the assumption of the Virgin Mary

was this teaching ever condemned then officially defined in 1950?
i ask because of this:

christiantruth.com/assumption.html

you initiated the same discussion on another forum
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=5179080#post5179080

also neither of your links works for me on multiple tries

suggest you check out forum rules since you still seem puzzled on the correct forum for your question.

The link works now, but your linked site is an anti-Catholic site.

Most of us don’t feel obligated to refute every anti-Catholic nut.

Curious that Martin Luther spoke of the assumption. And though he didn’t endorse any particular dogma, he did say:

There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.

I have no problem with the teaching, just the binding of hearts to believe it, as scripture is not explicit, and it has no bearing on salvation.

Jon

Mary is not in heaven. She was not assumed. This is a figment of Pius X11’s very fertile imagination. The bible tells us that there are three named people in heaven. These are Enoch, Elisha, and Moses. There are also the souls raised at the time of Jesus resurrection.There is no reason to beleive that Mary was assumed into heaven and certainly no reason to beleive the beleif or non-beleif in this so-called doctrine has anything to do with your salvation. John3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Doesn’t say anything here about beleiving that Mary was assumed into heaven.

Thanks LOL. About this:

[LIST]
*]“Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian:
[/LIST]
[LIST]
*]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).”
[/LIST]That is no objection - unless objecting to fabrications about Christ is objecting to the truth about Him. The logic in that link is flawed. How does the fictionality of the (very extensive) Transitus-literature & Dormitio-literature, make the event itself a fiction ?

I see there is no mention of Stephen Shoemaker’s book, which traces the belief to the second century - its title is The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption.

As to the objection that many Fathers, for a long time, do not affirm it: neither do all Fathers from the beginning affirm that all the NT books are canonical - dogmas take time to be received in the Church, and to grow. The logic that undermines the status of the Assumption as a Christian truth, does no less to the NT canon, the Deity of Christ, His Two Natures, the Trinity, the Deity of the Holy Spirit, the Consubstantiality of the Son & the Father, & much more. If denial were a fatal objection, Revelation & other books would not be in NT - for they too were not universally accepted at first; Revelation was even thought to be by the Gnostic Cerinthus.

Like others, I have read both James & Schneemelcher; & Gelasius & the other sources & scholars & works mentioned (some, not mentioned) on that page: the author confuses the Assumption, with the legends about it. A story about Luther being assumed into heaven would be absurd - but it would be crazy to argue from the falsity of the story, to the non-existence of Luther. Yet something analogous to that is a major argument on that page.

That is clearly not positive evidence for the Assumption, nor anything like it - that, we can get from the Church. And it can be commended by theological arguments: even though these, being human, & not Divine, nor part of the Deposit of Faith, can (of their nature) not prove it. That’s not their function.

I don’t think it ever was condemned - many books telling of it were condemned. Which is not quite the same thing.

Mary is not in heaven. She was not assumed. This is a figment of Pius X11’s very fertile imagination.

Not true.

This is taught by ALL the Apostolic Churches of the East, Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonian as well, who have not been in communion, and in some cases contact, with the See of Rome for centuries.

It was never even doubted by the Reformers. Calvin and Luther, who disagreed about so many things, both believed and taught this. I think Zwingli did, too.

You didn’t actually think it was something invented by Pope Pius XII, did you?

Or did you?

Richard,
The idea of her assumption had been part of the Church long before Pius XII. While I generally agtree with Luther’s assessment, I think you are correct in your statement which I bolded, and by your words, you seem to agree that neither believing nor not believing should be condemned.

Jon

The Orthodox have the “Dormition of the Theotokos”. The idea of her body disappearing and being assumed into heaven is considered a pious belief and has ancient roots (the Patristic period) but it’s not “dogma”, that’s how I believe it works. The same thing is true with some Anglicans. I just am not sure how it’s really required for salvation.

I’m inclined to believe it as a traditional Anglican (although the exact manner of how the Blessed Virgin Mary gets into heaven isn’t so important to me). I just see making it infallible dogma on the part of the Roman Catholics as one of those things that was unnecessary.

Cluny sent me a private message which I responded to privately. If I would have checked the thread first I would have seen that he also posted the message on the thread. I realize that this doctrine was around long before Pius X11. But he is the one who made it ex cathedra (from the throne) and therefore must be beleived by all Catholics under pain of mortal sin (which would cost them their salvation if not beleived) the bible teaches that there are only a few in heaven now the rest of the dead are asleep in the grave awaiting the resurrection. You certainly can beleive what you want about this, but beleiving something contrary to what the bible says is dangerous at best.

The Catholic Church compiled the books of the Bible together. So its strange to say the Catholic Church actually teaches something contrary. Don`t listen to everything your pastor says, or how he interprets the Bible. The World hates the Church Jesus established.

=Gottle of Geer;5179953]
A story about Luther being assumed into heaven would be absurd

You mean he wasn’t? :confused: :smiley:

Jon

I agree. But where does the Bible contradict the Blessed Virgin’s assumption? I know it isn’t explicit, but that isn’t the same as contrary.

Soul sleep is a difficult concept for me in light of the appearance of Moses and Elijah at Christ’s transfiguration.

Jon

How would Mr. Luther know that the Virgin Mary is in heaven??

I have no problem with the teaching, just the binding of hearts to believe it, as scripture is not explicit, and it has no bearing on salvation.
Jon

Catholic (and all original apostolic Church) hearts are bound to believe the assumption happened by not denying it. We are not bound to fully comprehend the assumption any more than we are bound to fully comprehend the Trinity.

The bible doesn’t teach. Men interperet the bible and teach.

=mark a;5181780]How would Mr. Luther know that the Virgin Mary is in heaven??

Why would Dr. Luther have assumed she isn’t?

Catholic (and all original apostolic Church) hearts are bound to believe the assumption happened by not denying it. We are not bound to fully comprehend the assumption any more than we are bound to fully comprehend the Trinity.

I will accept that your description of the obligation of Catholics in this area is better than mine was, as you are Catholic.
What is the teaching of the Orthodox on the assumption?

Jon

So, let me get this straight. some writings that had to do with the Assumption were banned but not to teaching itself?

Hi all,

Seems like I missed most of the action here. :frowning: :wink:

So just to clarify, are you recanting your earlier statement that it was “a figment of Pius XII’s very fertile imagination”?

occupant,

Can you provide any evidence that the Assumption was condemned? (I know you already provided that webpage, but it’s pretty long and I don’t feel like sifting through a lot of stuff.)

LOL :slight_smile: His was pretty well the only name that occurred to me at the time :o

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.