The Assumption of Mary

[Standing Up]

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

It is a good inference that Christ would assign someone to care for Mary who would outlive her. Wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

So, yeah, obviously scripture places little if no importance on Mary's end, regardless of what man may opine about it centuries divorced from the events.

 

[narnia59]

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

That Mary was older than John is not established in Scripture. Nor is the fact that he died as an old man.

So my question for you is, up to what point are you willing to accept church testimony and history as valid, and at what point do you find it unacceptable?

And my contention would be that just because the earliest writing we have that survived throughout the centuries is from a specific time period, that is not in and of itself evidence that it's the earliest the information was believed or appeared on the scene. It is simply the earliest date we have something written that survived; that does not prove it's the earliest date it was believed.

However, since you seem to believe John of Damascus just pulled that information out of thin air, surely you can produce many writings of people contesting him and claiming it's the first they've ever heard of such a claim? Or was the rest of the church silent about his assertion? Because if the rest of the church was silent, that's strong evidence he wasn't professing anything they found new or unusual at all. That would lead to the conclusion that the belief pre-existed his writing and was well known throughout the church at the time he wrote.

So, do you have evidence of the rest of the church contesting or being surprised by what he wrote? If so, please provide it.

 

[Standing Up]

That Mary was older than John is not established in Scripture. Nor is the fact that he died as an old man.

So my question for you is, up to what point are you willing to accept church testimony and history as valid, and at what point do you find it unacceptable?

And my contention would be that just because the earliest writing we have that survived throughout the centuries is from a specific time period, that is not in and of itself evidence that it's the earliest the information was believed or appeared on the scene. It is simply the earliest date we have something written that survived; that does not prove it's the earliest date it was believed.

However, since you seem to believe John of Damascus just pulled that information out of thin air, surely you can produce many writings of people contesting him and claiming it's the first they've ever heard of such a claim? Or was the rest of the church silent about his assertion? Because if the rest of the church was silent, that's strong evidence he wasn't professing anything they found new or unusual at all. That would lead to the conclusion that the belief pre-existed his writing and was well known throughout the church at the time he wrote.

So, do you have evidence of the rest of the church contesting or being surprised by what he wrote? If so, please provide it.

For all Christians, except RC, it's not a matter of salvation. Thus, it makes sense the bible is silent and so too are ECFs, until specific doctrines about Mary were invented some hundreds of years later.

 

[narnia59]

For all Christians, except RC, it's not a matter of salvation. Thus, it makes sense the bible is silent and so too are ECFs, until specific doctrines about Mary were invented some hundreds of years later.

Spill out any evidence that those doctrines were 'invented'. Where's the outcry at their first mention that this is something new, that we've never believed before?

 

[Standing Up]

Spill out any evidence that those doctrines were 'invented'. Where's the outcry at their first mention that this is something new, that we've never believed before?

Why would there be an outcry from those outside the faith? They invented the doctrine.

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

 

[narnia59]

Why would there be an outcry from those outside the faith? They invented the doctrine.

Exactly who 'outside' the faith invented the doctrine?

And exactly who was 'inside' the faith at the time and where's the evidence of their protest?

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

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.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Exactly who 'outside' the faith invented the doctrine?

And exactly who was 'inside' the faith at the time and where's the evidence of their protest?



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.

While implied and not clearly stated, those like you and I seem to be "outside the faith" by the standards of some present.

 

[narnia59]

While implied and not clearly stated, those like you and I seem to be "outside the faith" by the standards of some present.

Well I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt here.

 

[Standing Up]

Exactly who 'outside' the faith invented the doctrine?

And exactly who was 'inside' the faith at the time and where's the evidence of their protest?



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.

Of course those of RC now believe that the dogma was always derived from apostolic tradition. But originally, as NewAdvent tells us, it was derived from forgeries and spurious and pseudographic works.

Let's say your Pope today makes a dogma and tells you it is based on the works of Peter, John, and Paul. A couple hundred years later, those alive then find out, the Pope was wrong, his sources false, spurious, and utterly incorrect. So, who was "in the faith" and who was "apart from the faith" today? How easy would it be for that faith to back pedal on its dogma that it sold earlier as true as scripture?

 

[concretecamper]

Of course those of RC now believe that the dogma was always derived from apostolic tradition. But originally, as NewAdvent tells us, it was derived from forgeries and spurious and pseudographic works.

Let's say your Pope today makes a dogma and tells you it is based on the works of Peter, John, and Paul. A couple hundred years later, those alive then find out, the Pope was wrong, his sources false, spurious, and utterly incorrect. So, who was "in the faith" and who was "apart from the faith" today? How easy would it be for that faith to back pedal on its dogma that it sold earlier as true as scripture?

The Church teaches that the Church itself cannot reverse Dogma. So therefore, they are not pronounced without the utmost serious consideration.

 

[Standing Up]

The Church teaches that the Church itself cannot reverse Dogma. So therefore, they are not pronounced without the utmost serious consideration.

Serious consideration based on this:

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

 

[concretecamper]

Serious consideration based on this:

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

Round and round the mulberry bush.......

Weren't you corrected on this point on another thread?

 

[Standing Up]

Round and round the mulberry bush.......

Weren't you corrected on this point on another thread?

Don't think so.



Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. 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. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae

----it just gets worse------

. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:


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.

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.
-newadvent.org

Probable opinion based on a work from c650ad. To deny such "probable opinion" is blasphemous. Silly.

 

[prodromos]

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae

No its not. In the East it is based on the oral tradition handed down in the Jerusalem Patriarchate

 

[Standing Up]

No its not. In the East it is based on the oral tradition handed down in the Jerusalem Patriarchate

Right. Same tradition that tells us she was 8feet tall and had spiked orange and purple hair.

Point is, we can make up anything about anybody. Spiked purple hair just doesn't sound as pious.

 

[prodromos]

Right. Same tradition that tells us she was 8feet tall and had spiked orange and purple hair.

Point is, we can make up anything about anybody. Spiked purple hair just doesn't sound as pious.

What purpose would there be in the Church 'making stuff up'? What profit is there in creating 'unbelievable' stories?

 

[Standing Up]

What purpose would there be in the Church 'making stuff up'? What profit is there in creating 'unbelievable' stories?

Well, what was the point of defining these things: of the papacy? of the filioque? of the nature of sin? of the nature of the point of Mary's "sinlessness" (birth or Christ's conception)?

Christ said wheat and tares grow together. Hopefully most of what we each believe came out from "teach the same". In regards to Mary's end, the apostles simply didn't think it important to tell us what happened; it's not salvific. Why did later men think it important? Not sure. Why do you think it important?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by pshun2404

Why is it required?

Paul
​

Are you Catholic?

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

Good questions.



.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Dormition/Assumption is not dogma in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is however a widespread observance, so I suppose it doesn't make much difference. I remember when I was attending the EO church, my priest did not emphasize the historical accuracy of the story.

I believe the Assumption would be a fitting end to the Virgin Mary's mortal life but I can't see why it should be dogma- this is the position of Old Catholics in general. Personally, I am inclined to believe it.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

What purpose would there be in the Church 'making stuff up'? What profit is there in creating 'unbelievable' stories?

So SU has something to talk about, me thinks.

The Dormition/Assumption is not dogma in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is however a widespread observance, so I suppose it doesn't make much difference. I remember when I was attending the EO church, my priest did not emphasize the historical accuracy of the story.

I believe the Assumption would be a fitting end to the Virgin Mary's mortal life but I can't see why it should be dogma- this is the position of Old Catholics in general. Personally, I am inclined to believe it.

Nor does Lutheranism; rather it is Adiaphora; and may be held and observed as one's pious opinion. It's belief and observance does predate the documents cited. It is also worth noting these documents did not just spontaneously generate, but resulted from oral traditions that predated them.

If God/Christ wanted to assume Mary, He could. If He did or did not, arguing that it's impossible is dishonoring God. God does what He wants, when He wants, how He wants; regardless of what we want.