The Assumption of Mary

On a recent thread, the belief in Sola Scriptura is being analyzed and dissected (nothing wrong with that; it can withstand the scrutiny) by proponents of traditon and scripture. So let us briefly examine the Orthodox(not that familiar yet myself) and Catholic tradition.

Lets take a look at one of the big T's of traditon. A belief held to be infallible by the Catholic Church and certainly believed by the Orthodox. Remember this "T" Tradition is on par with scripture. The two go hand in hand. So lets look. The belief is simple Mary was assumed at the time of her death(the tradition is uncertain whether she died or not).

There is a big problem. This incredible event which I would contend is the second potential biggest proof of Christianity outside of the resurrection goes unmentioned...for 300 years...

Now some people say; everyone believed it so they had no need to mention it. This flies in the face of actual patristic writing. First of all, it is simply not true that the early Christians only wrote about things that were being challenged. When asked to provide proof of that statement, they cannot.

Lets look at some quotes, and remember, this belief is a big T, declared infallible by the Catholic Church and believed by the Orthodox.


The Assumption of Mary into Heaven
by Father William G. Most
Evidence for the Assumption
There had been a problem of how the Pope could define the Assumption. There seemed to be nothing in Scripture on it, and what things there were in the Tradition of the Fathers seemed to come not from an apostolic origin, but from some apocryphal stories that circulated chiefly beginning in the fourth century.
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya5.htm


The Assumption of the Virgin Mary

The earliest known western account of Mary's bodily assumption into Heaven is in Gregory of Tours' 6th-century Glory of the Martyrs. Seventh-century Greek sermons on the subject by John Damascene and Germanus also circulated in the west in translation, and in succeeding years other works embellished the story. Although the accounts sometimes contradict each other with respect to details, these elements are common to most of them:
http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/assumption.html


"In the first three centuries there are absolutely no references in the authentic works of the Fathers or ecclesiastical writers to the death or bodily immortality of Mary. Nor is there any mention of a tomb of Mary in the first centuries of Christianity. The veneration of the tomb of the Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem began about the middle of the fifth century; and even here there is no agreement as to whether its locality was in the Garden of Olives or in the Valley of Josaphat. Nor is any mention made in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (431) of the fact that the Council, convened to defend the Divine Maternity of the Mother of God, is being held in the very city selected by God for her final resting place. Only after the Council did the tradition begin which placed her tomb in that city.
The earliest known (non-Apocryphal) mention concerning the end of Mary's life appears in the writings of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia, the ancient Salamina, in the isle of Cyprus. Born in Palestine, we may assume that he was well aware of the traditions there. Yet we find these words in his Panarion or Medicine Chest (of remedies for all heresies), written in c. 377: "Whether she died or was buried we know not."7

http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?id=469


Thoughts?

 

Two things. This woman appears in heaven. The word is
optanomai. It is never used in scripture in the context of "assumed". It says nothing about assumed. Does it?
Next, Mary was assumed pregnant and crying in pain?
How would you explian that?

 

Based upon your posts I summise you studied these issues for quite some time. One thing that strikes me about the Ante-Nice fathers is the depth over all subjects. Starting with Clement or the Didache until 325 AD is like a journey as people grasp, fumble, and explore all and I do mean ALL of the elements of Christianity. To be sure some things are highlighted mroe than others but Mary alone would fill chapters; although to be sure it pales in comparision to other topics of interest.
I do not think the church was anything about relics early on. It is generally accepted that the first possible reference to relics, and it is not one actually but I digress, is the Martyrdom of Polycarp. The church became interested in relics; heck no one denies that but I cannot grant that it was always the case.
It is an incredible confirmation of everything. It is not a little claim. It is the very ..to make you feel comfortable...Mother of God being taken. Talk about news. The early patristic writers dissect, delve into, are consumed with the fact of the resurrection from the dead of Christ. A person being assumed is no small thing. It is major proof. Like I said, it only is surpassed by the resurrection itself. It is also proof AFTER Christ has been raised. Further confirmation.
But no one talked about it. When they finally did; 300 years later they did not agree. Was it here. No it was there. Did she die? I don't know. Who was there? Well that differs too.
It is an incredible proof. Extraordinary proof of an extraordinary event.
I have read the Ante Nicene Fathers. They would have grabbed it, embraced it, rubbed it in the Gnostics and to be honest Jews face (Justyn Martyr especially). But no...nothing.

 

I should be clear. Thank you for pointing that out.
I usually associate relics with parts of dead people. A desecration of a body; ie stealing someones hair or bones off a corpse.
You are absolutely correct about Paul and such..thats in Acts..18 or around there.
It does not say they venerated them. If people have Paul's linens, good for them. Pieces of his corpse...Im not so thrilled with!

 

I do not think the inference is strong. If it were strong, perhaps any of the number of comments on the Book of Revelation or Mary as well in any of the patristic writings would have made that connection the first 700 years of Christianity.
I am quite content with your answer to the second part

 

Used to cure sick; not venerated. Two different things.
It was a cultural thing but it was not universal. It was a segment of people; but no means universal. We have Numbers 19 which clearly forbids it for the Jews. Relics were something that appealed to a segment of people and yes we can say it is more right. Cultural relativism is used to justify any number of sins and abominations. Carting around the parts of dead people...not good.