormation occurred elsewhere, possibly Patmos where she was being cared for by St. John; in which case there would be no tomb in the Holy Land.

As I stated in a previous post, Christ, almighty and all powerful could have indeed caused these events to happen (he raised others, and Elijah was "assumed", the body of Moses may have been also; however, without definitive and tangible proof which so many seem to need, the Dormation and Assumption of Mary remains a matter of pious opinion. We do know that she is in heaven, and that, in and of itself is worthy of being commemorated, in that it points to the Glory of our Lord.

 

[Dorothea]

I don't know how you are defining "cult of relics", but the early church was built on the relics of the martyrs - figuratively and literally. This evidence comes right from the catacombs of the 2nd century.

Yep. The story of St. Ignatius's martyrdom is one.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

I am not even considering this doctrine. Why would Mary be assumed into heaven?

Uh - yeah - because it's not like Mary was special at all. She didn't do anything special. She didn't give birth to and raise the Son of God or anything. Our Lord totally didn't love her so much that when he was dying the agnonizing death of crucifiction that he summoned all of His strength to try and make arrangements for someone to look after her. Nope. She's not special at all.

We read about this in scripture. But nothing about the assumption of Mary is in the scripture.

That might be because she was still alive at the point in time at which our written record ends.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Uh - yeah - because it's not like Mary was special at all. She didn't do anything special. She didn't give birth to and raise the Son of God or anything. Our Lord totally didn't love her so much that when he was dying the agnonizing death of crucifiction that he summoned all of His strength to try and make arrangements for someone to look after her. Nope. She's not special at all.


That might be because she was still alive at the point in time at which our written record ends.

Could be.

 

[Erose]

The cult of relics developed much later in Christianity and reached a zenith in the late Middle Ages. While the first-century pagans engaged in such practices, there is absolutely no historical record that Christianity had yet adopted it (the practice of venerating relics). Thus, it is absolutely no surprise that there is no archeological record.

I entirely agree with you that if this amazing miracle had actually occured, then there would have been much written about it. The Assumption is a miracle that is not far from the Ascension in significance. We have much recorded concerning the Ascension, but nothing about the Assumption. Why is that?

Actually the cult of relics is a very early tradition, that stretched as early as the 1st century as shown by archelogical evidence. In fact one of the things that the Roman's would do with the bodies of martyrs was throw them into the sea with weights on so that the living Christians could not get access to the saint's relics.

This is actually one of the most convincing evidences of the Assumption of the Blessed Mother. There are only two people in Christendom that there are no bodily relics even claimed and that is Jesus and Mary. We have relics of all of the Apostles, St. John the Baptist, the early martyrs, etc. None of the Blessed Mother or her only son.