The Assumption of Mary, a fabrication condemned at first by The Church?

[Asimis]

Came across this in another forum...anyone knows a good answer?

It would seem that Christians didn't universally know or believe in the assumption almost 400 years after the fact, if not later.

The first Church Father to affirm explicitly the assumption of Mary in the West was Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D. But the basis for his teaching was not the tradition of the Church but his acceptance of an apocryphal Gospel known as the Transitus Beatae Mariae which we first hear of at the end of the fifth century and which was spuriously attributed to Melito of Sardis. There were many versions of this literature which developed over time and which were found throughout the East and West but they all originated from one source. Mariologist, Juniper Carol, gives the following historical summary of the Transitus literature:

"An intriguing corpus of literature on the final lot of Mary is formed by the apocryphal Transitus Mariae. The genesis of these accounts is shrouded in history’s mist. They apparently originated before the close of the fifth century, perhaps in Egypt, perhaps in Syria, in consequence of the stimulus given Marian devotion by the definition of the divine Maternity at Ephesus. The period of proliferation is the sixth century. At least a score of Transitus accounts are extant, in Coptic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. Not all are prototypes, for many are simply variations on more ancient models (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 144)."

Thus, the Transitus literature is the real source of the teaching of the assumption of Mary and Catholic authorities admit this fact. Juniper Carol, for example, writes: ‘The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’ (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149). Ludwig Ott, likewise affirms these facts when he says:

"The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210)."

Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian:

"The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150)."

It was partially through these writings that teachers in the East and West began to embrace and promote the teaching. But it still took several centuries for it to become generally accepted. The earliest extant discourse on the feast of the Dormition affirms that the assumption of Mary comes from the East at the end of the seventh and beginning of the eighth century. The Transitus literature is highly significant as the origin of the assumption teaching and it is important that the nature of these writings is understood. Some would have us believe that this apocryphal work expressed an existing, common belief among the faithful with respect to Mary and that the Holy Spirit used it to bring more generally to the Church’s awareness the truth of Mary’s assumption. The historical evidence would suggest otherwise. The truth is that, as with the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, the Church has embraced and is responsible for promoting teachings which originated, not with the faithful, but with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church. History proves that when the Transitus teaching originated the Church regarded it as heresy. In 494 to 496 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree entitled Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis. This decree officially set forth the writings which were considered to be canonical and those which were apocryphal and were to be rejected. He gives a list of apocryphal writings and makes the following statement regarding them:

"The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below some which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics (New Testament Apocrypha, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed. (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1991), p. 38)."

In the list of apocryphal writings which are to be rejected Gelasius signifies the following work: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus (Pope Gelasius 1, Epistle 42, Migne Series, M.P.L. vol. 59, Col. 162). This specifically means the Transitus writing of the assumption of Mary. At the end of the decree he states that this and all the other listed literature is heretical and that their authors and teachings and all who adhere to them are condemned and placed under eternal anathema which is indissoluble. And he places the Transitus literature in the same category as the heretics and writings of Arius, Simon Magus, Marcion, Apollinaris, Valentinus and Pelagius.

[Byzman]

Originally Posted by Asimis

Came across this in another forum...anyone knows a good answer?

It would seem that Christians didn't universally know or believe in the assumption almost 400 years after the fact, if not later.

The first Church Father to affirm explicitly the assumption of Mary in the West was Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D. But the basis for his teaching was not the tradition of the Church but his acceptance of an apocryphal Gospel known as the Transitus Beatae Mariae which we first hear of at the end of the fifth century and which was spuriously attributed to Melito of Sardis. There were many versions of this literature which developed over time and which were found throughout the East and West but they all originated from one source. Mariologist, Juniper Carol, gives the following historical summary of the Transitus literature:

"An intriguing corpus of literature on the final lot of Mary is formed by the apocryphal Transitus Mariae. The genesis of these accounts is shrouded in history’s mist. They apparently originated before the close of the fifth century, perhaps in Egypt, perhaps in Syria, in consequence of the stimulus given Marian devotion by the definition of the divine Maternity at Ephesus. The period of proliferation is the sixth century. At least a score of Transitus accounts are extant, in Coptic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. Not all are prototypes, for many are simply variations on more ancient models (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 144)."

Thus, the Transitus literature is the real source of the teaching of the assumption of Mary and Catholic authorities admit this fact. Juniper Carol, for example, writes: ‘The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’ (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149). Ludwig Ott, likewise affirms these facts when he says:

"The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210)."

Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian:

"The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150)."

It was partially through these writings that teachers in the East and West began to embrace and promote the teaching. But it still took several centuries for it to become generally accepted. The earliest extant discourse on the feast of the Dormition affirms that the assumption of Mary comes from the East at the end of the seventh and beginning of the eighth century. The Transitus literature is highly significant as the origin of the assumption teaching and it is important that the nature of these writings is understood. Some would have us believe that this apocryphal work expressed an existing, common belief among the faithful with respect to Mary and that the Holy Spirit used it to bring more generally to the Church’s awareness the truth of Mary’s assumption. The historical evidence would suggest otherwise. The truth is that, as with the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, the Church has embraced and is responsible for promoting teachings which originated, not with the faithful, but with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church. History proves that when the Transitus teaching originated the Church regarded it as heresy. In 494 to 496 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree entitled Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis. This decree officially set forth the writings which were considered to be canonical and those which were apocryphal and were to be rejected. He gives a list of apocryphal writings and makes the following statement regarding them:

"The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below some which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics (New Testament Apocrypha, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed. (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1991), p. 38)."

In the list of apocryphal writings which are to be rejected Gelasius signifies the following work: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus (Pope Gelasius 1, Epistle 42, Migne Series, M.P.L. vol. 59, Col. 162). This specifically means the Transitus writing of the assumption of Mary. At the end of the decree he states that this and all the other listed literature is heretical and that their authors and teachings and all who adhere to them are condemned and placed under eternal anathema which is indissoluble. And he places the Transitus literature in the same category as the heretics and writings of Arius, Simon Magus, Marcion, Apollinaris, Valentinus and Pelagius.

All you have here is a condemnation of a spurious writing!...nothing more! In fact the writing may be condemned...but the belief is not condemned....I hope you see a difference here!

[MarcoPolo]

Read more on Juniper Carol's work on the matter here. Keyword "transitus", "fabrication," and read many other of Carol's quotes.

[DavidFilmer]

Originally Posted by Asimis

Came across this in another forum...anyone knows a good answer?

As you know, lots of folks on this forum are familiar with the Early Fathers and cite them often. Unfortunately, this can lead to an erroneous idea that we can (or should) find Catholic Doctrine in the writings of the ECFs.

The Sacred Tradition of the Church is called "oral Tradition" for a reason - it does not need to be written down. Relying on ECFs for everything is simply an expansion of the idea of Sola Scriptura - it becomes Sola Scriptura + Patra.

There are LOTS of examples of oral Tradition which have never been written down (at least not by anyone of authority in the Church). For example, we believe that Jesus was not married. I'm guessing here, but I will speculate that you won't find that in the writings of the Early Fathers (and you won't find it stated as a Doctrine of the Faith in more recent writings).

If a heresy within the Church arose and it became necessary to teach this Doctrine in written form, nobody could claim that it has not been continuously taught in the Church since the Apostolic Era.

[brb3]

Originally Posted by MarcoPolo

Read more on Juniper Carol's work on the matter here. Keyword "transitus", "fabrication," and read many other of Carol's quotes.

So, Gregory of Tours, in 590 AD ....gives testimony to the idea, based solely on the earlier, non-historical, Pseudo-Mellitus ..De Transitus Virginus work, that several earlier Popes had disavowed as factual, or a Syriac TRANSITUS work. And, Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome had not heard or encountered any written works regarding this matter of Mary's transit.

As the Church acknowledges in this document ....both ancient tradition and scripture is SILENT on this matter, and it was only after the questionable mid-6th century TRANSITUS works, that the laity began to promote this idea, which was otherwise UNKNOWN to our Church Fathers, and certainly never told by John, to his disciples and they to theirs, etc. !!!

Am I wrong in my conclusions ?

[JM3]

Originally Posted by brb3

Am I wrong in my conclusions ?

Yes.

[brb3]

Originally Posted by JM3

Yes.

I read the full article MarcoPolo cites ..

I, a loyal Catholic STILL, don't find a lot of support here on
Mary. Clearly, the Apostles, and ECF's/ Popes didn't know & teach this tradition. Only, after the questionable TRANSITUS writings started circulating, did the laity take them as gospel truth and believe this as the ancient, longstanding tradition.
If it had been ..CLEARLY AMBROSE, AUGUSTINE, JEROME, IRENAEUS, JUSTIN MARTYR, ATHANASIUS, ETC, ETC, ETC would if been discussing/debating vigorously in their writings.

But, no .....only SILENCE on the matter.

Nevertheless, I never say never. God may of keep the silence on the matter, until the timing was right. Until, the Church could HANDLE THE TRUTH !!
I'm particularly intrigued by that passage in Psalms ...which could well be describing Mary ....and, if so ...that single verse is All the Proof Text needed, to support the Church as right on Mary !!!!

I sure hope so, because otherwise, a BIG ? remains.....

[aidanbradypop]

Originally Posted by brb3

I read the full article MarcoPolo cites ..

I, a loyal Catholic STILL, don't find a lot of support here on
Mary. Clearly, the Apostles, and ECF's/ Popes didn't know & teach this tradition. Only, after the questionable TRANSITUS writings started circulating, did the laity take them as gospel truth and believe this as the ancient, longstanding tradition.
If it had been ..CLEARLY AMBROSE, AUGUSTINE, JEROME, IRENAEUS, JUSTIN MARTYR, ATHANASIUS, ETC, ETC, ETC would if been discussing/debating vigorously in their writings.

But, no .....only SILENCE on the matter.

Nevertheless, I never say never. God may of keep the silence on the matter, until the timing was right. Until, the Church could HANDLE THE TRUTH !!
I'm particularly intrigued by that passage in Psalms ...which could well be describing Mary ....and, if so ...that single verse is All the Proof Text needed, to support the Church as right on Mary !!!!

I sure hope so, because otherwise, a BIG ? remains.....

Take the Holy Trinity for example. The word "trinity" is no where to be found in Sacred Text. However, we as Christians and Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity a wholesome and sound doctrine of faith. Infact, many if not allow early Christians were Jewish. They were very faithful Jews and also believers in Christ. Now the "trinity" would have been an issue for them. They believed in ONE God and only ONE. Not one God in three. The doctrine of the Trinity came at a later time when, as you stated, Christians could "handle it." Make sense?

Just because the Assumption of our Blessed Mother is not in the Sacred Text, does not make it a false doctrine. It become a matter of faith just like the Trinity is today.

Hope I helped and did not confuse you even more.

[brb3]

Psalms 132:8-16 in OT...and 2nd Chronicles 6:41 also

Those ... make strong case that Mary was prophesied as being "Taken Up" to Heaven.

Scripture trumps silence ....

[JM3]

Originally Posted by brb3

I read the full article MarcoPolo cites ..

I, a loyal Catholic STILL, don't find a lot of support here on
Mary. Clearly, the Apostles, and ECF's/ Popes didn't know & teach this tradition. Only, after the questionable TRANSITUS writings started circulating, did the laity take them as gospel truth and believe this as the ancient, longstanding tradition.
If it had been ..CLEARLY AMBROSE, AUGUSTINE, JEROME, IRENAEUS, JUSTIN MARTYR, ATHANASIUS, ETC, ETC, ETC would if been discussing/debating vigorously in their writings.

But, no .....only SILENCE on the matter.

Nevertheless, I never say never. God may of keep the silence on the matter, until the timing was right. Until, the Church could HANDLE THE TRUTH !!
I'm particularly intrigued by that passage in Psalms ...which could well be describing Mary ....and, if so ...that single verse is All the Proof Text needed, to support the Church as right on Mary !!!!

I sure hope so, because otherwise, a BIG ? remains.....

Does it seem reasonable that an illiterate laity would start believing in something only after it is written in a book? Perhaps, the books were written because of the belief of the laity? Since we don't have the text of the books, we cannot know how they written, why they were written, or what was acceptable in them and what was not.

If belief in the Assumption of Mary was not something in Tradition or supported by the Sacred Writings, wouldn't there have been a council about it, as there was for heresies that the Church fought against?

Silence does not have to be negative, it can also be positive.

[brb3]

Psalms 132 ..is know as SONG OF ASCENTS ....
BINGO !! Prooftext extrodiare'

Mother Church finally had full truth revealed to her ....from the SACRED SCRIPTURES a few decades ago !!!

Wow, ... is All I can say !! I've been praying to Mary off/on, since early Dec...
to give me the certainty about her & Dogmas relating to her.
It took about 40 days to get my answer... 40 days .. is that oft cited time we must endure in prayer / fasting / etc..... to get answers....