The Assumption of Mary

pshun2404 · Aug 25, 2013

The assumption that Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven is accepted in both Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Church (though only an official dogma in the Roman Catholic). It has an interesting history…none!

Even the early writers under the Roman See (Irenaeus, Tertulian, Jerome, Augustine, and more) say nothing about it. I would think that something so amazing, so miraculous, so significant would at least have been mentioned,

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

Pope Gelasius in 459 A.D. declared an anathema upon all those who would choose to adopt what he considered the heresy of the "Assumption of Mary", he likewise rebuked the Trabsitu as purious and false. This decision was again supported by Pope Hormisdas in the 6th century, when the alleged heresy began to resurface.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says “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. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and finally in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite”

A strange commentary for something required to be believed. Why was it suddenly required around 100 A.D., and then made a dogma of the Church? In 1950, Pope Pius XII infallibly declared this an "official Catholic Doctrine which all Catholics are required to believe"!

Why would any believe this? Simply because they were told to? Just because we did not find her bones does not mean she was assumed. People in the early church may have hid them to protect them...relic hunters could have stolen them...but there is nothing yo assume she was assumed!

So it is not apostolic tradition, not scripture, not taught in the church until centuries later and on top of that it is based on spurious forgeries.

Why is it required?

Paul

tz620q · Aug 26, 2013

pshun2404 said:
Why is it required?

Paul

Are you Catholic?

pshun2404 · Aug 26, 2013

I am a person who adheres to the catholic faith (as spoken of by the earliest church fathers) and love and adore the mother of my Lord, but no I am not a Roman Catholic...but even if I were, I would still have to question why such an unsupportable belief, not even thought of until centuries later, would be required...

How about you? Are you Roman Catholic? If so, upon what basis do you accept this dogma once considered heretical?

Brother Paul

bbbbbbb · Aug 26, 2013

Sadly, the dogma of the Assumption was declared to be infallible by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. This means that the dogma is salvific and failure to believe in it will result in eternal damnation.

Thus, all Protestants are damned to an eternity in the Lake of Fire by the Catholic Church if, for no other reason, than rejecting this dogma which, as has been pointed out in the OP, is of specious origin, at best, and a downright falsehood, at worst.

MarkRohfrietsch · Aug 27, 2013

bbbbbbb said:
Sadly, the dogma of the Assumption was declared to be infallible by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. This means that the dogma is salvific and failure to believe in it will result in eternal damnation.

Thus, all Protestants are damned to an eternity in the Lake of Fire by the Catholic Church if, for no other reason, than rejecting this dogma which, as has been pointed out in the OP, is of specious origin, at best, and a downright falsehood, at worst.

Only if such protestants accept the authority of Rome.

I believe that there is some sketchy, anecdotal, extrabiblical evidence and accounts, but I emphasize "sketchy". In confessional Lutheranism we still honour the Blessed Virgin, St. Mary, Mother of our Lord on August 15, the feast day of the Assumption/Dormation. In my parish we call it "The Dormation". However, it is not Scriptural, but may be held as pious opinion; it is not an "article of faith".

Regardless of whether Mary was Assumed or not, it is a given that she is in Heaven with her Son, our Lord.

We know from Scripture that others have been "assumed" bodily into Heaven, Jesus loved His Mother, and God found favour in her and made her the mother of His Son. God is Omnipotent; it's not like God could not or would not choose to assume her either.

tz620q · Aug 27, 2013

pshun2404 said:
I am a person who adheres to the catholic faith (as spoken of by the earliest church fathers) and love and adore the mother of my Lord, but no I am not a Roman Catholic...but even if I were, I would still have to question why such an unsupportable belief, not even thought of until centuries later, would be required...

How about you? Are you Roman Catholic? If so, upon what basis do you accept this dogma once considered heretical?

Brother Paul

Brother Paul,
Thank you for your reasoned and reasonable response. Yes, I am a Roman Catholic. You have given me a fair challenge. This last weekend I was at a Greek Orthodox festival and talked with their sub-deacon on the Dormition/Assumption of our blessed Mother. I was surprised that the Orthodox view was the same as the Roman Catholic view on this. Since both churches value Tradition as well as Scripture, I think that we can't reject the Assumption purely because of a lack of scriptural evidence. After all, if it did occur, it would have been after nearly all of the canonical Bible was written.

I think the Orthodox would be loath to dogmatize this; but they would still be staunch in declaring the truth of the belief. I don't think the date of the Roman Catholic declaration as dogma is pertinent. So that leaves us with the early Tradition that surrounds this belief. Also, the common belief in both the Greek and Latin early church should help guide us away from using solely Latin sources.
Would you agree with these presuppositions?

I hope my original question didn't sound flip. It is just that I don't think a Catholic or Orthodox Christian would rail at being required to believe this. This is not because of a robotic faith, but because of a faith that I feel is open to possibilities of God's good Grace being granted super-abundantly, especially to those who have best pleased Him. We don't see anything that wrong with the thought that God would choose to assume the Mother of his Son into Heaven.

If you find my presuppositions a good starting point, then we can get into the meat of your OP and see where it takes us.

God's Grace be with you always,
Byron

pshun2404 · Aug 27, 2013

tz620q said:
Brother Paul,
Thank you for your reasoned and reasonable response. Yes, I am a Roman Catholic. You have given me a fair challenge. This last weekend I was at a Greek Orthodox festival and talked with their sub-deacon on the Dormition/Assumption of our blessed Mother. I was surprised that the Orthodox view was the same as the Roman Catholic view on this. Since both churches value Tradition as well as Scripture, I think that we can't reject the Assumption purely because of a lack of scriptural evidence. After all, if it did occur, it would have been after nearly all of the canonical Bible was written.

I think the Orthodox would be loath to dogmatize this; but they would still be staunch in declaring the truth of the belief. I don't think the date of the Roman Catholic declaration as dogma is pertinent. So that leaves us with the early Tradition that surrounds this belief. Also, the common belief in both the Greek and Latin early church should help guide us away from using solely Latin sources.
Would you agree with these presuppositions?

I hope my original question didn't sound flip. It is just that I don't think a Catholic or Orthodox Christian would rail at being required to believe this. This is not because of a robotic faith, but because of a faith that I feel is open to possibilities of God's good Grace being granted super-abundantly, especially to those who have best pleased Him. We don't see anything that wrong with the thought that God would choose to assume the Mother of his Son into Heaven.

If you find my presuppositions a good starting point, then we can get into the meat of your OP and see where it takes us.

God's Grace be with you always,
Byron

Hello my brother...no your answer does not sound flip at all. But I never made what it says in the Bible the issue. I WAS speaking of actual apostolic tradition (as passed down by the earliest church fathers)...they never mention this at all (where I know if genuine they would have) and it only arose in apocryphal writings and texts deemed heretical by two previous Popes centuries later...

And no! In 1950 it was decreed to be required...and thoughts are fine so long as you know what a thought is (it is imaginary consideration). Nothing wrong with a thought but is it true...I consider nothing wrong with the thought that God can do anything but He won't.

But thanks for your honesty...

In His love

Paul

Cappadocious · Aug 27, 2013

tz620q said:
We don't see anything that wrong with the thought that God would choose to assume the Mother of his Son into Heaven.

...after she reposed.

bbbbbbb · Aug 27, 2013

Cappadocious said:
...after she reposed.

That is the sticking point. Whether or not she reposed. The Catholic Church is intentionally vague as to whether or not she did reposed prior to her assumption despite ample historical evidence that the belief was that she, did, indeed, repose. This is not to say that the origins or this belief can be traced back farther than late apocryphal literature, but to say that as the belief developed, it was understood that she reposed prior to her assumption.

narnia59 · Aug 27, 2013

bbbbbbb said:
That is the sticking point. Whether or not she reposed. The Catholic Church is intentionally vague as to whether or not she did reposed prior to her assumption despite ample historical evidence that the belief was that she, did, indeed, repose. This is not to say that the origins or this belief can be traced back farther than late apocryphal literature, but to say that as the belief developed, it was understood that she reposed prior to her assumption.

If you read the actual document written by Pope Pius XII there is nothing vague at all about what you think is a sticking point.

They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.

"It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death." quoting St. John Damascene

And another very ancient writer asserts: "As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.

In like manner St. Francis de Sales, after asserting that it is wrong to doubt that Jesus Christ has himself observed, in the most perfect way, the divine commandment by which children are ordered to honor their parents, asks this question: "What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise after her death if he could?"

And St. Alphonsus writes that "Jesus did not wish to have the body of Mary corrupted after death, since it would have redounded to his own dishonor to have her virginal flesh, from which he himself had assumed flesh, reduced to dust."

Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."

"God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb."

Apostolic Constitution defining the Dogma of the Assumption - Munificentissimus Deus

narnia59 · Aug 27, 2013

Originally Posted by bbbbbbb

Sadly, the dogma of the Assumption was declared to be infallible by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. This means that the dogma is salvific and failure to believe in it will result in eternal damnation.

Thus, all Protestants are damned to an eternity in the Lake of Fire by the Catholic Church if, for no other reason, than rejecting this dogma which, as has been pointed out in the OP, is of specious origin, at best, and a downright falsehood, at worst.

MarkRohfrietsch said:
Only if such protestants accept the authority of Rome.

Yeah, but that doesn't sound nearly as pizzazzy.

narnia59 · Aug 27, 2013

pshun2404 said:
The assumption that Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven is accepted in both Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Church (though only an official dogma in the Roman Catholic). It has an interesting historynone!

Even the early writers under the Roman See (Irenaeus, Tertulian, Jerome, Augustine, and more) say nothing about it. I would think that something so amazing, so miraculous, so significant would at least have been mentioned,

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

Pope Gelasius in 459 A.D. declared an anathema upon all those who would choose to adopt what he considered the heresy of the "Assumption of Mary", he likewise rebuked the Trabsitu as purious and false. This decision was again supported by Pope Hormisdas in the 6th century, when the alleged heresy began to resurface.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says 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. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and finally in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite

A strange commentary for something required to be believed. Why was it suddenly required around 100 A.D., and then made a dogma of the Church? In 1950, Pope Pius XII infallibly declared this an "official Catholic Doctrine which all Catholics are required to believe"!

Why would any believe this? Simply because they were told to? Just because we did not find her bones does not mean she was assumed. People in the early church may have hid them to protect them...relic hunters could have stolen them...but there is nothing yo assume she was assumed!

So it is not apostolic tradition, not scripture, not taught in the church until centuries later and on top of that it is based on spurious forgeries.

Why is it required?

Paul

If you read the supposed document by Pope Gelasius, it does not condemn a belief in the Assumption of Mary. It condemns an apocryphal book called "The Assumption of Mary". Big difference. Aside from that, that document has long been known to be a forgery:

The proof that the document is not a real Decretal of Gelasius or any other Pope is almost as decisive, if not quite so startling. In the first place v. Dobschütz makes it clear (p. 213) that the shorter form I-III implies the longer form,2 and therefore is derived from it. Further, the short form III-V, which was supposed to contain the genuine decree of Gelasius, turns out to be a recension of the whole work, in which the phrases which refer back to I and II have been carefully suppressed or altered (p. 214). This recension appears to |471 have been made in Gaul in the seventh century (p. 399) : that known as Hormisdas, containing II-V, is a Spanish recension, but the Spaniard Isidor used chap. I, in fact he is the earliest witness to the work. Had it been an official decree of Gelasius it would have been known and used by Dionysius Exiguus and Cassiodorus.

Thus these famous Lists represent no Papal ordinance, but are the production of an anonymous scholar of the sixth century.

Tertullian : F.C.Burkitt, Review of The decretum Gelasianum, Journal of Theological Studies 14 (1913) pp. 469-471

And you quote the Catholic encyclopedia article, but did you read it? It says this:

The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition.

and this:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

narnia59 · Aug 27, 2013

duplicate

MarkRohfrietsch · Aug 28, 2013

bbbbbbb said:
Sadly, the dogma of the Assumption was declared to be infallible by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. This means that the dogma is salvific and failure to believe in it will result in eternal damnation.

Thus, all Protestants are damned to an eternity in the Lake of Fire by the Catholic Church if, for no other reason, than rejecting this dogma which, as has been pointed out in the OP, is of specious origin, at best, and a downright falsehood, at worst.

MarkRohfrietsch said:
Only if such protestants accept the authority of Rome.

narnia59 said:
Yeah, but that doesn't sound nearly as pizzazzy.

I like your style!

narnia59 said:
<Snip>

and this:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

Thanks for providing this; this info is what I was referencing in my previous post:

I believe that there is some sketchy, anecdotal, extrabiblical evidence and accounts, but I emphasize "sketchy".

pshun2404 · Aug 28, 2013

The De Obitu S. Dominae is a fictional work that claims to be written by the Apostle John (so right off the bat the author is at best pseudipigraphic or else just a plain liar)...again this is proof that not even the idea of such a thing was considered by the genuine apostolic fathers who receieved their traditions from the Apostles and those they instructed. Secondly, John (the real true John not the liar) outlived Mary and was caring for her till she passed over. Don;t you think he would have mentioned this?

narnia59 · Aug 28, 2013

pshun2404 said:
The De Obitu S. Dominae is a fictional work that claims to be written by the Apostle John (so right off the bat the author is at best pseudipigraphic or else just a plain liar)...again this is proof that not even the idea of such a thing was considered by the genuine apostolic fathers who receieved their traditions from the Apostles and those they instructed. Secondly, John (the real true John not the liar) outlived Mary and was caring for her till she passed over. Don;t you think he would have mentioned this?

How do you know that John outlived Mary and cared for her until she died?

prodromos · Aug 28, 2013

narnia59 said:
How do you know that John outlived Mary and cared for her until she died?

Do you think this might be a protestant "tradition"?

narnia59 · Aug 28, 2013

prodromos said:
Do you think this might be a protestant "tradition"?

Well it's most certainly extra-Biblical information that's being asserted as fact and relevant.

pshun2404 · Aug 30, 2013

narnia59 said:
How do you know that John outlived Mary and cared for her until she died?

Because Jesus appointed him to do so, at the cross...and Mary was older than John who history and all the earliest church writers paint as an old man when he died...

As for this...it demonstrates my point exactly...

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian...etc.,etc.,

Are the words of St John of Damascus in the 7th and 8th century and he is referring to a council of the 5th century for which there is no evidence of such a conversation except later speculations and made up story to support the false history. I have read the documents of the Council and they make no mention of such a conversation.

In His love

Paul

basketballjohn · Sep 8, 2013

Hi I would like to share this wisdom
"Our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted the deposit of faith to the Church, that under the constant guidance and assistance of the Holy Spirit, she might sacredly guard and faithfully explain this divine revelation. The Church has therefore the right and the duty, independently of any civil power, to teach all nations the full evangelical doctrine; and all men are bound by the law of God to learn this doctrine properly and to embrace the true Church of God (c. 1322).The Church guards and explains this deposit of faith. She does not add to it, for it was completed and closed with the death of the last Apostle, Saint John. To guard means to keep and defend; in doing this the Church must sometimes declare truths which are not contained in revelation but which are necessary to keep revealed truth. To explain means to make clear what is obscure. The so-called developments of doctrine through dogmatic definitions may be compared to the sharpening of the focus on a film which is projected on a screen. The details which become discernible with clear focus are not new; they were all in the original picture, but they are now brought out more clearly. "

Pope Benedict XV

The Assumption of Mary

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

bbbbbbb

Guest

Unapologetic Apologist

Regular Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

bbbbbbb

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Unapologetic Apologist

Newbie

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Newbie

Junior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency