www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology I'm not sure I believe in the Dormition as a historical event

TLDR: I'm honestly not sure if the Dormition / Assumption is an actual historical event that occurred at a time and place in history, or if it's essentially just a dogmatized pious belief.

As a former Latin Catholic who eventually canonically changed to the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Church, I had grown up with the Latin understanding of the Assumption - which, granted, is very vague in its premise: that at "the end of her earthly life," the Blessed Mother was assumed body & soul into heaven. I don't really remember any other surrounding traditions or lore about this event in the Latin Church.

Then I learned of the Byzantine / Eastern view of the Dormition, with a more involved storyline about the Apostles all being called back to the Theotokos upon her death, with St. Thomas, likewise as his late arrival with Christ's resurrection, coming to the location of her passing eight days later.

The fact that I had never learned of this alternate tradition, while interesting, really made me question whether the Dormition is a historical event, or if it's essentially a legend that took such hold that eventually it became a liturgical feast both East and West, and then dogmatized by Rome in 1950. The fact that there's open belief of whether or not Mary died points to the fact that there were really no witnesses or contemporary accounts of this event; it seems to have all the hallmarks of a developed pious legend that grew differently in various regions of Christendom.

Now, I am aware of the common answer that we can just call it a "mystery" or that it is "theologically true" yet not historically true, but those are unsatisfying answers. Christianity bills itself as a historical religion, so it's important that these events actually happened. I'm also aware of some responses along the lines of "they don't have Mary's body, therefore it must have been assumed" or that somehow private apparitions or passages from Revelation somehow "prove" the Dormition. Yet, these are really stretches of the imagination and not actual evidence, in my opinion.

So my question is - do you think the Dormition is a historical event? Why or why not?

Christ is Risen!!

LionHippo44,

If you were a Latin Catholic, you would know that the Assumption was declared a dogma of the Faith, something you are required to believe. Why would you question something that both East and West have believed for two millennia? In any event, neither East nor West dogmatizes "pious beliefs."

". . . the end of her earthly life" is poetic way of saying "when she died."

I'd go with this blessed event happened in historic time. The fact that all the Apostolic Churches commemorate this day, and on the same date, points to something far more than a pious tradition.

What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say? Taht might be a good place to start to answer your questions.

theophan,

Thank you for your response. Yes, I am aware that, as a declared dogma of the faith, the Assumption is a required belief. However, it's just problematic to me that we are required to believe in something as an actual historical event without any proof that it actually happened. It's more palatable to believe in things like the Immaculate Conception, which is essentially an unfalsifiable statement related to Catholic theology, or the Church's teaching on contraception, since she is supposed to be the guardian of God's moral law. The Church also teaches that we are to use faith and reason, yet it seems unreasonable to believe in something that clearly has all the markings of a developed pious tradition. In the case of the Dormition, what we seem to have is the Church proclaiming a historical event into existence.

Also, it's not quite true that the Church has celebrated it for two millenia - the belief in the Assumption didn't arise until the 3rd-4th century AD. Three or four hundred years is not a small amount of time to discount. That is plenty of time for all sorts of legends and traditions to develop. Furthermore, it coincides with tens of thousands of former pagans from the Roman Empire adopting Christianity, and it seems that they imported what one could consider "goddess worship" into the Christian faith. Mary became the most probable focus of this type of veneration and elevation.

This is an important question for me because of as late, I have really questioned the historicity of the Catholic faith and Christianity as a whole, and I am seeking the truth. While I have come to love the Byzantine traditions, in the back of my mind I have had the emerging thought that Christianity has a large amount of what one would call "mythical" elements to it, that most of what we believe isn't based on true history, but is more correctly categorized as mythology. The only difference is that for us, the Church has required us to believe things under the pain of loss of eternal life.

Christ is Risen!!

LionHippo44,

I have in my library a book written about the Dormition from an Orthodox source. It is persuasive.

OTOH, the Church's Tradition contains parts that may not have been not front and center during the earliest centuries because during those years the spreading of the Gospel about Christ, born, preaching/teaching, His Passion, Death and Resurrection was front and center--the excitement of knowing the Truth and living in Him was the contagious thing that fired everyone up. While we have few or no records of those years because of persecution, it cannot be said that the oral tradition was not valid or of no value. To me, the idea that this belief would suddenly appear is less true than that it was something always believed.

If you remember that all bishops, all priests had to be taught orally and that passing down the Faith was taken seriously--looking at all the doctrinal controversies, I believe that if the doctrine of the Assumption/Dormition were not historically true it would never have made it to the time when the Church was legal and free.

What is the title of the Orthodox book? I am not sure if I'll be persuaded, but it's worth a shot, I suppose. All we really have "affirming" the Dormition is Biblical proof-texts (which, in my opinion, are really stretching it) and long-lived traditions.

You'd think something as momentous as the Mother of God being bodily assumed into heaven would have had at least a *few* contemporaneous accounts to document it, but the lack of any such writings (how much effort could it have taken?) again points to the more likely explanation that it's a pious tradition that began 300 years or so after Christ and the Apostles.

Though, this is similar to something like the Latin "Stations of the Cross," which are largely not historical but are based on pious practice and private revelations. However, the Stations aren't required to be believed by the faithful.

It's just that the more I look at our traditions and beliefs, the more they have in common with any other mythological religion. If what we believe isn't based on actual historic events, our religion isn't different than any other.

Christ is Risen!!


Did you never hear or read that under the persecution of the period prior to Constantine that Christian "writings" were regularly burned? The Mother of God's Assumption/Dormition is--according to what I was taught--part of the Church's "interior tradition," meaning that it is not the primary evangelizing message preached. When the Faith is summarized as "God became man in order that man might become like God," and the excitement that that message gives, I don't see how documenting the Mother of God's becomes a primary concern. It is important, but people did not go to the Coliseum over that.


I have never heard of any Biblical proof used to support this dogma.


It's obvious to me you are having a crisis of faith. And that's okay. But like those who have other health crises, an internet forum is not the place to resolve it or obtain the healing you seek. May I suggest you seek out your priest. This is what he's trained to do.

Christ is Risen!

Dearest LionHippo4 (do I recognize that handle from another discussion forum?),

Apart from Theophan's excellent suggestion that you speak with your priest about your struggle, you may want to read "On the Dormition of Mary: Early Patristic Homilies" https://svspress.com/on-the-dormition-of-mary-early-patristic-homilies/ Not specifically about her dormition, but a great and informative read nonetheless is St. John Maximovitch's "The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God"

It is my understanding ( as general as it is), that an apocryphal book called " The Repose of Mary " existed as early as the 4th century. This book, I am told, still exists, in its entirety, in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church- and fragments survive elsewhere, some in Syriac. It seems this book may contain the oldest written descriptions of the Assumption/ Dormition narratives.

The problem is, this book is considered by many scholars to largely be a gnostic text. This conclusion is arrived at by how the book refers to Jesus ( an Angel of Light?) and its emphasis on secret prayers to help the Virgin Mary's soul navigate the journey to Paradise. To be short, its context and language is gnostic, and therefore was frowned upon during and after Nicaea. Obviously, the book was passed over as heterodoxical.

However, after Chalcedon, the book seems to have regained interest- at least the Assumption narrative. Scholars believe this may be due to the post- Chalcedon acclamation of Mary as the " Theotokos". With that title, some scholars feel, Mary's role is too special for a normal death......so, the old story is revived, cleansed of its gnostic context, and becomes fixed in tradition.

If the above contains any mis- information or mis- interpretation, please make corrections. This topic is fascinating and is interesting reading and research.

Personally, I can't help coming back to the fact that not one relic of the Virgin Mary's body ( save one claim of some hair, I think), has come down to us. Given the cultic fascination with saintly remains, this is compelling. Entire towns gained their reputation and commerce by claiming to house Saints' relics in their cathedrals. How much more famous, and richer, a town, or city, would become by claiming a fragment of the Mother of God and become the ultimate pilgrimage site.Yet, it did not happen.

In the final analysis, it is perhaps best to remember what our Lord told St. Thomas in John 20:29...........









Get Outlook for Android

Thank you, J. Michael. Yes, I used to be on the fisheaters forum when it was operating. Interestingly, my questions of the faith began when I moved from the Latin Church to the Byzantine, and realizing that so many things we "believe" are just based on traditions, and don't seem to be rooted in actual history

The book looks interesting, maybe I'll take a look if it comes down in price at some point. At this point, my guess would be that, sure, I could accept some homilies making the case of the Dormition being "theologically true," but I don't think anything will really persuade me of its historicity.

However, the Church itself has had to concede many things previously thought of (and taught) as "true history" to be merely symbolic, allegorical, or grand exaggerations of actual events. The Exodus and the Flood come to mind - there is absolutely zero evidence of the Exodus, as detailed in the Bible, in actual archaeology or historical studies. Also, the Church has had to sheepishly back down over the years of insisting on an actual global flood, and now at best accepts some kind of regional flood, or just a legendary story.

This is where it becomes problematic - either these things happened, or they didn't. If we ultimately can only say something is "theologically true," that's really just a circular argument affirming Christian mythology. It makes no sense, for instance, to relate the actual sacrament of baptism with the waters of the flood if the flood never actually happened. And it makes no sense to say that certain Old Testament figures "prefigured" Jesus if they didn't actually exist. Our entire faith rests on God becoming man at an actual place and time in history; if our beliefs are not based on actual history, then I don't think Christianity has any claims above any other religion.

I don't consider this a "crisis of faith" as theophan said - usually most crises of faith revolve around unanswered prayers or the problem of evil. I would consider my concerns as legitimate questions about the faith. And for Catholics, a lot rests on believing the Dogma of the Assumption, as the Church teaches that one must assent to proclaimed dogmas to be saved. The proclamation of the Assumption / Dormition presents the dogma as an event that took place in time. But with no evidence that it actually happened, it puts any questioning faithful like myself in the quandary of convincing myself to believe something that is based more on legend than fact.

That's exactly my point - it seems to be a dogma based off of legends that developed at least 300 years after the fact. That no relics of Mary were venerated is not really convincing. Judging from St. Paul's letters, there really wasn't any special consideration given to Mary in the very early Church, and body / relic veneration doesn't seem to have come into play until the same time as these gnostic texts appeared. Many of the supposed "relics" we have of these very early saints (like pieces of Mary's veil, Sts. Perpetua & Felicity, St. Philomena, etc.) are very dubious whether they are authentic; I don't think they are. A lot of legends surrouding 1st - 2nd century saints didn't develop until centuries later, which is why Pope Paul VI had many traditional saints stricken from the liturgical calendar - there just isn't any evidence that they existed in the first place, let alone that the Church is in possession of their relics.

At this point, after prayer and reflection, I have come to peace with the mystery of the Dormition, but I accept its historical reality as well. Thanks for your responses.

Christ is Risen!!

Please forgive me for being so late in approving the last three posts. Life has been hectic.

Bob
Moderator

I believe, Lord; help my unbeflief." Mark 9: 24. Indeed, I think doubt is an element of faith, and you, LionHippo44, ask legitimate questions. Thank you for that. Keep in mind that the Church has had to come to grips with historical criticism in one form or another for nearly two hundred years as this method of study gained recognition among scripture scholars and even the faithful in latter times. One important element to remember is that the Church herself has a history; and a very long history that casts doubt on the many institutions with much shorter histories that surround her. Add to that, it is a memory that goes back to her very origins in Christ, and the people of Israel who confront us with antiquity itself. It's a memory that preserves the written Word, written Icons and liturgical traditions that underlie her faith. While a host of her unfaithful, and even faithful servants have often betrayed and scarred those memories they are all real, have roots in history, and command our deepest respect.

The testimony that St. Luke provides about Mary in the first chapter of his Gospel is enough for me; especally when the pregnant Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth who has been with child for six months. This nearly fully developed child, John, leaps in Elizabeth's womb at the presence of her cousin and her God as King David lept before the Ark of God when it was nearing Jerusalem as recorded in the Second Book of Samuel, Chapter 6: 9 -14. "How is it that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" And Elizabeth cries out: "How is it that the mother my Lord should come to me?"

History? I think more than history - an historical faith, rooted in history that has spanned the ages.

And Mary who the same Luke, writing in the first chapter of Acts, records as being present with the disciples in the upper room must have died an historical death that was kept in the memory of Christians. There must have been so much that was not written down and recorded, as history today records things. But there was and is a memory that lives, and that memory has been expressed in Icons and in liturgy: Icons and Liturgy that say that she fell asleep and was taken up. In short, Mary has already become in view of her stature what we shall be - risen from the dead in Christ. Christ is Risen!