A Catholic acquaintance is rather taken with employing one liner catch phrases into his claims about the Catholic church. For example, it is the almost 2,000 year old apostolic church that has always believed the same things.
Well, he recently claimed that the Catholic church has believed in the assumption of Mary “Since from the day it happened” and that it is (generically) “the oldest feast day of Our Lady” without a date given for her assumed assumption or the fist feast.
For details on the assumed assumption, see here: Assumed Into Heaven? In short, the claim is that either before or after her death, Mary was assumed (as in taken up) body and soul into heaven.
In order to prove his claim to an early belief in and feast of the assumption, he provided an aptly titled article by Father Clifford Stevens, “The Assumption Of Mary: A Belief Since Apostolic Times.” It was originally published within the July-August 1996 AD issue of Catholic Heritage and published online by the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN).
Here is the opening statement:
The Assumption is the oldest feast day of Our Lady, but we don’t know how it first came to be celebrated.
Its origin is lost in those days when Jerusalem was restored as a sacred city, at the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine (c. 285-337).
Let us consider that “we don’t know how” nor when “it first came to be celebrated” because “Its origin is lost” but we know it was “the oldest feast day of Our Lady.”
From the get go the article is in error as the fact is that it is not detailed enough since “the oldest feast day of Our Lady” is not, I repeat not, the feast of the assumption. Rather, the oldest is the feast of the Dormition (the falling asleep). This is because people knew that Mary died. That was the extent of the early feast; her death and nothing whatsoever about her being assumed.
Much later on, Catholic invented a brand new idea about which earlier Catholic knew nothing: that Mary was assumed.
During his debate with James White titled, “The Bodily Assumption of Mary,” Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis stated:
Some will say, “Where is the testimony of the Assumption in sacred scriptures? Where is the testimony in the ancient Fathers?” To the first question I answer, with Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott, quote, “Direct and express scriptural proofs are not to be had” unquote. But we have possible allusions the Assumption in scripture; allusions, not direct evidence…Where’s all the Patristic evidence for the Assumption of Mary? Well, I would say the same thing that Ludwig Ott says about scripture. I would say, about Patristic evidence, “Direct and express Patristic evidence is not to be had.” But what hangs in the balance here? We do have late Patristic witnesses…they come rather late on the scene…
So we have no testimony nor allusions in sacred scriptures nor in the ancient Fathers.
The Catholic New Advent encyclopedia provides some succinct historical statement on this issue (emphasis added for emphasis and bracketed annotations added). Also, note something very important, something that Catholic do when they know that history and theology is not only not on their side but utter contradicts their authoritative claims. The encyclopedia seeks to soften the blow to the faithful by actually beginning the cited article thusly within the subsection titled
“The fact of the Assumption”:
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 [bishop of Salamis] (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11)…
The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae [oddly, the encyclopedia has not entry for this nor does it provide a date; but it dates to circa the 5th century], 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 [late 5th century and which was condemned by Pope Gelasius], falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite.
If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete [mid 7th century to 720 or 740], St. John Damascene [676 to 754 or 787], St. Modestus of Jerusalem [? to 630] and others.
In the West, St. Gregory of Tours [538 or 539 to 593 or 594] (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome [340 or 342 to 420] and St. Augustine [354 to 430] for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus [676 to 754 or 787] (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem.
Now, if the assumption was celebrated “Since from the day it happened” then Mary must have lived for hundreds upon hundreds of years. Clearly, one has to wait circa half a millennia after her death to even find anyone mentioning the assumption. As noted, bishop Epiphanius knew nothing definite about it.
The encyclopedia makes it clear that to claim that the assumption is an early belief, one must appeal to an apocryphal text of the fourth or fifth century, a falsely ascribed text of the late 5th century, a spurious letter, a spurious sermons and when we actually get to those who mention it, we are into the half a millennia mark after her death.
Back to Clifford Stevens’ article which, you will recall, asserts that “The Assumption Of Mary” is “A Belief Since Apostolic Times,” he notes:
After the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 336, the sacred sites began to be restored and memories of the life of Our Lord began to be celebrated by the people of Jerusalem. One of the memories about his mother centered around the “Tomb of Mary,” close to Mount Zion, where the early Christian community had lived. On the hill itself was the “Place of Dormition,” the spot of Mary’s “falling asleep,” where she had died. The “Tomb of Mary” was where she was buried. At this time, the “Memory of Mary” was being celebrated. Later it was to become our feast of the Assumption.
Exactly. The early church only knew that Mary died, thus “the ‘Memory of Mary’ was being celebrated,” and only “Later it was to become our feast of the Assumption”—much later.
Stevens states that the “Memory of Mary” then “began to be celebrated in Rome under the title of the ‘Falling Asleep’ (‘Dormitio’)” and this was “In the seventh century”—and we not yet dealing with a feast of the assumption.
He also touches upon a loophole to which many Catholics appeal when they see that history and theology contradict their claims:
Soon the name was changed to the “Assumption of Mary,” since there was more to the feast than her dying. It also proclaimed that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven.
That belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves. What was clear from the beginning was that there were no relics of Mary to be venerated, and that an empty tomb stood on the edge of Jerusalem near the site of her death. That location also soon became a place of pilgrimage. (Today, the Benedictine Abbey of the Dormition of Mary stands on the spot.)
Apparently, bishop Epiphanius did not know his history as he knew nothing definite about it and yet, “That belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves.” It is a simply case then, please provide quotations from the apostle in this regard, or the disciples of the apostle (the ante-Nicene leaders) or any history within the first, second, third centuries.
It is noted:
At the Council of Chalcedon in 451…Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary…The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven.”
Firstly, there were competing locations for Mary was buried (see the article The assumption of Mary’s assumption) and we are, generically told that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles” but that at some unspecified time referred to as “later” no body was found. What we do know is that by 451 no relics were available. Of course, we also do not know were the body of Jimmy Hoffa is; was he, therefore, assumed? For that matter, we do not know where the bodies of 99% of biblical priests, prophets, apostles, disciples, etc. are.
Catholic also reference Enoch and Elijah who were assumed (whilst alive, by the way) and ask whether Jesus would do any less for His mother. Well, seeking loopholes is no way to do history and theology. Would it say something bad about Jesus if his mother died, as the apostle and early knew, and did not rise her body to heaven but received her soul?
The issue is that if Mary was assumed body and soul that would be a wonderfully beautiful thing. The problem is that we ought not claim that Jesus did something He did not do and that He did so was invented circa half a millennia after His time on Earth.
A further problem with the assumption is the manner in which it is used and the likely reason for inventing the idea in the first place; to take attention away from Jesus and His uniqueness. Stevens wrote, “The Assumption looks to eternity and gives us hope that we, too, will follow Our Lady when our life is ended.” Yet, he should be stating, “The Ascension of Jesus looks to eternity and gives us hope that we, too, will follow Jesus when our life is ended.”
Finally, it was one thousand, nine hundred fifty years (a millennia and a half) when Pope Pius XII proclaimed the assumption of Mary to be a dogma and Steven notes, “With that, an ancient belief became Catholic doctrine and the Assumption was declared a truth revealed by God.”
To reiterate an apocryphal text of the fourth or fifth century, a falsely ascribed text of the late 5th century, a spurious letter, a spurious sermons and when we actually get to those who mention it, we are into the half a millennia mark after her death and one and a half millennia after the assumed event it becomes, “a truth revealed by God.”
As noted, the way Catholics escape troublesome historical and theological facts is to make statements such as, “Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition.” And, in the case of Pope Pius XII; authoritatively proclaiming an ex-cathedral dogma.
Within his book Catholic and Fundamentalism, The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988 AD), Nihil Obstat: Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pollard, S.T.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: +Most Reverend Roger Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles 1-28-88. p. 273, Catholic apologist Karl Keating wrote:
…where is the proof [of the Assumption] from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.
The issue, as detailed within this video:
By proclaiming dogma the Catholic church discredits itself by changing the way of salvation, by adding to the gospel. This is because a dogma must be believed for salvation. Thus, a Catholic could have been saved prior to 1950 AD with no regard for the assumption but then, literally from one moment to the next in 1950 AD, they could no longer be saved unless they believe it.
Overall, there is every reason to believe that Mary died like any other mortal and that her soul went to heaven along with all other believers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.