Assumption of SS. Joseph and John the Baptist?

[Mark_Sam]

In his Ascension Day homily in 1960, Pope St. John XXIII said:

We name two of the most intimate persons in Christ’s life: John the Baptist – the Precursor, and Joseph of Nazareth – his putative father and custodian. It corresponds to them – we may piously believe – the honor and the privilege of Jesus allowing them to admirably accompany him on the path to Heaven and to sing the first notes of the never ending hymn, “Te Deum”. (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 52 [1960], pp. 455-456)

From the context, it is clear that he is referring to an assumption into Heaven. Just before this, he referred to the Saints emerging from the tombs after the death of our Lord, Matthew 27:52-53. He quotes St. Thomas Aquinas, who said that those who were raised from the tombs, where then taken to heaven, in body and soul without dying:

Concerning these bodies of the saints, the question is usually raised, whether or not they were going to die again. It is undisputed that some men rose again, after they had died, such as Lazarus. But concerning these men it can be said that they rose so as not to die again, because they rose for the showing of Christ's Resurrection. Now it is certain that Christ rising from the dead will now die no more. Likewise, if they had risen, it would not have been beneficial for them, but rather detrimental; wherefore, they rose as being about to go with Christ into heaven. (Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel, Cap. 27 Lect. 2, on Mt 27:27-56, emphasis mine

According to some, St. Joseph was among those who rose, and was subsequently assumed into Heaven, body and soul. This does not appear to be an ancient tradition, however, and the oldest explicit mention of the assumption of St. Joseph I could find, is St. Bernardine of Siena (1380-1444; Sermo de Sancto Joseph, Art. III). My impression is that this is a belief which has become more popular with time, even though it still is a minority position.

There is another legend which predates this one by almost a millennium: that St. John the Apostle didn't die, but either is still sleeping in his tomb or was assumed into Heaven, based on John 21:22-23. St. Augustine deals specifically with the former and rejects he; he says the Apostle is truly dead and buried (Tractate on the Gospel of John, Tractate 124). Dom Gueranger (1805-1875) says that while some Fathers believe the Apostle to still be alive (again, either in his grave or in Heaven), it is the "general opinion of the Fathers" that he died a natural death and is awaiting the resurrection (The Liturgical Year, on Dec 27: St. John, Apostle and Evangelist). Most notably, the Angelic Doctor himself holds this opinion:

There are various opinions about John's burial. All say that it is true that he was buried in a tomb which still exists. But some say he entered his tomb while still alive, and then left it by divine power, transported to the region of Enoch and Elias, and he is being kept there until the end of the world. [...]

Others say he entered his tomb at Ephesus alive, and he remains there still alive, but sleeping, until the Lord comes. They base their theory on the fact that the soil there moves up and down in rhythm with John's breathing. Augustine rejects this by saying that it is not as good to be alive and sleeping as to be alive and blessed. Why then would Christ reward the disciple he loved above the others with a long sleep and deprive him of that great good for the sake of which the apostle wanted to be dissolved and to be with Christ (Phil 1:23). Thus, we should not believe this. Rather, we should say that he died and arose with his body indicated by the fact that his body cannot be found ‑ and remains happy with Christ, as Christ invited him: "He who testifies to these things says, Surely I am coming soon" (Rev 22:20). (St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, no. 2647, emphasis mine)

If one were to hold all these opinions at the same time, quite a lot of people have been assumed into Heaven! However, even if these opinions are true, these assumptions would be different from the assumption of our Lady, since hers was a "singular participation in her Son's Resurrection" (CCC 966).

So to recap:
1. There is an opinion that the Saints in Matthew 27:52-53 were assumed into Heaven at Christ's Ascension. An opinion most notably held by St. Thomas Aquinas. I don't know how widespread this opinion is among the Fathers (but my impression is that it is not very widespread, as Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary doesn't even mention it).
2. There is an opinion that St. Joseph was among these Saints, and appears to be of Medieval origin.
3. There is an ancient opinion that St. John the Apostle didn't die, and St. Thomas Aquinas held that he was assumed into Heaven.
4. All these opinions have the lowest level of doctrinal certainty, even if they are not contrary to the Faith, and they have always been minority opinions.
5. Pope St. John XXIII may have misspoken in his Ascension Day homily, as this is literally the only reference to the assumption of St. John the Baptist I could find. Or he inferred it from point 1. (Although there are supposed I class relics of head of the Baptist, so there's that.)

This last point was what set me off on this journey. I thought I'd share it with you all.

 

[Michie]

I don’t believe any of these people were assumed into heaven or still sleeping in tombs. Never heard this line of thought before concerning everyone you mentioned so I can’t be of much help.

Can you post the quotes of these opinions directly here where the assumptions are spoken of concerning St. Matthew, etc? I looked and did not find anything.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Regard John, the rumour seems to go back to the Apostles:

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” John 21

Question though: What singular grace did Mary enjoy which makes her resurrection different from the rest of the elect?

In his Ascension Day homily in 1960, Pope St. John XXIII said:

From the context, it is clear that he is referring to an assumption into Heaven. Just before this, he referred to the Saints emerging from the tombs after the death of our Lord, Matthew 27:52-53. He quotes St. Thomas Aquinas, who said that those who were raised from the tombs, where then taken to heaven, in body and soul without dying:



According to some, St. Joseph was among those who rose, and was subsequently assumed into Heaven, body and soul. This does not appear to be an ancient tradition, however, and the oldest explicit mention of the assumption of St. Joseph I could find, is St. Bernardine of Siena (1380-1444; Sermo de Sancto Joseph, Art. III). My impression is that this is a belief which has become more popular with time, even though it still is a minority position.

There is another legend which predates this one by almost a millennium: that St. John the Apostle didn't die, but either is still sleeping in his tomb or was assumed into Heaven, based on John 21:22-23. St. Augustine deals specifically with the former and rejects he; he says the Apostle is truly dead and buried (Tractate on the Gospel of John, Tractate 124). Dom Gueranger (1805-1875) says that while some Fathers believe the Apostle to still be alive (again, either in his grave or in Heaven), it is the "general opinion of the Fathers" that he died a natural death and is awaiting the resurrection (The Liturgical Year, on Dec 27: St. John, Apostle and Evangelist). Most notably, the Angelic Doctor himself holds this opinion:



If one were to hold all these opinions at the same time, quite a lot of people have been assumed into Heaven! However, even if these opinions are true, these assumptions would be different from the assumption of our Lady, since hers was a "singular participation in her Son's Resurrection" (CCC 966).

So to recap:
1. There is an opinion that the Saints in Matthew 27:52-53 were assumed into Heaven at Christ's Ascension. An opinion most notably held by St. Thomas Aquinas. I don't know how widespread this opinion is among the Fathers (but my impression is that it is not very widespread, as Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary doesn't even mention it).
2. There is an opinion that St. Joseph was among these Saints, and appears to be of Medieval origin.
3. There is an ancient opinion that St. John the Apostle didn't die, and St. Thomas Aquinas held that he was assumed into Heaven.
4. All these opinions have the lowest level of doctrinal certainty, even if they are not contrary to the Faith, and they have always been minority opinions.
5. Pope St. John XXIII may have misspoken in his Ascension Day homily, as this is literally the only reference to the assumption of St. John the Baptist I could find. Or he inferred it from point 1. (Although there are supposed I class relics of head of the Baptist, so there's that.)

This last point was what set me off on this journey. I thought I'd share it with you all.

 

[Michie]

*Permission to post in full*

As we approach the great feast of the Assumption of Mary, I, having written a post on the biblical evidence for the Assumption of Mary, thought I would change gears and consider the historical evidence for the Assumption in honor of this year’s feast day.

The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary began with a historical event to which Scripture alludes and that been believed in the Church for 2,000 years. It was passed down in the oral tradition of the Church and developed over the centuries, but it was always believed by the Catholic faithful. Let us examine the facts:

1. Archaeology has revealed two tombs of Mary, one in Jerusalem and one in Ephesus. The fact that Mary lived in both places explains the two tombs. But what is inexplicable apart from the Assumption is the fact that there is no body in either tomb. And there are no relics. Anyone who peruses early Church history knows that Christian belief in the communion of saints and the sanctity of the body—in radical contrast to the Gnostic disdain for “the flesh”—led early Christians to seek out with the greatest fervor relics from the bodies of great saints. Cities, and, later, religious orders, would fight over the bones of great saints.


This is one reason why we have relics of the apostles and so many of the greatest saints and martyrs in history. Yet never was there a single relic of Mary’s body? As revered as Mary was, this would be very strange, except for the fact of the assumption of her body.

2. On the historical front, Fr. Michael O’Carroll, in his book, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary, writes:

We have known for some time that there were widespread “Transitus Stories” that date from the sixth century that teach Mary’s glorious Assumption. It was the promulgation of the dogma of the Assumption by Pope Pius XII that rekindled interest in these stories of the end of Mary’s life. In 1955, Fr. A.A. Wenger published L’Assomption (p. 59).

Fr. Wenger found a Greek manuscript that verified what scholars had previously believed to be true. Because there were whole families of manuscripts from different areas of the world in the sixth century that told a similar story of Mary’s Assumption, there had to be previous manuscripts from which everyone received their data. Fr. Wenger discovered one of these earlier manuscripts, believed to be the source later used by John of Thessalonica in the sixth century in his teaching on the Assumption. Fr. O’Carroll continues:

Some years later, M. Haibach-Reinisch added to the dossier an early version of Pseudo-Melito, the most influential text in use in the Latin Church. This could now, it was clear, be dated earlier than the sixth century. . . . V. Arras claimed to have found an Ethiopian version of it which he published in 1973; its similarity to the Irish text gave the latter new status. In the same year M. Van Esbroeck brought out a Gregorian version, which he had located in Tiflis, and another, a Pseudo-Basil, in the following year, found in Mount Athos.

Much still remains to be explored. The Syriac fragments have increased importance, being put as far back as the third century by one commentator. The whole story will eventually be placed earlier, probably in the second century.

This is significant. Recently discovered Syriac fragments of stories about the Assumption of Mary have been dated as early as the third century. And there are undoubtedly more manuscripts to be found. It must be remembered that when we are talking about these “Transitus stories,” we are not only talking about ancient manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts, but we are talking also about two different “families” of manuscripts written in nine languages. They all agree on Mary’s Assumption and they presuppose that the story was already widely known.

Gnostic Fable or Christian Truth?
What about those who claim the Assumption of Mary is nothing more than a Gnostic fable? Or those who claim the historical narratives about the Assumption of Mary were condemned by Pope Gelasius I? James White, in his book Mary—Another Redeemer?, goes so far as to claim:

Basically, the first appearance of the idea of the Bodily Assumption of Mary is found in a source that was condemned by the then-bishop of Rome, Gelasius I! The irony is striking: what was defined by the bishop of Rome as heresy at the end of the fifth century becomes dogma itself in the middle of the twentieth! (p. 54).

Mr. White’s reasoning fails for several reasons.

1. Even if it were a papal document, Decretum Gelasianum would not be a “definition” by the bishop of Rome declaring the Assumption of Mary to be heresy, as White claims. The document does not make such an assertion. It gives us a rather long list of titles of apocryphal books after having listed the accepted books of the Bible. That’s all. One of these titles declared to be “apocryphal” is referred to as: “Liber qui appellatur ‘Transitus, id est Assumptio sanctae Mariae,’” which translates as “A book which is called, ‘Having been taken up, that is, the Assumption of Holy Mary.’”

White evidently thought this document condemned as untrue the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. But it did not. As a matter of history, this document does not condemn any doctrines in the books it lists at all; it declares the books themselves to be apocryphal and therefore not part of the canon of Scripture.

This would be something akin to the Church’s rejection of The Assumption of Moses and The Book of Enoch as apocryphal works. The fact that these works are apocryphal does not preclude St. Jude (9; 14) from quoting both of them in Sacred Scripture. Because a work is declared apocryphal or even condemned does not mean that there is no truth at all to be found in it.

2. There is a real question among scholars today as to whether Pope Gelasius wrote what is popularly called the Dectretum Gelasianum. According to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Faith (p. 462), it was probably written in the sixth century (Pope Gelasius died in the late fifth century) in Italy or Gaul and was most likely not a papal work at all. In fact, it was falsely attributed to several different popes over the years.

3. If the pope had genuinely condemned the teaching of the Assumption, great saints and defenders of orthodoxy such as St. Gregory and later St. John Damascene would not have taught it. Further, we would have found other writers condemning this teaching as it became more and more popular throughout the world. And we certainly would not see the Assumption celebrated in the liturgy as we do as early as the fifth century in Palestine, Gaul in the sixth, universally in the East in the seventh century, and in the West in the eighth century. Far from a condemnation of the Assumption, this reveals just how widespread this teaching truly was...

 

[Michie]

Why Don’t the Earliest Fathers Write About the Assumption?
The most obvious reason would be that when Gnostics, who were some of the main enemies of the Faith in the early centuries of the Christian era, agreed with the Church on the matter, there would have been no need to defend the teaching. In other words, there is no record of anyone disagreeing on the matter. We don’t find works from the earliest Fathers on Jesus’ celibacy either, but that too was most likely due to the universal agreement on the topic. Much of early Christian literature was apologetic in nature. Like the New Testament, it mostly dealt with problem areas in the Church that needed to be addressed.

Even so, it is not as though there is no written evidence to support the Assumption either. According to Fr. O’Carroll (Theotokos, 388), we now have what some believe to be a fourth-century homily on the prophet Simeon and the Blessed Virgin Mary by Timothy, a priest of Jerusalem, which asserts Mary is “immortal to the present time through him who had his abode in her and who assumed and raised her above the higher regions.”

Evidently, there was disagreement in the circulating stories of the Assumption of Mary as to whether she was taken up alive or after having died. But whether or not she was assumed was not in question. Indeed, the Church even to this day has not decided definitively the matter of whether Mary died or not, though at the level of the Ordinary Magisterium it does teach that Mary died—for example, in Pope Pius XII’s Munificentissimus Deus, 17, 20, 21, 29, 35, 39, and 40.

Rethinking St. Epiphanius
I believe St. Epiphanius’s work needs to be reexamined when it comes to the Assumption of Mary. This great bishop and defender of orthodoxy may give us key insights into the antiquity of the Assumption, writing in ca. A.D. 350. In his classic Panarion (“breadbox”) or Refutation of All Heresies, he includes eighty-eight sections dealing with scores of the most dangerous heresies of his day. In sections 78 and 79, he deals with one particular sect comprised mainly of women called the “Collyridians.” Evidently, this sect was “ordaining” women as “priestesses” and adoring Mary as a goddess by offering sacrifice to her. St. Epiphanius condemns this in the strongest of terms:

For I have heard in turn that others who are out of their minds on this subject of this holy Ever-virgin, have done their best and are doing their best, in the grip both of madness and of folly, to substitute her for God. For they say that certain Thracian women there in Arabia have introduced this nonsense, and that they bake a loaf in the name of the Ever-virgin, gather together, and attempt an excess and undertake a forbidden, blasphemous act in the holy Virgin’s name, and offer sacrifice in her name with women officiants.

This is entirely impious, unlawful, and different from the Holy Spirit’s message, and is thus pure devil’s work . . .

And nowhere was a woman a priest. But I shall go to the New Testament. If it were ordained by God that women should be priests or have any canonical function in the Church, Mary herself, if anyone, should have functioned as a priest in the New Testament. She was counted worthy to bear the king of all in her own womb, the heavenly God, the Son of God. Her womb became a temple, and by God’s kindness and an awesome mystery, was prepared to be a dwelling place of the Lord’s human nature. But it was not God’s pleasure that she be a priest.

These women who were adoring Mary as if she were a goddess would no doubt have been well acquainted with the “Transitus Stories” and would have been teaching Mary’s Assumption. In fact, it appears they were teaching Mary never died at all. This would be in keeping with John of Thessalonica, Timothy of Jerusalem, and others who taught this among Christians. However, these women were taking Mary and the Assumption to the extreme by worshiping her. What is interesting here is that in the midst of condemning the Collyridians, St. Epiphanius gives us, in section 79 of Panarion, a point-blank statement that is overlooked today by many:

Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death.

St. Epiphanius clearly indicates his personal agreement with the idea that Mary was assumed into heaven without ever having died. He will elsewhere clarify the fact that he is not certain, and no one is, at least not definitively so, about whether or not she died. But he never says the same about the Assumption itself. That did not seem to be in doubt. By comparing her to Elijah, he indicates that she was taken up bodily, just as the Church continues to teach 1,600 years later.

A Final Thought
Since the time of the promulgation of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, there has been much new discovery. We now have written evidence of belief in the Assumption of Mary as far back as the third century. Though it is not necessary for there to be written evidence all the way back to the second century for us as Catholics because we have Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church first and foremost that has already given us the truth of the Matter, I believe it is really exciting that new historical discoveries continue to be made and once again . . . and again . . . and again, they confirm the Faith of our Fathers.

The Assumption of Mary in History

 

[Mark_Sam]

I don’t believe any of these people were assumed into heaven or still sleeping in tombs. Never heard this line of thought before concerning everyone you mentioned so I can’t be of much help.

Can you posts the quotes directly here where the assumptions are spoken of concerning St. Matthew, etc? I looked and did not find anything.

Yes, I agree. It is interesting nontheless, especially given that a Pope Saint mentioned it.

Links:
St. Thomas Aquinas on the assumption of the Saints in the Gospel of Matthew: page 1506 in this English translation of his commentary, or Chapter 27, Lection 2 in the original Latin.

St. Thomas Aquinas on the assumption of St. John the Apostle: paragraph 2647 in this English translation or in the same paragraph number in the original Latin.

St. Bernardine of Siena on the assumption of St. Joseph: page 235, 2nd column in this Latin edition, the 4th volume of his complete works (Latin only), where you see "Joseph etiam in cælo quo ad corpus" in the margin ("Joseph too is in Heaven with respect to the body").

Dom Gueranger on St. John.

Pope St. John XXIII's Ascension Day homily: pages 455-456 here (Italian only; I will admit that I sourced the English translation from here from the "Apostolate of St. Joseph", which promotes what is best described as "Josephan Maximalism", I don't speak Italian, but according to Google translate, it is fairly accurate.)

St. Augustine: Tractate 124 from the Tractates on the Gospel of St. John.

 

[Michie]

Yes, I agree. It is interesting nontheless, especially given that a Pope Saint mentioned it.

Links:
St. Thomas Aquinas on the assumption of the Saints in the Gospel of Matthew: page 1506 in this English translation of his commentary, or Chapter 27, Lection 2 in the original Latin.

St. Thomas Aquinas on the assumption of St. John the Apostle: paragraph 2647 in this English translation or in the same paragraph number in the original Latin.

St. Bernardine of Siena on the assumption of St. Joseph: page 235, 2nd column in this Latin edition, the 4th volume of his complete works (Latin only), where you see "Joseph etiam in cælo quo ad corpus" in the margin ("Joseph too is in Heaven with respect to the body").

Dom Gueranger on St. John.

Pope St. John XXIII's Ascension Day homily: pages 455-456 here (Italian only; I will admit that I sourced the English translation from here from the "Apostolate of St. Joseph", which promotes what is best described as "Josephan Maximalism", I don't speak Italian, but according to Google translate, it is fairly accurate.)

St. Augustine: Tractate 124 from the Tractates on the Gospel of St. John.

Thanks! I’ll check it out.

 

[Red Gold]

I thought Assumption only referred to Mary.