Did ancient catholics mentioned the Assumption of Mary before the condemnation of the "Assumption of holy Mary apocryphus" by the Gelasian Decree

Is it true that the Assumption of Mary is taken from (apocrypha condemned by popes), and do we have evidence that it is not, but parallel unwritten tradition, not from apocrypha? Do ancient church fathers or writings before 5c. AD mention the Assumption of Mary? While the Gelasian Decree condemned these apocrypha, did the same popes believed in the Assumption of Saint Mary, do we have evidence from writings? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- **The short answer to this, from the current information from catholic and other sources:** **Mentioning of the Assumption of Saint Mary - after the Gelasian Decree:** **(According to the catholic source "St. Gregory of Tours (d. 593)" is the earliest - known Patristic witness. (mentioning the assumption prob. from apocrypha?))** **St.Gregory of Tours (d.593):** > The earliest known Patristic witness to the belief in the Assumption > in the West appears to be **St. Gregory of Tours (d. 593)**. However, due > to the detail with which he describes the death of our Blessed Mother > with the Apostles in attendance, and her Assumption at the command of > Christ, **some scholars believe that he was greatly influenced by the > Apocrypha.86** https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=469 > **St. Isidore of Seville (d.636):** > **St. Isidore of Seville (d.636) in (De ortu et obitu Patrum, 67; PL, > 83, 150)** **appears to be the first to cast some doubt upon the fact of > Mary's death.** **Obviously ignoring the Apocrypha**, he said of the death > of Mary: ". . . nowhere does one read of her death. Although, as some > say, her sepulchre may be found in the valley of Josaphat."10 https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=469 **1.**(2?-3?-4-5 c.AD) - **(The apocrypha:)** (Liber Requiei Mariae ("**The Book of Mary's Repose**")), (**Six Books Dormition Apocryphon**. It dates almost certainly to the middle of the fourth century, if not perhaps even earlier.), (The Greek Discourse on the Dormition or **The Book of John Concerning the Falling Asleep of Mary** (attributed to John the Theologian), is another anonymous narrative, and may even precede **the Book of Mary's Repose**. This Greek document, is dated by Tischendorf as no later than the 4th century. but is dated by Shoemaker as later.), (the apocryphal treatise **De Obitu S. Dominae**, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the apocryphal book **De Transitus Beatae Mariae Virginis**, falsely ascribed to Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to Denis the Areopagite.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary **2.(c. 375AD - in The Book Panarion) (In the East)** Epiphanius of Salamis does not know about the Assumption of Saint Mary he says - "No one knows her end. But we must not honor the saints to excess; we must honor their Master." **Page 635 or 654 in the pdf.** https://ia800501.us.archive.org/18/items/EpiphaniusPanarionBksIIIII1/Epiphanius - _Panarion_ - Bks II %26 III - 1.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarion **3.(384-496-523 AD?) (in the West)** - Condemnation of the "Assumption of holy Mary apocryphus" by the (Gelasian Decree c. 5c.AD? (384-496-523 AD)) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelasian_Decree **4.(c. If any think am mistaken, moreover, let them search through the > scriptures and neither find Mary’s death, nor whether or not she died, > nor whether or not she was buried—even though John surely traveled > throughout Asia. And yet, nowhere does he say that he took the holy > Virgin with him. Scripture simply kept silence because of the > overwhelming wonder, not to throw men’s minds into consternation. > 11,3 For I dare not say—though I have my suspicions, I keep silent. > Perhaps, just as her death is not to be found, so I may have found > some traces of the holy and blessed Virgin.(4) In one passage Simeon > says of her, “And a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also, > that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” 35 And elsewhere > the Revelation of John says, “And the dragon hastened after the woman > who had born the man child, and she was given the wings of an eagle > and was taken to the wilderness, that the dragon might not seize > her.” 36 Perhaps this can be applied to her; I cannot decide for > certain, and am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither am > I affirming that she died. 11,5 For scripture went beyond man’s > understanding and left it in suspense with regard to the precious and > choice vessel, so that no one would suspect carnal behavior of her. > Whether she died, I don’t know; and [even] if she was buried, she > never had carnal relations, perish the thought! (6) Who will choose, > from self-inflicted insanity, to cast a blasphemous suspicion [on > her], raise his voice, give free rein to his tongue, flap his mouth > with evil intent, invent insults instead of hymns and glory, hurl > abuse at the holy Virgin, and deny honor to the precious Vessel? **Epiphanius of Salamis - Panarion - against antidicomarians 11,3** **Page 644 or 625** https://ia800501.us.archive.org/18/items/EpiphaniusPanarionBksIIIII1/Epiphanius%20-%20_Panarion_%20-%20Bks%20II%20%26%20III%20-%201.pdf > The holy virgin may have died and been buried—her falling asleep was > with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may > have been put to death—as the scripture says, “And a sword shall > pierce through her soul” 96—her fame is among the martyrs and her holy > body, by which light rose on the world, [rests] amid blessings. Or she > may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he > wills. No one knows her end. But we must not honor the saints to > excess; we must honor their Master. (10) It is time for the error of > those who have gone astray to cease. Mary is not God and does not have > her body from heaven but by human conception, though, like Isaac, she > was provided by promise. (11) **Ephiphanius of Salamis - Panarion - against antidicomarians** **Page 635 or 654 in the pdf.** > And if I should say anything more in her praise, [she is] like Elijah, > who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was > taken up and has not seen death. **Page 641 or 660.** **Some catholics say that this part show that Epiphanius believed in the assumption of Mary, but I think that the stress is under the virginity. Because as above he says - No one knows her end.** > >No one knows her end. But we must not honor the saints to > > excess; we must honor their Master. (10) It is time for the error of > > those who have gone astray to cease. Mary is not God and does not have > > her body from heaven but by human conception, though, like Isaac, she > > was provided by promise. (11) **Page 635 or 654 in the pdf.** https://ia800501.us.archive.org/18/items/EpiphaniusPanarionBksIIIII1/Epiphanius%20-%20_Panarion_%20-%20Bks%20II%20%26%20III%20-%201.pdf > “What is between me and thee?” that the holy Virgin is anything more > [than a woman], he called her “Woman” as if by prophecy, because of > the schisms and sects that were to appear on earth. Otherwise some > might stumble into the nonsense of the sect from excessive awe of the > saint. **Ephiphanius of Salamis - Panarion - against collyridians 8** **(I think that it may be also relevant to mention the title queen of heaven)** > the error which has arisen on St. Mary’s account.... preparing the > table for the demon25 and not for God..... even though Mary is all > fair, and is holy and held in honor, she is not to be worshiped..... > Such women should be silenced by Jeremiah, and not frighten the world. > They must not say, “We honor the queen of heaven.”... **The book Panarion:** **It was written in Koine Greek beginning in 374 or 375, and issued about three years later,1** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarion **(Here it seems that Epiphanius is mentioning Anne and Joachim - probably the Protoevangelium of James - It is interesting that he starts with - "If any think am mistaken, moreover, let them search through the scriptures and neither find Mary’s death, nor whether or not she died" and here he mentions Anne and Joachim that are not found in scripture, but apocrypha?)** > > For the age-old error of forgetting the living God and worshiping his > creatures will not get the better of me. (4) They served and worshiped > the creature more than the creator,” and “were made fools.”14 If it is > not his will that angels be worshiped, how much more the woman **born > of Ann**,15 who was given to **Ann by Joachim 16** and granted to her > father and mother by promise, after prayer and all diligence? She was > surely not born other than normally, but of a man’s seed and a woman’s > womb like everyone else. (5 **Ephiphanius of Salamis - Panarion - against collyridians 8** Page 644 in the pdf https://ia800501.us.archive.org/18/items/EpiphaniusPanarionBksIIIII1/Epiphanius%20-%20_Panarion_%20-%20Bks%20II%20%26%20III%20-%201.pdf **Translated from Russian:** ENGLISH > Regarding written patristic testimonies about the death of the Mother > of God, there is a firm conviction that they did not exist before the > 4th century. St. Epiphanius of Cyprus writes: “Let them search the > Scriptures, and they will not find information about the death of > Mary, nor about whether she died, nor about whether she did not die, > nor about whether she was buried, nor about whether she was not > buried.” Scant testimonies about the death of the Mother of God begin > to appear in the writings of individual church writers only after the > 4th century 1. The events of the Dormition and Burial of the Virgin > Mary are known from several apocrypha: "The Tale of the Dormition of > the Virgin Mary" by Pseudo-John the Theologian (originating in the > middle of the 5th century or later), "On the Exodus of the Virgin > Mary" by Pseudo-Meliton of Sardis (not earlier than the 4th century), > the work of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, "The Tale" by > Pseudo-Joseph, "The Sermon of John, Archbishop of Thessaloniki". These > apocrypha are all quite late (5th-6th centuries) and differ from each > other in content2. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%94%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8B_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8 ENGLISH > Until the 5th century, the Church Fathers make no mention of the feast > of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary. At the end of the 6th century, > Emperor Maurice established the celebration of the Dormition on August > 15.3 Epiphanius of Cyprus, a Jew by origin, a native of Phoenicia, who converted to Christianity in adulthood and lived as a monk for over 20 > years in Palestine from 335-340 to 362, writes in his Panarion, > written in 378, that nothing is known about the circumstances of > Mary's death: neither the place of her death, nor whether she died of > her own accord or was murdered.1 It should be noted that Epiphanius of > Cyprus researched various Christian historical works when writing his > books, and also knew and communicated personally with virtually all > the heads of the local Christian churches. Beginning in the 5th > century,the cult of Mary began to develop, and for this purpose, > authors wrote various works of their own composition, describing the > death (or Dormition) of the Virgin Mary.The authors do not sign these > works with their own names, but instead, they attribute the names of > ancient and revered holy fathers who lived in the 1st and 2nd > centuries, such as John the Theologian, Dionysius the Areopagite, and > Melito of Sardis, as the authors.2 https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%98%D0%BE%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1_%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%86%D1%8B **I read from sources that the Assumption of Mary was taken from apocrypha,and I even read that some of these apocrypha seem to be even condemned by the popes in the beginning (492AD-553AD) - the Gelasian Decree. It seems that the west adopted the assumption of Mary story later - in 7th century?** https://christiantruth.com/articles/assumption/ > The feast of the Dormition,arrived in the West in the early 7th > century,its name changing to Assumption in some 9th century > liturgical calendars. The feast was decreed for Constantinople on > 15 August by the emperor Maurice in 600; about fifty years later it > was introduced in Rome and is mentioned in a papal decree of Sergius > (687–701),who fixed a procession for the feast. Pope Leo IV > (reigned 847–855) gave the feast a vigil and an octave to solemnise it > above all others, Pope Nicholas I (858–867) placed it on a par with > Christmas and Easter, and Pope Benedict XIV (1740–1758) declared it "a > probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary#:~:text=The%20feast%20of%20the%20Dormition,response%20to%20both%20these%20questions . **Gelasian Decree (496-553 AD?):** > A catalogue of the 'apocrypha' and other writings which are to be > rejected. > > The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognized 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.Further Enumeration of Apocryphal Books: http://www.ntcanon.org/Decretum_Gelasianum.shtml > the book which is called the Assumption of holy Mary apocryphus > > **in the other link probably is the -** Book which is called the > Home-going of the Holy Mary http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/decretum%20gelasianum.htm Please let me know if you know some other sources and your thoughts. Thanks in advance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- **UPDATE:** **(I can not guarantee the source, it is hard to find this text on the internet from catholic source)** **Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636)** > Some say that Mary departed this life by passing through the coarse > torments of martyrdom,since the just man Simeon, holding Christ in > his arms,was prophesying when he said to his Mother:"A sword will > pierce your heart"(Lk 2:35).But it is not certain whether he was > speaking of a material sword or if he meant the word of God,which is > stronger and more cutting than any two-edged sword.**In any case, no > particular historical narrative tells us that Mary was killed by the > stroke of a sword,since one reads nothing about it,and nothing about > her death either. However,some say that her tomb is to be found in > the valley of Josaphat.** **(Cf. I. Bengoechea, "Doctrina", 178) (De ortu et obitu Patrum, 67; PL, 83, 150)** https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2024/08/isidore-of-seville-c-560-636-on.html https://www.academia.edu/124196275/The_Assumption_of_Mary_A_Historical_Critical_Analysis **(The only catholic source I could find ab. Isadore)** > St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636) appears to be the first to cast some > doubt upon the fact of Mary's death. Obviously ignoring the Apocrypha, > he said of the death of Mary: ". . . **nowhere does one read of her > death**. **Although, as some say, her sepulchre may be found in the valley > of Josaphat."10 Tusaredo, a Bishop in the Asturias province of Spain > in the eighth century, wrote:"Of the glorious Mary, no history > teaches that she suffered martyrdom or any other kind of death.**"11 > Although St.Andrew of Crete (d.720) generally introduced much > theological argumentation into his writings, he states,with very > little argumentation, that Mary died because her Son died.12 The same > is true of a similar teaching of St.John Damascene (d.749).13 And > about one hundred years later,Theodore Abou-Kurra (d.c.820) likened > the death of Mary to the sleep of Adam in the Garden when God formed > Eve from one of his ribs.14 This,obviously, was not a true death. > > All the great Scholastics of the thirteenth century taught that Mary > died. The principal reason for their so teaching was obviously the > fact that they denied the Immaculate Conception in the sense in which > it was defined by Pope Pius IX.15 https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=469 **(Catholic source)** > The fact of Mary's death and subsequent resurrection is uncertain. We > cannot say, therefore, that they are included within the scope of the > definition of Pope Pius XII.6 For a Pope defines only what is certain. > > > > > > **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 > > > > > > > > > > And with the exception of a so-called contemporary of Epiphanius, > Timothy of Jerusalem, who said:"Wherefore the Virgin is immortal up > to now, because He who dwelt in her took her to the regions of the > Ascension,"9 no early writer ever doubted the fact of her death. They > did not, however, examine the question; they merely took the fact of > her death for granted. > > > > ....After a very thorough and scholarly investigation the author > concludes that Timothy is an unknown author who lived between the > sixth and seventh centuries (p. 23).) > > > > > Apparently influenced by the apocryphal Transitus writings of the > fifth to the seventh centuries, later Fathers and Church writers > likewise spoke of the death of Mary as a fact taken for granted. For > all men, including Christ, died: therefore, Mary, too.Like their > predecessors, they did not consider ex professo the theological > arguments for or against. > > St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636) in **(De ortu et obitu Patrum, 67; PL, 83, 150)** appears to be the first to cast some > doubt upon the fact of Mary's death. Obviously ignoring the Apocrypha, > he said of the death of Mary:". . . nowhere does one read of her > death. Although, as some say, her sepulchre may be found in the valley > of Josaphat."10 Tusaredo, a Bishop in the Asturias province of Spain > in the eighth century, wrote: "Of the glorious Mary, no history > teaches that she suffered martyrdom or any other kind of death."11 > Although St. Andrew of Crete (d.720) generally introduced much > theological argumentation into his writings, he states, with very > little argumentation, that Mary died because her Son died.12 The same > is true of a similar teaching of St.John Damascene (d.749).13 And > about one hundred years later,Theodore Abou-Kurra (d.c.820) likened > the death of Mary to the sleep of Adam in the Garden when God formed > Eve from one of his ribs.14 This,obviously, was not a true death. > > > **All the great Scholastics of the thirteenth century taught that Mary > died. The principal reason for their so teaching was obviously the > fact that they denied the Immaculate Conception in the sense in which > it was defined by Pope Pius IX.15** Thus we read in the writings of St. > Bonaventure:"If the Blessed Virgin was free from original sin, she > was also exempt from the necessity of dying; therefore, either her > death was an injustice or she died for the salvation of the human > race. But the former supposition is blasphemous, implying that God is > not just; and the latter, too,is a blasphemy against Christ for it > implies that His Redemption is insufficient.Both are therefore > erroneous and impossible.Therefore Our Blessed Lady was subject to > original sin."16 > > After the definition of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in > 1854 the question of whether or not Our Blessed Lady died gradually > became a subject of wide theological discussion and is today one of > the most widely disputed Mariological questions. > > > > > > > **Besides isolation from the East and ignorance of its literature,** there > was also a **strong animus against the apocrypha in scholarly circles.** > **These were about the only early literature on the subject known in the > West, and their legendary character engendered doubts about the truth > of the Assumption.** > > > The development of the doctrine in the West, therefore, was more or > less independent of the East, so that the two trends of thought > confirm each other."70 Consequently,since the rule of belief > determines the rule of prayer, one could not expect to find the feast > at a time when the belief in the Assumption was not explicit. > > > **There are no certain references to the existence of the feast in the > West earlier than the middle of the seventh century.** The earliest > witness appears to be the Gospel Lectionary of Wurzburg (c.650) in > which the feast for August 15 is found to be Natale Sanctae Mariae.71 > And in this century Pope Sergius I (687-701) decreed that on the feast > of the Dormition (as well as on the Annunciation and the Nativity of > our Blessed Mother) there should be a procession from the church of > St. Adrian to the church of St.Mary Major.72 Most probably it was > this same Pope who introduced the feast of the Dormition into the > Roman calendar since there are no traces of it there before 690. A > Syrian by birth, Pope Sergius was well acquainted with the feast from > his homeland. The name of the feast was changed from the Dormition to > the Assumption of St. Mary at the beginning of the eighth century.73 > And Pope Leo IV (847-855) introduced the solemn vigil and octave.74 > From Rome the feast soon spread to England, France, and Spain. > > > > > In the Munificentissimus Deus the Holy Father cites the Gregorian > Sacramentary which Pope Adrian I sent to the Emperor Charlemagne > between the years 784-790. The following are the words quoted from the > Sacramentary: "Venerable to us,O Lord,is the festivity of this day > on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death,but still > could not be kept down by the bonds of death,who has begotten Thy Son > Our Lord incarnate from herself."75 Although the words "could not be > kept down by the bonds of death" express the idea of Assumption only > implicitly,they are commonly understood in the sense of Resurrection > and Assumption of Mary and not only bodily incorruption. > > > > However, apart from the Apocrypha, there is no authentic witness to > the Assumption among the Fathers of either the East or the West prior > to the end of the fifth century.** > > Doubtless the Holy Father made no mention of the Apocrypha due to the > fact that many non-Catholic critics maintain that the later tradition > of the Church expressing belief in the Assumption is an outgrowth of > them.81 > > > Failing to find in the sacred books of the Bible sufficient detail to > satisfy their curiosity concerning certain phases of the lives of > Christ and Mary,some of the faithful of the second and third > centuries AD. drew these details from other sources,frequently > spurious, from their own imaginations,and from the popular beliefs of > the time. And in the firm hope that their works would be accepted as > canonical scripture, they attributed them to the Apostles and > Evangelists. This apocryphal literature is divided into gospels, > epistles, and apocalypses.82 > > Written originally in Latin, Greek, Syriac, and Coptic, the Apocrypha > passed through many versions and the result is an overwhelming variety > of subject matter and detail.In describing the death of Mary and its > sequel, however, they all agree in stating that the death of Mary was > an exception to that of the rest of mankind and, with but few > exceptions, they state that her sacred body was preserved incorrupt > and that it was assumed into heaven. > > > **The absence of an uninterrupted chain of explicit testimonies linking > our times with the Apostolic period was used by some Catholic > theologians previous to the definition of Pope Pius XII as well as by > non-Catholic critics as an argument against the doctrine of the > Assumption** or its definability. Against these we quote the words of > the eminent Mariologist, Father Juniper Carol, O.F.M., written > previous to the definition... > > > > **The earliest known Patristic witness to the belief in the Assumption > in the West appears to be St.Gregory of Tours (d.593).** However, due > to the detail with which he describes the death of our Blessed Mother > with the Apostles in attendance, and her Assumption at the command of > Christ, **some scholars believe that he was greatly influenced by the > Apocrypha.86** The Saint said:"When finally the Blessed Virgin had > fulfilled the course of this life, and was now to be called out of > this world, all the Apostles were gathered together from each region > to her house . . . and behold the Lord Jesus came with His angels and, > receiving her soul, entrusted it to the Archangel Michael and > departed. At the break of day the Apostles lifted the body with the > couch and laid it in the sepulchre,and they guarded it awaiting the > coming of the Lord. And behold the Lord again stood by them, and > commanded that the holy body be taken up and borne on a cloud into > Paradise, where now, reunited with (her) soul and rejoicing with the > elect, it enjoys the good things of eternity which shall never come to > an end."87 Later on, in the same work, we read:"Mary, the glorious > Mother of Christ, who, we believe, was a virgin before and after > childbirth, was, as we have said before (c.4),carried to Paradise > preceded by the Lord amidst the singing of angelic choirs."88 > > Certainly,from the end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh > century on, with but few exceptions, the entire Christian Tradition is > in favor of the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Mother of > God into heaven.And it was unanimously accepted by the great > Scholastics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries many of whom > either doubted or explicitly denied the Immaculate Conception.89 https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=469 If you find misinformation, something wrong etc. let me know to correct it. All this is from public sources and I can not guarantee the accurateness.