Name the Patristic Sources that deny the Assumption of Mary?

I have read post by Non-Catholics that the Assumption of Mary comes from “gnostic sources.”

So far, all I see in my studies is that Gnosticism itself was condemned but I have not seen any patristic sources that denied Mary’s Assumption.

I have found from patristic sources dead and was assumed. Some sources indication that she remain dead for three days resurrected, and was taken into heaven by her son.

At any rate, I have not find anything writings from the ECF that the Assumption of Mary did not assumed.

The only objection to Assumption or Dormition came after the Protestants 1500 yrs later…

Good question Manny! I’m excited to learn about the anti-Assumption Church Fathers!

Some Asturians in Spain in the eighth century. This is AFTER the 5th and 6th century Transitus literature, and AFTER Pope Gelasius. :slight_smile:

“It will not be surprising to find in Spain, at the close of the eighth century, some Asturians directly denying Mary’s Assumption – the first to do so, as far as the evidence goes.” (Walter Burghardt, from Juniper Carol’s Mariology, volume 1, page 153)

Footnote: see correspondence between Bishop Ascarius and his friend, Tuscaredus, PL 99:1233-1235. The Asturians believed Mary died like anyone else, but her body was still in the tomb awaiting resurrection; the thesis scandalized Ascarius; Tuscaredus replied that we have no evidence of a violent death, or any death. It would seem Tuscaredus believed in Mary’s glorious immortality.

From my detailed article The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Aside from that, there are no major Fathers who rejected the Assumption of Mary, although the first three centuries there is silence.

Phil P

That’s what I noticed as well.

Aside from that, there are no major Fathers who rejected the Assumption of Mary, although the first three centuries there is silence.

Hi,

That is what I was going to ask–did the ECF speak of the assumption at all?
When and who was the first person to mention this happening?

I have to tell you that if the ECF dont mention it it is probably because it wasnt ever a doctrine:shrug: I would imagine something that important would be written about right after it happened. Do we know when exactly Mary died? Of course this is coming from a protestant POV:p

ALLFORHIM,

Check out the link that PhilVaz gave in his post above and read it carefully…it will address your questions.

This is the link to which I refer: bringyou.to/apologetics/AssumptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm

Thanks–I completely spaced out and didnt realize their was a link:o :doh2:

OK,

I scanned them. That is too much reading for me:o Am I correect to say that the earliest mention of this is 687AD??

If so, I think that is just way too much time after the fact(especially of something so important)to not be taught right away.

I dont know guys I think this is a huge stretch for the CC to make an infallible statement on, thus making it so all have to believe it. If the CC presented it as a possiblity, that would be fine–but to say it definitely happened with no proof --wellll— you see where Im coming from;)
Please feel free to point to a specific part of that article if necessary.:thumbsup:

My apologies…there is a set of links within that page that you should look at. They concern “Patristic thought in the West” and “Patristic thought in the East.”

Here is a segment from one of them:


Mary in Western Patristic Thought

As with the first moment of Our Lady’s earthly existence, so with the last, theology’s quest of patristic data is initially hampered by the state of the evidence. For a discouragingly long period the problem is not that the Assumption is denied; it is rather that the final lot of Mary is apparently not discussed. In consequence, scholars have come to speak of the silence [29], even the ignorance [30], of the first three centuries with respect to Mary’s end. In reaction, others have retorted that the silence is sheerly relative, a surface silence which was inevitable and is actually eloquent. [31]

In point of fact, both claims are justified. The early Church is silent on the destiny of Mary, in the sense that no extant document deals explicitly with that destiny until a half century after Nicaea. And if in the East we must wait until 377 before St. Epiphanius of Salamis offers his three hypotheses on the manner of Mary’s departure from this world (“For either the holy Virgin died and was buried…or she was killed [martyred]…or she remained alive…”) [32] the awakening of the West is a slower process still. Even when popular faith has been quickened, there is little evidence in the West of a theological movement to rival the homiletic productions of the East. If only because it is so surprisingly slender, the explicit witness of the West deserves to be detailed.

I hope this helps.

Here is a little more following what you’ve just read:

Explicit statements or conjectures on the final lot of Mary begin with the last quarter of the fourth century – contemporary, therefore, with Epiphanius. But the witnesses touch the problem ever so lightly, with evident uncertainty. Tychonius, a lay theologian among the Donatists, independent enough to be excommunicated by his own sect, seems to have identified Mary with the woman of Revelation 12, and to have spoken of a “great mystery” in her regard. [33] Ambrose is more specific but equally unsatisfactory. Discussing Simeon’s sword of sorrow, he dismisses the idea that Our Lady died a violent death; such a thesis has no warrant in Scripture or history. [34] But Ambrose does not tell us just how Mary did leave this life. In a remarkable passage he presents, as one hypothesis, the yearning of Mary to rise with Jesus in case she was fated to die with Him. [35] There may be an insinuation here that the desire was not frustrated; against this conclusion is the flat statement elsewhere that Christ alone has risen once and for all. [36]

Paulinus, Bishop of Nola in Italy (d. 431), is anxious to learn Augustine’s mind on the exegesis of Simeon’s prophecy; he himself, like Ambrose, is aware of no document reporting Mary’s death by violence. [37] In his reply, Augustine mentions a previous letter of his own on the Lucan text; it is, regrettably, lost to us, but he does tell Paulinus that their views on the scriptural passage coincide. [38] Elsewhere, in several striking phrases, he makes it clear that Mary did die: she died after her Son; she died a virgin; she died, like Adam, in consequence of sin. [39]

Finally, however his silence may be explained, the fact remains that Jerome, who knew the local traditions of the Holy Land as well as Epiphanius, gives no indication that he is aware of any historical tradition with reference to the death of Our Lady, her grave, or an assumption. [40] Briefly, between Nicaea (325 AD) and Ephesus (431 AD) the allusions to Mary’s destiny are rare and insignificant.

I am having some trouble with the cut and paste function so what I’ve given is pretty incomplete and I recommend going to the links in PhilVaz article. It’s all pretty objective and informative.

For me, the best evidence of Mary’s Assumption is the lack of any mention of a Tomb etc.

In fact, Jerome sought out the final resting places of the Apostles, John the Baptist, Ignatius, Polycarp, and several OT Patriarchs.

Jerome also prayed to Mary, asking her for his prayers, so of course Mary was important to Jerome.

Yet even with all this, he never once mentions Mary’s tomb.

IMHO—probably because God knew people would make a shrine out of it and He didnt want that to happen. Just like God took care of Moses burial so the Jews would not have done the same thing.:shrug:
And you know this would have happened!

Thanks Pax still reading-:o

Well, I guess that didn’t help. :shrug:
Even though it’s true that one cannot show from the early sources definite belief in the Assumption of Mary, one also cannot dismiss the fact, that there weren’t even claims of having Mary’s tomb, and that the idea, that belief in Assumption somehow slowly crept into the Church, does not explain why there was no outcry from any of the faithful/theologians (as it was the case with other Christian doctrines).

What good is faith, then, if you always have to have proof?

True true–but to infallibly declare something that binds people to have to believe----- that is a different story.:hmmm:

I think if the CC just said it could have happened and left it at that–I dont think most people would have a problem with it or at least go after the CC the way they do:shrug:

Besides dont you think that if something is claimed to be true and we have to believe it that there should be some sort of proof? Just a little;)

After all, there is TONS of proof for Jesus and the inerrancy of the bible.

Lets face it God gave us a brain and he wants us to use it. We are told in the bible to seek out the truth.

So faith is :extrahappy: :bounce: :love: but blind faith–shouldnt be

Sorry:o I just think this is a false doctrine and if I am wrong and it is true–I dont think any of us will know the truth until we get to heaven.

Just because there are no claims of Mary’s tomb doesnt mean she was assumed into heaven. I bet ya someone in history stretched their mind and came up with this conclusion and it sounded good and BAM here we are:shrug:
Plus we dont know that there werent any outcries.:shrug:

We see this happen all the time everywhere in all churches and cults.

I mean wouldnt you guys say this about the Rapture theology;)

Just my :twocents:

I haven’t yet read the article but as far as I am aware the earliest reference is in the mid 400’s

Here is some information, in the first 2 messages in this thread…

**The Assumption - something historical **

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=11639

Thanks:thumbsup: I will read later-- Got to go to the gym and exercise my body now.:smiley: Since I have already been exercising my soul.:thumbsup: :wink:

Oh wait one more thing to the OP–the fact that they(ECF) dont mention the assumption should speak volumes to a catholic since you guys rely so heavily on what they wrote. So saying that they didnt deny it shouldnt be good enough for a catholic. The CC prides itself on being able to trace back to the Apostles and stick to their teaching–so I would think this doctrine would send up red flags.:confused:

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.