THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries

christiantruth.com ^ | William Webster

[Gamecock]

Full Title: THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A Roman Catholic Dogma Originating with Heretics and Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries

The Roman Catholic doctrine of the assumption of Mary teaches that she was assumed body and soul into heaven either without dying or shortly after death. This extraordinary claim was only officially declared to be a dogma of Roman Catholic faith in 1950, though it had been believed by many for hundreds of years. To dispute this doctrine, according to Rome’s teaching, would result in the loss of salvation. The official teaching of the Assumption comes from the decree Munificentissimus Deus by pope Pius XII:

All these proofs and considerations of the holy Fathers and the theologians are based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation. These set the loving Mother of God as it were before our very eyes as most intimately joined to her divine Son and as always sharing His lot. Consequently it seems impossible to think of her, the one who conceived Christ, brought Him forth, nursed Him with her milk, held Him in her arms, and clasped Him to her breast, as being apart from Him in body, even though not in soul, after this earthly life. Since our Redeemer is the Son of Mary, He could not do otherwise, as the perfect observer of God’s law, than to honour, not only His eternal Father, but also His most beloved Mother. And, since it was within His power to grant her this great honour, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that He really acted in this way.
Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.
For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God Who has lavished His special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honour of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare wilfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic faith...It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul (Munificentissimus Deus, Selected Documenst of Pope Pius XII (Washington: National Catholic Welfare Conference), 38, 40, 44-45, 47).

This is truly an amazing dogma, yet there is no Scriptural proof for it, and even the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:

But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).

In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject. Even Roman Catholic historians readily admit this fact:

In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts...Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).

How then did this teaching come to have such prominence in the Church that eventually led it to be declared an issue of dogma in 1950? 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 Roman 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). Roman Catholic theologian, 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 we understand the nature of these writings. The Roman Catholic Church 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 Roman 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. These are his comments. I have provided two translations from authoritative sources:

These and the like, what Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Ebion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Bonosus, who suffered from similar error, also Montanus with his detestable followers, Apollinaris, Valentinus the Manichaean, Faustus the African, Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatus, Sabbatius, Calistus, Donatus, Eustasius, Iovianus, Pelagius, Iulianus of ERclanum, Caelestius, Maximian, Priscillian from Spain, Nestorius of Constantinople, Maximus the Cynic, Lampetius,Dioscorus, Eutyches, Peter and the other Peter, of whom one besmirched Alexandria and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his associates, and what also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics and schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but excluded from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with its authors and the adherents of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever (New Testament Apocrypha, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Ed., (Cambridge: James Clark, 1991).

These and [writings] similar to these, which ... all the heresiarchs and their disciples, or the schismatics have taught or written ... we confess have not only been rejected but also banished from the whole Roman and Apostolic Church and with their authors and followers of their authors have been condemned forever under the indissoluble bond of anathema (Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma (London: Herder, 1954), pp. 69-70).

Pope Gelasius explicitly condemns the authors as well as their writings and the teachings which they promote and all who follow them. And significantly, this entire decree and its condemnation was reaffirmed by Pope Hormisdas in the sixth century around A.D. 520. (Migne Vol. 62. Col. 537-542). These facts prove that the early Church viewed the assumption teaching, not as a legitimate expression of the pious belief of the faithful but as a heresy worthy of condemnation. There are those who question the authority of the so-called Gelasian decree on historical grounds saying that it is spuriously attributed to Gelasius. However, the Roman Catholic authorities Denzinger, Charles Joseph Hefele, W. A. Jurgens and the New Catholic Encyclopedia all affirm that the decree derives from Pope Gelasius, and Pope Nicholas I in a letter to the bishops of Gaul (c. 865 A.D.) officially quotes from this decree and attributes its authorship to Gelasius. (See Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma (London: Herder,1954), pp. 66-69; W. A.Jurgens, TheFaith of theEarlyFathers, vol. I (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1970), p. 404; New CatholicEncyclopedia, vol. VII (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 434; Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), vol. IV, pp. 43-44). While the Gelasian decree may be questioned by some, the decree of Pope Hormisdas reaffirming the Gelasian decree in the early sixth century has not been questioned.

Prior to the seventh and eighth centuries there is complete patristic silence on the doctrine of the Assumption. But gradually, through the influence of numerous forgeries which were believed to be genuine, coupled with the misguided enthusiasm of popular devotion, the doctrine gained a foothold in the Church. The Dictionary of Christian Antiquities gives the following history of the doctrine:

In the 3rd of 4th century there was composed a book, embodying the Gnostic and Collyridian traditions as to the death of Mary, called De Transitu Virginis Mariae Liber. This book exists still and may be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima (tom. ii. pt. ii. p. 212)....The Liber Transitu Mariae contains already the whole of the story of the Assumption. But down to the end of the 5th century this story was regarded by the Church as a Gnostic or Collyridian fable, and the Liber de Transitu was condemned as heretical by the Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticus et Apocryphis, attributed to pope Gelasius, A.D. 494. How then did it pass across the borders and establish itself within the church, so as to have a festival appointed to commemorate it? In the following manner:
In the sixth century a great change passed over the sentiments and the theology of the church in reference to the Theotokos—an unintended but very noticeable result of the Nestorian controversies, which in maintaining the true doctrine of the Incarnation incidentally gave strong impulse to what became the worship of Mary. In consequence of this change of sentiment, during the 6th and 7th centuries (or later):

1)The Liber de Transitu, though classed by Gelasius with the known productions of heretics came to be attributed by one...to Melito, an orthodox bishop of Sardis, in the 2nd century, and by another to St. John the Apostle.
2) A letter suggesting the possibility of the Assumption was written and attributed to St. Jerome (ad Paulam et Eustochium de Assumptione B. Virginis, Op. tom. v. p. 82, Paris, 1706).
3) A treatise to prove it not impossible was composed and attributed to St. Augustine (Op. tom. vi. p. 1142, ed. Migne).
4) Two sermons supporting the belief were written and attributed to St. Athanasius (Op. tom. ii. pp. 393, 416, ed., Ben. Paris, 1698).
5) An insertion was made in Eusebius’s Chronicle that ‘in the year 48 Mary the Virgin was taken up into heaven, as some wrote that they had had it revealed to them.’

Thus the authority of the names of St. John, of Melito, of Athanasius, of Eusebius, of Augustine, of Jerome was obtained for the belief by a series of forgeries readily accepted because in accordance with the sentiment of the day, and the Gnostic legend was attributed to orthodox writers who did not entertain it. But this was not all, for there is the clearest evidence (1) that no one within the church taught it for six centuries, and (2) that those who did first teach it within the church borrowed it directly from the book condemned by pope Gelasius as heretical. For the first person within the church who held and taught it was Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem (if a homily attributed to John Damascene containing a quotation from from ‘the Eutymiac history’...be for the moment considered genuine), who (according to this statement) on Marcian and Pulcheria’s sending to him for information as to St. Mary’s sepulchre, replied to them by narrating a shortened version of the de Transitu legend as ‘a most ancient and true tradition.’ The second person within the church who taught it (or the first, if the homily attributed to John Damascene relating the above tale of Juvenal be spurious, as it almost certainly is) was Gregory of Tours, A.D. 590.
The Abbe Migne points out in a note that ‘what Gregory here relates of the death of the Blessed Virgin and its attendant circumstances he undoubtedly drew...from Pseudo-Melito’s Liber de Transitu B. Mariae, which is classed among apocryphal books by pope Gelasius.’ He adds that this account, with the circumstances related by Gregory, were soon afterwards introduced into the Gallican Liturgy...It is demonstrable that the Gnostic legend passed into the church through Gregory or Juvenal, and so became an accepted tradition within it...Pope Benedict XIV says naively that ‘the most ancient Fathers of the Primitive CHurch are silent as to the bodily assumption of the Blesseed Virgin, but the fathers of the middle and latest ages, both Greeks and Latins, relate it in the distinctest terms’ (De Fest. Assumpt. apud. Migne, Theol. Curs. Compl. tom. xxvi. p. 144, Paris, 1842). It was under the shadow of the names of Gregory of Tours and of these ‘fathers of the middle and latest ages, Greek and Latin,’ that the De Transitu legend became accepted as catholic tradition.
The history, therefore, of the belief which this festival was instituted to commemorate is as follows: It was first taught in the 3rd or 4th century as part of the Gnostic legend of St. Mary’s death, and it was regarded by the church as a Gnostic and Collyridian fable down to the end of the 5th century. It was brought into the church in the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries, partly by a series of successful forgeries, partly by the adoption of the Gnostic legend on part of the accredited teachers, writers, and liturgists. And a festival in commemoration of the event, thus came to be believed, was instituted in the East at the beginning of the 7th, in the West at the beginning of the 9th century (A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, William Smith and Samuel Cheetham, Ed., (Hartford: J.B. Burr, 1880), pp. 1142-1143).

R.P.C. Hanson gives the following summation of the teaching of the Assumption, emphasizing the lack of patristic and Scriptural support for it and affirming that it originated not with the Church but with Gnosticism:

This dogma has no serious connection with the Bible at all, and its defenders scarcely pretend that it has. It cannot honestly be said to have any solid ground in patristic theology either, because it is frist known among Catholic Christians in even its crudest form only at the beginning of the fifth century, and then among Copts in Egypt whose associations with Gnostic heresy are suspiciously strong; indeed it can be shown to be a doctrine which manifestly had its origin among Gnostic heretics. The only argument by which it is defended is that if the Church has at any time believed it and does now believe it, then it must be orthodox, whatever its origins, because the final standard of orthodoxy is what the Church believes. The fact that this belief is presumably supposed to have some basis on historical fact analogous to the belief of all Christians in the resurrection of our Lord makes its registration as a dogma de fide more bewilderingly incomprehensible, for it is wholly devoid of any historical evidence to support it. In short, the latest example of the Roman Catholic theory of doctrinal development appears to be a reductio ad absurdum expressly designed to discredit the whole structure (R.P.C. Hanson, The Bible as a Norm of Faith (University of Durham, 1963), Inaugral Lecture of the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity delivered in the Appleby Lecture Theatre on 12 March, 1963, p. 14).

Pius XII, in his decree in 1950, declared the Assumption teaching to be a dogma revealed by God. But the basis upon which he justifies this assertion is not that of Scripture or patristic testimony but of speculative theology. He concludes that because it seems reasonable and just that God should follow a certain course of action with respect to the person of Mary, and because he has the power, that he has in fact done so. And, therefore, we must believe that he really acted in this way. Tertullian dealt with similar reasoning from certain men in his own day who sought to bolster heretical teachings with the logic that nothing was impossible with God. His words stand as a much needed rebuke to the Roman Church of our day in its misguided teachings about Mary:

But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things, suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it ... It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do...(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Vol. III, Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch. X and XI, p. 605).

Tertullian says that we can know if God has done something by validating it from Scripture. Not to be able to do so invalidates any claim that a teaching has been revealed by God. This comes back again to the patristic principle of sola scriptura, a principle universally adhered to in the eaerly Church. But one which has been repudiated by the Roman Church and which has resulted in its embracing and promoting teachings, such as the assumption of Mary, which were never taught in the early Church and which have no Scriptural backing.

The only grounds the Roman Catholic faithful have for believing in the teaching of the assumption is that a supposedly ‘infallible’ Church declares it. But given the above facts the claim of infallibility is shown to be completely groundless. How can a Church which is supposedly infallible promote teachings which the early Church condemned as heretical? Whereas an early papal decree anathematized those who believed the teaching of an apocryphal Gospel, now papal decrees condemn those who disbelieve it. The conclusion has to be that teachings such as Mary’s assumption are the teachings and traditions of men, not the revelation of God.

[mlizzy]

And the real truth is, this veneration of Mary is blocking people who are searching for God...Some people want to come to God and then they get Mary shoved in between them and God and they are lost forever...

This is interesting about Bobby Jindal (and Mary):

As I'm sure you recall, Governor Jindal, Susan's depression about her cancer quickly progressed from depression into despair, and you found yourself in a room with her and a bunch of Campus Crusaders for Christ and other well-meaning but green evangelicals, wanting to help but unable to do so. When you tried to join in the group's prayer, you felt "a weight on your chest," and initially could not overcome the darkness that was now taking ahold of your soul as well. But according to your 1994 article "Beating a Demon, Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare," "suddenly...and strangely, I found myself repeating the Hail Mary until it became a chant. As a recent convert to Catholicism, I had yet to accept the Catholic doctrines concerning Mary, and considered [them] to be idolatry. Though I had never prayed a Hail Mary before in my life, I now found myself incapable of any other form of prayer." But as it turned out, it was your prayers, along with the intervention of a crucifix (later found to have been blessed by John Paul II) that turned the tide for Susan, and her faith in Christ was restored. -T. O'Toole, "Beating Obama and BP: My 'beaded' letter for Bobby Jindal"

[mlizzy]

The RCC has made Him into a FEARSOME creature!

"Scary Jesus," you mean? I'm pleased to be in the good company of Scott Hahn [Catholic convert, theologian, apologist], and "Catholic Mom," who both love this mosaic of Jesus.

The biggest and best mosaic in the basilica [Washington]: "Christ in Majesty." A lot of people don't like this image because they feel that Jesus looks too stern, angry even. Our tour guide pointed out that this image of Christ as a strict judge is a traditional Byzantine depiction, and that when you look at the mosaic up close, his expression is more gentle and compassionate, especially when you look into His eyes... -Catholic Mom

From Scott Hahn on "Christ in Majesty":

[I]n the majestic mosaic image of Christ as ruler and in the Christ whose flesh I receive in the Eucharist, I see the same person: my sovereign Lord, who is also the Lamb who gives himself as bread so that I might live with him forever. I see him as my judge but also, and always, as my savior.

I would encourage anyone interested to read Scott Hahn's entire post.

[FourtySeven]

For reference.

I never knew who this William Webster was until you posted this. Thank you.

[daniel1212]

"There is no Genesis 315 and what you attribute to Genesis 315 is not in the Bible."

No, and while that was only the name of some poster it seems, them poster must believe that verse refers to Mary, perhaps based upon the Douay-Rheims use of feminine pronouns — she and her — implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse.

Yet as even RC apologist Akin states,

The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman. - http://jimmyakin.com/mary-and-genesis-315

Likewise the Catholic RSV-2CE states on about Genesis 3:15 :

*3:15, he shall bruise your head: i.e. the seed of the woman, that is, mankind descended from Eve, will eventually gain victory over the powers of evil. This victory will, of course, be gained through the work of the Messiah who is par excellence the seed of the woman. The Latin Vulgate has the reading ipsa conteret, "she shall bruise." Some Old Latin manuscripts have this reading, and it occurs also in St. Augustine, De Genesi contra Manichaeos, II, which is earlier than St. Jerome's translation. It could be due originally to a copyist's mistake, which was then seen to contain a genuine meaning-- namely, that Mary, too, would have her share in the victory, inasmuch as she was the mother of the Savior. (emp. addd)

The RC New American Bible translates Genesis 3:15, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”

The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia states on the IM, The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically," however it still insists the women is Mary.

There is also another use of the word for "seed" as coming to a woman in Rebekah in Gn. 24:60. And the Hebrew is said to allow a plural rendering.

And a banned (of course) CA (Catholic Answers) poster stated "The Hebrew can't be quoted as 'she.' The verb is a Qal-imperfect second person masculine singular with a third-person masculine singular object." http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=11314795&postcount=6

Gen 3:16 also says she will have labor pains, which Mary is said to be protected from.

And Romans 16:20 states, The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Yet as all that matters is what Rome says, CA answers the question (with a women teacher), "Who is the woman referred to in Genesis 3:15: Eve or Mary?" by quoting popes:

These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind . . . saying, "I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed" taught . . . that his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both [Mary and her Son] against the evil one was significantly e xpressed. - Pope Pius IX, in his dogmatic bull Ineffabilis Deus

And Pope John Paul II taught in Mulieris Dignitatem:

It is significant that [in Galatians 4:4] St. Paul does not call the Mother of Christ by her own name, "Mary," but calls her "woman": This coincides with the words of the Protoevangelium in the book of Genesis (cf. Gen. 3:15). She is that "woman" who is present in the central salvific event that marks the "fullness of time": This event is realized in her and through her.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/who-is-the-woman-referred-to-in-genesis-315-eve-or-mary

[daniel1212]

I went through a subset of the links provided. The repeated statements "it is written" establish the Authority of Scripture. I see no reason to believe it establishes the Sole Authority of Scripture.

And who said Scripture was the Sole Authority? It is the sole supreme infallible authority as the wholly inspired assured word of God, which even papal ex cathedra statements are not.

The alternative is the church thru her infallible magisterium being the sole supreme infallible authority, which is why my questions to you in post 825 need to be answered.

[mlizzy]

This entire thread I have been asking Catholics to show infallible evidence that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary. Not one time has anyone done that.

There is not a lot about Mary in the Bible (it wasn't about her). "[F]ull of grace" [Luke 1:28], however, will place you on the right path...........to her Son.

[NYer]

As I pointed out earlier, these discussions are repeated on multiple threads, over and over again. Jesus spoke Aramaic, as did His disciples. Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

"You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

[Kandy Atz]

There are two people who were translated to Heaven without enduring death - Elijah, the old Testament prophet, and the somewhat obscure antediluvian prophet Enoch. The Holy Spirit decided it was important that both events were recorded in scripture in the Old Testament. Most are familiar with the references to Elijah in the New Testament - comparison to John the Baptist, and his appearance at the transfiguration. And then there is Enoch, as random as his mention in the OT, Jude links him to an End Times prophesy, and Paul makes a point to elaborate on his translation in Hebrews.

Hebrews 11:5-6 (AMP)
5 Because of faith Enoch was caught up and transferred to heaven, so that he did not have a glimpse of death; and he was not found, because God had translated him. For even before he was taken to heaven, he received testimony [still on record] that he had pleased and been satisfactory to God.
6 But without faith it is impossible to please and be satisfactory to Him. For whoever would come near to God must [necessarily] believe that God exists and that He is the rewarder of those who earnestly and diligently seek Him [out].

You would expect if the Holy Spirit felt compelled to record these two translations, that any trip to Heaven by someone in the New Testament would be faithfully recorded as well, especially if it was the mother of Jesus.

Now we turn our attention to the New Testament, specifically the books attributed to Luke. No other writer was so meticulous, recording every detail - names, places, dates, events, many of which seemingly had no relevance to the narrative - they all do have a divine purpose. Based on the details recorded in Luke about the Nativity, one would assume he had interviewed Mary, had extensive Holy Spirit assistance, and/or eyewitness testimony. If Mary was in any special way translated into Heaven, he would have mentioned it. Had she had an elevated position in the Early Church, this would have been made clear in Acts. This is not the case at all. Her last appearance, Acts 1:14, she is merely listed along with the other women and the disciples who were waiting on the Holy Spirit in prayer. After this mention, she disappears from the New Testament. It is highly likely she would have died (or the assumption occurred) within the lifetime of EVERY NT writer. But not a single writer was inspired to provide one shred of evidence to her elevated status, role in worship, or assumption.

In the Pauline Epistles, where the revelation of the Church is fully explained, made up of neither Jews or Gentiles with Jesus as the HEAD of the Body of Christ, she is nowhere to be found. In Hebrews, written by someone well acquainted with the Old Testament and the Law, who carefully proves the superiority of of the New Covenant with Jesus as the Savior and Eternal High Priest, the mother of Jesus gets no mention whatsoever. Same story from Peter, James, Jude, John, all contemporaries, not a mention of Mary, or any supernatural trip to Heaven. And if not for the most extreme religious contortions, attempting to “discover” Mary in Revelation 12, ignoring almost 4,000 years of religious types and prophecies concerning God’s chosen people Israel, she makes no appearance in the last book in the Bible either.

And if all that was not sufficient, consider Hebrews 11 - the faith heroes of the Bible. If there was ever a time to recognize Mary, the sinless eternal virgin who flew to Heaven, THIS would be the place. In this wonderful chapter listing how men and women through faith in God were mightily used, Mary is ignored. There is Sarah, and the birth of Isaac, and even Rahab the harlot of Jericho, but no mother of Jesus. In his closing remarks the writer makes it clear the focus should always remain on the Living Word, Jesus.

Hebrews 12:1-2 (AMP)
1 THEREFORE THEN, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses [who have borne testimony to the Truth], let us strip off and throw aside every encumbrance (unnecessary weight) and that sin which so readily (deftly and cleverly) clings to and entangles us, and let us run with patient endurance and steady and active persistence the appointed course of the race that is set before us,
2 Looking away [from all that will distract] to Jesus, Who is the Leader and the Source of our faith [giving the first incentive for our belief] and is also its Finisher [bringing it to maturity and perfection]. He, for the joy [of obtaining the prize] that was set before Him, endured the cross, despising and ignoring the shame, and is now seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

If this “assumption” was so critical to Christianity, why did the Holy Spirit neglect to record it in scripture? You cannot look to man, myth, legends, or a denomination for an answer. You must rely on God’s Word - The Truth. If He neglected to record it in His Word, it did not happen, or is not relevant for Believers. It is most likely the reasoning of men or religious fabrication, and should be dismissed. And you certainly don’t build a religious tradition around a legend, and then attempt to force scripture to confirm it.

The entire scope of God’s Word, from Genesis to Revelation, is revealing Jesus to the world. He is the Incorruptible Seed, He is the Living Word. He is the Head (and only Head) of the Body. He is the Last Adam. He is the Alpha and the Omega. He is Savior and Lord. Jesus is ALL you need. Let these words settle in your heart and renew your mind. The Truth makes you free.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 (KJV)
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

John 5:37-47 (AMP)
37 And the Father Who sent Me has Himself testified concerning Me. Not one of you has ever given ear to His voice or seen His form (His face—what He is like). [You have always been deaf to His voice and blind to the vision of Him.]
38 And you have not His word (His thought) living in your hearts, because you do not believe and adhere to and trust in and rely on Him Whom He has sent. [That is why you do not keep His message living in you, because you do not believe in the Messenger Whom He has sent.]
39 You search and investigate and pore over the Scriptures diligently, because you suppose and trust that you have eternal life through them. And these [very Scriptures] testify about Me!
40 And still you are not willing [but refuse] to come to Me, so that you might have life.
41 I receive not glory from men [I crave no human honor, I look for no mortal fame],
42 But I know you and recognize and understand that you have not the love of God in you.
43 I have come in My Father’s name and with His power, and you do not receive Me [your hearts are not open to Me, you give Me no welcome]; but if another comes in his own name and his own power and with no other authority but himself, you will receive him and give him your approval.
44 How is it possible for you to believe [how can you learn to believe], you who [are content to seek and] receive praise and honor and glory from one another, and yet do not seek the praise and honor and glory which come from Him Who alone is God?
45 Put out of your minds the thought and do not suppose [as some of you are supposing] that I will accuse you before the Father. There is one who accuses you—it is Moses, the very one on whom you have built your hopes [in whom you trust].
46 For if you believed and relied on Moses, you would believe and rely on Me, for he wrote about Me [personally].
47 But if you do not believe and trust his writings, how then will you believe and trust My teachings? [How shall you cleave to and rely on My words?]

[mlizzy]

Read the article of this thread so you may see what you missed.

I did read the article, then I asked some questions [of Catholics in my family]. Then I looked on the Net, and that's what I found. I didn't seek it out any further, because I was confident the scholarly Catholics on Free Republic (they keep answering questions in this forum; it's nothing short of miraculous!) would come up with the answers.

[mlizzy]

Using Mary to throwup blockades to Jesus will certainly lead to death for many who may have been “lead by His Spirit” otherwise to Him.

Sometimes hardened souls (those with thick skins would apply) cannot see her, because she is so tender ("full of grace,") they won't let her through.

[CynicalBear]

>>In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18.<<

Thus the reason the Holy Spirit had the text written in Greek. He knew the difference. As daniel1212 stated, the Holy Spirit could have also used the same Greek word in each instance BUT HE DIDN'T. If you want to change the words the Holy Spirit had written go for it. But don't call it Christianity built on God's word because it isn't.

[MamaB]

Mary does not have anything to do with salvation.

[mlizzy]

Mary does not have anything to do with salvation.

If you do not make the effort to learn about Mary's role in our salvation (during your lifetime), there's purgatory, which awaits most all of us who escape h*ll.

The “singer of Mary,” St. Bernard of Clairvaux, along with many of the Latin West, echoes the previous voice of the Eastern Church, when St. Bernard evokes the Assumption thus: “Our Queen has preceded us; she has preceded us and has been received very festively, so that with confidence the servants can follow their Lady saying: Take us with you, we run in the odor of your perfumes (Ct 1,3). Our pilgrim humanity sent its Advocate ahead that, being Mother of the Judge and Mother of mercy, can treat with devotion and efficacy the cause of our salvation. Our earth has sent today to heaven a precious gift so that, giving and receiving, they join the human and the divine in a happy exchange of friendship, the earthly to the heavenly, the lowest to the highest [...] She is the Queen of Heaven, she is merciful, she is the Mother of the Only-begotten Son of God” (In assumptione B.M.V., Sermo I: PL 183,415).

http://vultus.stblogs.org/index.php/2010/12/follow-the-via-pulchritudinis/

[MamaB]

There is nothing in the Bible saying she has anything to do with our salvation. Nada, zip, zero. I do not care what man says. I find it very telling that anyone would trust man over Biblical teaching. Read the Bible and quit putting your trust in man.

[CynicalBear]

>>[F]ull of grace" [Luke 1:28], however, will place you on the right path...........to her Son.<<

That is another corruption of God's word by the Catholic Church. The Greek text does NOT say "full of grace". The Greek text says " highly favored". The Greek word for full or filled is pléroó and is in no way used in the address to Mary. The Catholic Church is lying to you.

[caww]

....”I believe that has happened to many of us...And after it’s over, all you (I) can say is, Wow!!!”.....

Oh absolutely Wow!....and it’s very humbling...at least for me...

..and people question how we can “Know” all we say.....because we just Know!...How do you explain something like that except YOU know who was operating, and that without question.

God is good!

[CynicalBear]

It’s amazing to me that even with the proof that has been shown of no support from scripture and no support from even their own early church fathers their are still those who think posting fables and fiction is somehow going to get us to think Mariology is Christian. Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims all have writings that have no base in scripture as their “go to” source for their beliefs.

[caww]

....”RCs trying to defend a tradition of men which has a special psychological content”.....

Yes, and generally speaking the more they try to defend it so the more the ball of thread tightens.

[NYer]

Thus the reason the Holy Spirit had the text written in Greek. He knew the difference. As daniel1212 stated, the Holy Spirit could have also used the same Greek word in each instance BUT HE DIDN'T.

Lol ... whatever it takes to help you justify YOPIOS.

[CynicalBear]

So show us the original Aramaic text if you think I’m wrong. These Catholic personal attacks rather then defending with facts gets really weak.