Mary buried in Ephesus?

I was reading this article over at Gideon’s Sword about Mary. Most of it was filled with the usual attacks on Mary, attacks that have been solidly dealt with time and time again. There was one I had not yet seen before, however. The article said, and I quote:

Mary was a human, she died and her grave is still marked in Ephesus. The Catholic Institution also claims that she did not stay in the grave but was assumed (the assumption). They teach that Mary was not to be outdone by Jesus and His resurrection, but that she, like Jesus, resurrected and ascended to heaven. Conveniently they refuse to allow anyone to dig up the grave of Mary to disprove the ascension once and for all.

Has anyone heard anything about this? Thanks!

God bless!

I’ve never read or heard anything of the sort. I know her house is in Ephesus.

Even if she is there, what are the chances of finding bones after 2000 years? Of course, there are the bones of Peter at the Basilica, so maybe it’s possible. Finding bones would prove nothing though, because there would be no way to definitively prove that they were Mary’s. Not finding bones would also prove nothing because there is no way of knowing whether the bones would have decayed or if this truly was Mary’s tomb. So digging it up would not resolve the question.

He can’t even keep his terms right.

Mary was a human, she died and her grave is still marked in Ephesus. The Catholic Institution also claims that she did not stay in the grave but was assumed (the assumption). They teach that Mary was not to be outdone by Jesus [We do?] and His resurrection, but that she, like Jesus, resurrected [We do?] and **ascended ** [So which is it? Assumed or ascended?] to heaven. Conveniently they refuse to allow anyone to dig up the grave of Mary to disprove the ascension once and for all. [We won’t?]

Mr. Gideonsword, I think, needs to find a 12-step program for “intellectualists…”

Given that the building in question was constructed in the fourth century, digging it up wouldn’t mean anything. The Dormition tradition has that there was an actual tomb that was later discovered to be empty by the Apostles after the fact, but it’s clear that this wasn’t the actual tomb. This one was simply symbolic of that tradition. Granted, at the time, the distinction between historical reality and hagiography wasn’t quite as well defined as it is today, so it’s likely that later Ephesians claimed it to be the actual tomb in question, but that claim didn’t have the same meaning as it would today.

this GIDEON character might be (Edited):

"The Catholic Institution decided in 431 AD in the council of Ephesus that Mary should be considered “Mother” of God, and that she actually possesses the same saving power as Jesus Himself. "

I asked him to send me ONE document from the Council of Ephesus that says that Mary has the same saving power as Jesus. No response. Go figure.

CH

Isn’t there a church of Mary’s dormission (death) in Ephesus but no grave?

You can ask him again. He goes by the name of bibleapologist on these forums. (Edited)

Isn’t there a church of Mary’s dormission (death) in Ephesus but no grave?
According to the Dormition, Mary died and was buried before she was assumed into Heaven. The Dormition (sleep) was the sleep of death, although without corruption.

Well, if he’s the author of that phrase, he may not be an idiot but a liar. Take your pick.

I welcome honest criticism of our beliefs, but spreading juvenile rumors or flat-out lies is reprehensible–especially when it comes from a so-called Christian. Throw in an apparent infallibility complex, and you’ve officially punched all my buttons.

Not that it’s particularly relevant, but I ran across the following earlier today in which readers of this thread might be interested…

**A 3-D tour of Our Lady’s home in Ephesus…

**God Bless,
RyanL

As I understand it, there are two possible places where Mary may have experienced her Dormition - and that both of them are empty. (The empty tomb of Christ was sufficient evidence for the Resurrection; why can’t both of Mary’s empty tombs be sufficient evidence for the Assumption?)

Another salient point is that there are no first class relics of Mary - but we have first class relics of many of the Apostles, especially Sts. Peter and Paul, so the age of the relics is certainly not the issue - and the doctrine of the Assumption cannot be of recent origin (as claimed by many anti-Catholics) otherwise there would be evidence, including scads of fake first-class relics, that there were people who sincerely believed that Mary had not actually been assumed into Heaven, and that the Church didn’t mind them believing that.

The fact that there are no fake first-class relics of Mary indicates that, first of all, the Church has been teaching the Assumption definitively and dogmatically since before the time of the Catacombs (when people began to collect the relics of the Saints, and also unscrupulous people began to create fake ones), and the fact that there are no real ones indicates that no proof has ever been found to the contrary - her body is not now on the earth, and has not been, since the time of the Catacombs, at least.

Thanks for the info. Yes, this particularly site has some credibility issues, it seems. They really need to work on their consistency, though. Sometimes they call the Catholic Church the Catholic Institution, but then they’ll slip and start calling it a Church again. Come on, people! :slight_smile:

Good point, the statement alone is filled with enough errors to not warrent any deeper regard.

I’ve actually been to the site, which as far as I’m aware, is simply known as “The House of the Virgin Mary”. It was implied that this was where Mary spent her last days, but there was no mention of a tomb, and if there was one, it certainly wasn’t marked as such. It was simply the house seen in the 3D animation above. It is not a very big structure.

I’ve always found the “no relics of Mary” argument a bit weak myself, mainly because there are also no first class relics of Saint Joseph either, nor is his grave known.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

The problem with this analogy (of Joseph) is that Joseph died before the Christian Church was born. The tradition of keeping the bones of saints hadn’t come about yet.

Mary, however, died around 55-58AD(?). The saints bones were definately being hoarded by this time.

I’m not arguing here, just curious. I’ve never heard a purported date or dates of Mary’s death…and you mention here 55-58 AD. Could you give me some reference or teaching regarding that?
Thanks!

No, I’m not arguing either. It’s all good!

I don’t know the source, but Christian tradition says that Mary lived to be 72 years, I’m I’m correct. If Mary was 13-15 when Jesus was born (2/3 BC), then that would place her birth around 82-85BC. That would place her death from 54-57 AD.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.