Origen of Alexandria

“What ought we to think? That while the apostles were scandalized, the Mother of the Lord was
immune from scandal? If she had experienced scandal during the Lord’s Passion, Jesus did not die for
her sins. But if all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but are justified by his grace and
redeemed,” then Mary too was scandalized by this moment. This is what Simeon is prophesying
about….Your soul will be pierced by the sword of unbelief and will be wounded by the sword point of
doubt” (Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7).

Basil of Caesarea

“Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what
is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the
divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest.
The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man—to become a propitiation for the world and to
justify all men by His own blood. Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things
concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. “That the thoughts of many
hearts may be revealed.” He indicates that after the offense at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing
shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In
the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ”
(Basil, Letter 260.9).

John Chrysostom

Before this time He lived as one of the many, and therefore His mother had not confidence to say any
such thing to Him; but when she heard that John had come on His account, and that he had borne such
witness to Him as he did, and that He had disciples, after that she took confidence, and called Him, and
said, when they wanted wine, "They have no wine." For she desired both to do them a favor, and
through her Son to render herself more conspicuous; perhaps too she had some human feelings, like His
brethren, when they said, "Show yourself to the world" John 17:4, desiring to gain credit from His
miracles. Therefore, He answered somewhat vehemently, saying, "Woman, what have I to do with you?
My hour is not yet come."- (Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 21)

Cyril of Alexandria

“For, doubtless, some such train of thought as this passed through her mind: ‘I conceived Him That is
mocked upon the Cross. He said, indeed, that He was the true Son of Almighty God, but it may be that
He was deceived; He may have erred when He said: I am the Life. How did His crucifixion come to pass?
and how was He entangled in the snares of His murderers? How was it that He did not prevail over the
conspiracy of His persecutors against Him? And why does He not come down from the Cross, though He
bade Lazarus return to life, and struck all Judaea with amazement by His miracles?" The woman, as is
likely, not exactly understanding the mystery, wandered astray into some such train of thought” (Cyril of
Alexandria, Commentary on John, Book 12).

Cyril of Jerusalem

But thou wonders at the event: even she herself who bare him wondered at this. For she saith to
Gabriel, How shall this be to me, since I know not a man? But he says, The Holy Ghost shall came upon
thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is to be
born shall be called the Son of God. Immaculate and undefiled was His generation: for where the Holy
Spirit breathes, there all pollution is taken away: undefiled from the Virgin was the incarnate generation
of the Only-begotten.- (Catechetical Lectures 12:32)

This is the Holy Ghost, who came upon the Holy Virgin Mary; for since He who was conceived was Christ
the Only-begotten, the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and the Holy Ghost came upon her, and
sanctified her, that she might be able to receive Him, by whom all things were made. But I have no need
of many words to teach thee that generation was without defilement or taint, for thou hast learned it.”-(
Catechetical Lectures 17:6)

Ephrem the Syrian

“It was fitting that the Architect of the works of creation should come and raise up the house that had
fallen and that the hovering Spirit should sanctify the buildings that were unclean. Thus, if the
Progenitor entrusted the judgment that is to come to his Son, it is clear that he accomplished the
creation of humanity and its restoration through him as well. He was the live coal, which had come to
kindle the briars and thorns. He dwelt in the womb and cleansed it and sanctified the place of the birth
pangs and the curses. The flame, which Moses saw, was moistening the bush and distilling the fat lest it
be inflamed. The likeness of refined gold could be seen in the bush, entering into the fire but without
being consumed. This happened so that it might make known that living fire, which was to come at the
end, watering and moistening the womb of the Virgin and clothing it like the fire that enveloped the
bush.”-(Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron 1.25)

Gregory of Nazianzus

And that was that the Word of God Himself — Who is before all worlds, the Invisible, the
Incomprehensible, the Bodiless, Beginning of Beginning, the Light of Light, the Source of Life and
Immortality, the Image of the Archetypal Beauty, the immovable Seal, the unchangeable Image, the
Father's Definition and Word, came to His own Image, and took on Him flesh for the sake of our flesh,
and mingled Himself with an intelligent soul for my soul's sake, purifying like by like; and in all points
except sin was made man. Conceived by the Virgin, who first in body and soul was purified by the Holy
Ghost’- ( Oration 38.13 )

Ambrosiaster

“As for what Simeon added: "And into your soul a sword shall penetrate, that the thoughts of the hearts
of many may be revealed" (Luke 2,35), clearly points out that Mary, in whose womb the mystery of the
Incarnation was made, at the time of our Lord's death, suffered a doubt, but in such a way that, thanks
to the excellence and power of the resurrection, was to change it be an unwavering faith. At the
moment of the Savior's death, doubt arose in the souls of all because of fear.…Everyone is judged on the
vice for which he has the most inclination. The Apocalypse of St. John confirms this truth, “Those who
doubt,” he said, “and the unbelievers will have their share in the lake burning with fire and brimstone.”
He who therefore does not persevere in doubt is delivered from death, that is to say, he escapes death,
for doubt about God or about Jesus Christ is a true death. He who ceases to doubt ceases to be subject
to death”-(Questions and Answers on the Gospel of Luke, Question 73).

Ambrose of Milan
“You hear that our fathers were under the cloud, and that a kindly cloud, which cooled the heat of
carnal passions. That kindly cloud overshadows those whom the Holy Spirit visits. At last it came upon
the Virgin Mary, and the Power of the Highest overshadowed her, when she conceived Redemption for
the race of men. And that miracle was wrought in a figure through Moses. If, then, the Spirit was in the
figure, is He not present in the reality, since Scripture says to us: "For the law was given by Moses, but
grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."- On the Mysteries Ch. 13

Augustine of Hippo

“Therefore, only He, being man and remaining God, never committed sin or accepted the sinful body,
although He took His own body from the sinful body of his mother. Whatever he took or cleansed from
her body to next accept or cleanse by taking.”- (About the punishment for sins and their forgiveness and
the baptism of children 2.24.38, Migne PL 44: 174-175)

"And what could be more undefiled than that womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, even if it derived from
the propagation of sin still did not conceive from the propagation of sin? [...] Accordingly the body of
Christ was indeed assumed from the flesh of a woman which had been conceived from that propagation
of the flesh of sin; but because it was not itself conceived there in the same way as that flesh had been
conceived, it was not in its turn the flesh of sin, but the likeness of the flesh of sin (Rom 8:3)." (Genesi Ad
Litteram 10.18.32, Migne PL34: 421-422).

Pope Leo I

And to this end, without male seed Christ was conceived of a Virgin, who was conceived not by human
intercourse but by the Holy Spirit. And whereas in all mother’s conception does not take place without
stain of sin, this one received purification from the Source of her conception. For no taint of sin
penetrated, where no intercourse occurred. – (Sermon on the Nativity 22:3)

"Truly, the birth of the Lord according to the flesh had certain properties which made it superior to birth
of men. Firstly, He alone was conceived and was born without lust [ie. without erasing the first-born sin -
again terminology taken from Augustine] from a pure virgin. Secondly, He left his Mother's womb in
such a way that by giving birth, she remained her virginity. "- ( List 35.3, Minne PL 54: 809)

"This fight waged for us is fought on a great and strange law of equality: the almighty Lord rubs himself
with the cruel enemy not in his majesty, but in our smallness; he gives him one like ours, breast and
nature, subject to death, but free from everything the ego of sin. For the birth of a stranger is basically
what we read about everyone in the Bible: "No one is clean from the filth, not even a child whose life is
a day on the earth" (Hei 14,4). His conception touched nothing from the lust of the flesh, nothing from
the law of sin descended upon them."- (Sermon 21.1 for Christmas, Migne PL 54: 191)

“He obscured His immeasurable majesty and took on Him the form of a servant: being God that cannot
suffer, He did not disdain to be man that can, and, immortal as He is, to subject Himself to the laws of
death. The Lord assumed His mother’s nature without her faultiness: nor in the Lord Jesus Christ, born
of the Virgin’s womb, does the wonderfulness of His birth make His nature unlike ours."- Tome of Leo I

Zeno of Verona
"For the devil has slipped through Eve's ear, persuading her and killing her, so Christ, entering Mary
through the ear, removes all the defects of the heart, and thus, being born of a Virgin, heals the wounds
of the bride."-(About Circumcision 13:10)

Hilary of Poitiers

“An Angel blesses Mary and promises that she, a virgin, shall be the mother of the Son of God.
Conscious of her virginity, she is distressed at this hard thing; the Angel explains to her the mighty
working of God, saying, “The Holy Ghost shall come from above into you, and the power of the Most
High shall overshadow you.” The Holy Ghost, descending from above, hallowed the Virgin's womb, and
breathing therein (for The Spirit blows where it lists John 3:8), mingled Himself with the fleshly nature of
man, and annexed by force and might that foreign domain. And, lest through weakness of the human
structure failure should ensue, the power of the Most High overshadowed the Virgin, strengthening her
feebleness in semblance of a cloud cast round her, that the shadow, which was the might of God, might
fortify her bodily frame to receive the procreative power of the Spirit.” (On the Trinity, Bk. 2 Ch. 26)

My soul breaketh for the longing that it hath unto thy judgments,” applies it unto the future judgment
and among other observations has this passage, “Seeing we must render an account for every idle word
do we desire the day of judgment in which that unwearied fire is to be passed through in which those
grievous punishments are to be undergone for the expiating of a soul from sin [1 Cor 3:12], a sword shall
pass through the soul of the blessed Virgin Mary that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed
[Luke 2:35]. If that Virgin who bore God is to come into the severity of the judgment will any one dare
desire to be judged by God?-”( Homily on Psalm 119).

Pope Gelasius I

"Therefore, being without sin is the exclusive attribute of the Immaculate Lamb. It would not be the only
thing right for Him to believe that any other saint was free from sin.”- Letter 97: Against Pelagian heresy,
Migne PL 59: 117-118

John Cassian

For the Holy Ghost sanctified the Virgin’s womb and breathed into it by the power of His Divinity, and
thus imparted and communicated Himself to human nature; and made His own what was before foreign
to Him, taking it to Himself by His own power and majesty. And lest the weakness of human nature
should not be able to bear the entrance of Divinity the power of the Most High strengthened the ever to
be honored Virgin, so that it supported her bodily weakness by embracing it with overshadowing
protection, and human weakness was not insufficient for the consummation of the ineffable mystery of
the holy conception, since it was supported by the Divine overshadowing. Therefore, he says, the Holy
Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you. (John Cassian, On
the Incarnation, Book II, Chap 2).

Fulgentius of Ruspe

"This is the grace by which it came about that God (who came to take away sins because there is no sin
in him) was conceived from sinful flesh and born as man in the likeness of sinful flesh. To be sure, the
flesh of Mary had been conceived in iniquity in accordance with human practice, and so her flesh (that
gave birth to the Son of God in the likeness of sinful flesh) was indeed sinful. [...] When it is said that
truly the likeness of sinful flesh is in the Son of God, or rather that the Son of God is in the likeness of
sinful flesh, one must believe that the Only-begotten God did not take the defilement of sin from the
mortal flesh of the Virgin, but that he received the full reality of its nature so that the Source of truth
might arise from the earth, the Source whom the blessed David announces in a prophetic word, saying:
“Truth has sprung out of the earth.” Truly, therefore, Mary conceived God the Word, which she bore in
sinful flesh, which God received."- ("First Letter to Scythian Monks” Letter 17.13 ))

Fulgentius Ferrandus

“The flesh of Christ is taken from a mother; therefore, it is all the more genuine; but it is altogether holy
because purified by union with the divinity. The nature of our flesh is found in that of Christ, but our
nature's guilt is not. Thus the flesh of Christ is in one way like Mary's flesh, and in another way unlike it:
like it, inasmuch as it took its origin from it; unlike it, because it was not infected by its sinful origin; like
it in experiencing truly, albeit voluntarily, the infirmities of flesh; unlike it, because committing no sins,
whether voluntarily or through ignorance; like it in being passible and mortal, unlike it in being
incorruptible and a source of life for the dead; like it in kind, unlike it in merit; like it as to species, unlike
it as to power; like it because the likeness of sinful flesh, as the Apostle says: “God sent His Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh." (Rom. 8:3) Thus we are taught that Mary was, in the natural order and according
to the laws of human birth, the cause of the new existence of Christ’s flesh; but the need of marital
intercourse was eliminated, so that His flesh might not be sinful flesh, because it was to be the flesh of
God; but that it might be the “likeness of sinful flesh,” because truly born of mortal flesh; and that it
might rightly be mortal because taking its matter from mortal flesh.”- Fulgentius Ferrandus (Ef. III, 4 (PL
67, col. 892A-C).

Pope Gregory I

"Though we become holy, we are not born holy, for we are the very contaminated state of nature, and
to the Prophet we can say, 'Behold, I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin my mother bore me' (Ps
51/50,7) . He was the only one born truly holy, because in order to overcome the contaminated nature,
he was not conceived through carnal abuse."- (Moralia in Job, lib 18, cap 52, n. 84; PL 76:89 )

“In reference too to this cooling of the soul, which is given from heaven, it is said to Mary, The power of
the Highest shall overshadow thee [Luke 1, 35]; though on this point, by the term of’ the
overshadowing,’ either Nature of God to be made Incarnate might have been denoted. For a shadow is
followed by light and body. Now the Lord is Light in respect of the Divine Nature, Who, by means of a
soul intervening, vouchsafed in her womb in respect of human nature to become a body. And so
because the Incorporeal Light was in her womb to be made corporeal, to her, who conceived the
incorporeal for corporality, it is said, The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; i.e. The
Incorporeal Light of the Divine Nature shall in thee take the corporeal substance of Human Nature. But
now let us carry to an end what we began relating to any wicked man. Accordingly,’ the scorching wind
takes him away,’ in this way, viz. that him whom the evil spirit now kindles with the fire of evil
concupiscence, he afterwards carries off to the flames of hell. It goes on; And as a whirlwind shall carry
him out of his place.”- Moralia on Job, Book 18 Par 33

Pope John IV

"It is above all blasphemy to claim that man is without sin, because it is the only mediator between God
and man, a true man has been conceived and born without sin." It is known that all other people, born
with the original sin, bear witness of Adam's confession, even if they do not sin, as the prophet says:
'Behold, in uncleanness I was conceived, and in sin my mother bore me' (Ps 50,7)” - Deeds of the Church
of the English 2.19

John of Damascus:

So then, after the assent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit descended on her, according to the word of
the Lord which the angel spoke, purifying her, and granting her power to receive the divinity of the
Word, and likewise power to bring forth. And then was she overshadowed by the enhypostatic Wisdom
and Power of the most high God, the Son of God Who is or like essence with the Father as of Divine
seed, and from her holy and most pure blood He formed flesh animated with the spirit of reason and
thought, the first-fruits of our compound nature not by procreation but by creation through the Holy
Spirit: not developing the fashion of the body by gradual additions but perfecting it at once, He Himself,
the very Word of God, standing to the flesh in the relation of subsistence. (Book III, Chap 2 of the
Exposition of the Orthodox Faith)

The Venerable Bede:

"Descending upon the Virgin, the Holy Spirit manifested in her the efficacy of His divine power in two
ways: He cleansed her mind from all stains of sins to the extent that human weakness allows, so that she
could be worthy of heavenly birth, and by His singular act, He created in her womb the holy and
venerable body of our Redeemer. [...] When the Holy Spirit filled her heart and tempered it from all the
heat of carnal desire, He cleansed it from earthly desires and simultaneously sanctified her mind and
body with heavenly gifts."- (In festo annunt; PL 94:13)

Synod in Friuli (OK 791/796) that only Jesus was without sin:

"For there was only one Man born without sin, as He alone is the new Man incarnated through the Holy
Spirit and the immaculate [by man] Virgin."- "Symbol of Faith" 13, Migne PL 99: 294

The mother of Jesus was defined by the synod as “immaculate” to emphasize that Christ was born of a
virgin without a man.

Rupert of Deutz

“O blessed virgin, when this word of the angel came to pass: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and
the power of the Most High will overshadow you," by these two clauses, the two gifts of the same Holy
Spirit were already signified. What else could you say, except "your breasts are better than wine,
fragrant with the finest ointments"? You had not experienced the vice of this age, the wine of carnal
pleasure, without the intoxication of which no woman other than you could ever conceive or will be able
to conceive, yet you knew and judged how much better, stronger, sweeter, and more intense was the
pleasure or love of God in whom you conceived, undoubtedly inebriated by the torrent of that pleasure
(Psalm XXXV). And indeed, you could truly say: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my
mother conceive me (Psalm LI)." For when you were from the corrupted mass in Adam, you were not
without the inherited stain of original sin: but before the face of this love, neither that nor any other sin
could stand; before the face of this fire, all straw perished, so that the entire dwelling might become
holy, in which God might dwell for nine whole months, indeed wholly pure material, from which the
holy wisdom of God might build an eternal house for Himself (Proverbs IX)."-(In Cantica Canticorum, 1;
PL 168, 841.)

Philip of Harveng

“However, the Virgin, like others, was naturally a daughter of wrath, from whose spots her association
could not entirely deliver her, in which, although the power to expel damnable faults was present to her,
yet she is still burdened with bondage and is captive by the laws of nature. Since she was conceived
naturally in sins, her behavior is tainted with faults or trifles; by the merit of infection, she is despised in
the eyes of the purer God.”- (In Cantica Canticorum Bk. 6 Ch. 13)

Bernard of Clairvaux

“I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the condition of important
matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by
ancient tradition. Are we really more learned and more pious than our fathers? You will say, ‘One must
glorify the Mother of God as much as Possible.’ This is true; but the glorification given to the Queen of
Heaven demands discernment. This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications, possessing as
She does true crowns of glory and signs of dignity. Glorify the purity of Her flesh and the sanctity of Her
life. Marvel at the abundance of the gifts of this Virgin; venerate Her Divine Son; exalt Her Who
conceived without knowing concupiscence and gave birth without knowing pain. But what does one yet
need to add to these dignities? People say that one must revere the conception which preceded the
glorious birth-giving; for if the conception had not preceded, the birth-giving also would not have been
glorious. But what would one say if anyone for the same reason should demand the same kind of
veneration of the father and mother of Holy Mary? One might equally demand the same for Her
grandparents and great-grandparents, to infinity. Moreover, how can there not be sin in the place
where there was concupiscence? All the more, let one not say that the Holy Virgin was conceived of the
Holy Spirit and not of man. I say decisively that the Holy Spirit descended upon Her, but not that He
came with Her…I say that the Virgin Mary could not be sanctified before Her conception, inasmuch as
She did not exist. if, all the more, She could not be sanctified in the moment of Her conception by reason
of the sin which is inseparable from conception, then it remains to believe that She was sanctified after
She was conceived in the womb of Her mother. This sanctification, if it annihilates sin, makes holy Her
birth, but not Her conception. No one is given the right to be conceived in sanctity; only the Lord Christ
was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and He alone is holy from His very conception. Excluding Him, it is to all
the descendants of Adam that must be referred that which one of them says of himself, both out of a
feeling of humility and in acknowledgement of the truth: Behold I was conceived in iniquities (Ps. 50:7).
How can one demand that this conception be holy, when it was not the work of the Holy Spirit, not to
mention that it came from concupiscence? The Holy Virgin, of course, rejects that glory which, evidently,
glorifies sin. She cannot in any way justify a novelty invented in spite of the teaching of the Church, a
novelty which is the mother of imprudence, the sister of unbelief, and the daughter of
lightmindedness”- (Letter XLV. To the Canons of Lyons, on the Conception of St. Mary.)

Albert the Great

"We say that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before animation: and saying otherwise is a heresy
condemned by Blessed Bernard in his letter to [the canons of] Lyons, and by all the masters of Paris."-
Commentarii in III Sententiarum, vol. xxiii, B. Alberti Magni, Opera Omnia (Paris: Ludovicum Vives, 1894)
47
Jean Beleth

“Let us note here that there are five authentic and verified feasts of the Virgin Mary…….For some have
sometimes celebrated the feast of the Conception, and perhaps still celebrate it, but it is not authentic
and approved: indeed, it seems rather to be forbidden. For she was conceived in sin.”- Summa de
Ecclesiasticis Officiis Ch. 146

In 1532, Martin Luther preached:

“Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified, and
purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy
Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we.
However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not
poisoned by sin as we are…For in that moment when she conceived (Christ), she was a holy mother filled
with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person” [Martin
Luther, Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 3, ed. John Nicholas Lenker. ( Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996),
291].

"I make a distinction with regard to the major premise. Every man is corrupted by original sin, with the
exception of Christ. Every man who is not a divine Person, as is Christ, has concupiscence, but the man
Christ has none, because he is a divine Person, and in conception the flesh and blood of Mary were
entirely purged, so that nothing of sin remained. Therefore, Isaiah says rightly, "There was no guile
found in his mouth"; otherwise, every seed except for Mary's was corrupted." Martin Luther Disputation
On the Divinity and Humanity of Christ

A close reading of this quote denies any notion that Mary was purified from sin at her conception like
the Immaculate Conception. Rather, the focus is on Christ’s conception. Here is Luther’s reasoning:

1. The Holy Spirit was present at Christ’s conception to ensure his sinlessness.

2. During Christ’s conception, the Holy Spirit sanctified Mary so that the child would be born with non-
sinful flesh and blood

Since Mary, like all men except Jesus, was born in sin, it became necessary to develop a theory of her
purification that would prepare her womb to receive the Immaculate Lamb. The theme of Mary's
purification during the early period in Church history appears in many authors. While earlier authors
such as Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephrem the Syrian, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Zeno of Verona had no
problem stating that Mary was cleansed during the Incarnation or some time before the mystery of the
Incarnation, later authors began to explain that Mary was actually clean from the beginning and what
has been done in her was not purification, but an increase of her holiness.

Moreover, Augustine talked not so much about Mary's purification as the purification of whatever Jesus
took for His mother. Pope Leo stated that Mary was cleansed during the Incarnation. Bede the
Venerable similarly spoke about her purification.
Since Mary, like all men except Jesus, was born in sin, it became necessary to develop a theory of her
purification that would prepare her womb to receive the Immaculate Lamb. The theme of Mary's
purification during the early period in Church history appears in many authors. While earlier authors
such as Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephrem the Syrian, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Zeno of Verona had no
problem stating that Mary was cleansed during the Incarnation or some time before the mystery of the
Incarnation. While some authors such as Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, and John Chrysostom believed that
Mary sinned after the Incarnation such as doubting her Son while He was on the cross, or when she
sought to glory for herself at the wedding at Cana for His miracle. However, later authors began to
explain that Mary was actually clean from the beginning and what has been done in her was not
purification, but an increase of her holiness.

Moreover, Augustine talked not so much about Mary's purification as the purification of whatever Jesus
took for His mother. Pope Leo stated that Mary was cleansed during the Incarnation. Bede the
Venerable similarly spoke about her purification.

If any think [I] am mistaken, moreover, let them search through the scriptures any neither find Mary's
death, nor whether or not she died, nor whether or not she was buried—even though John surely
travelled 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.
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....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'—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.- Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide)
78. Against Antidicomarians, 78. 23 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 619.
"For to speak more briefly, Mary who was of Adam died for sin, Adam died for sin, and the Flesh of the
Lord which was of Mary died to put away sin."- Augustine, Expositions on the Book of Psalms, XXXV, 14,
in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, VIII, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Win. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co,
1983), 83;

"He commends His mother to the care of the disciple; commends His mother, as about to die before her,
and to rise again before her death."- Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John, VIII, 9, in
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, VII, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Puhl. Co. 1983),
61

"Some assert that Mary passed from this life through the passion of cruel death, for the reason that
righteous Simeon, embracing Christ in his arms, prophesied, saying to the mother: "And your own soul a
sword will pierce." However, it is uncertain whether he spoke of a material sword or of the word of God,
powerful and sharper than every two-edged sword. Nevertheless, no history specifically teaches that
Mary was slain by the stroke of a sword, as her death is nowhere mentioned. While her tomb is said to
be found, as some say, in the Valley of Josaphat.”- Isidore of Seville, De ortu et obitu Patrum, Ch. 67

“About the glorious Mary, that no history teaches that she suffered any passion or death, you will find at
the end of this work. Isidore says about the glorious Virgin Mary that no history teaches that she
suffered any passion or death……..Some assert that she passed away from this life, bound by bodily
connections, because the just Simeon, embracing Christ in his arms, prophesied to the mother, saying:
'And a sword will pierce through your own soul also.' It is uncertain whether he said this for a material
sword or for the word of God, powerful and sharp, against every double-edged sword. However, no
history specifically teaches that Mary suffered the cutting of the sword through her soul because her
death is not recorded anywhere, although her tomb is found.”- Ascaricus, Epistola ad Tusaredum

“A sedulous frequenter of holy places, the holy Arculf used to visit the church of the holy Mary in the
valley of Josaphat. It is two-storied, and the lower story, which has a stone ceiling, is built with
wondrous roundness. In the eastern portion of [the lower church] is an altar, and at the righthand side
of the altar is the empty stone sepulcher of holy Mary, where she was once laid to rest. But how and
when or by what persons her holy remains were removed from this sepulcher and where she awaits the
resurrection no one, it is said, can know for certain.”- St. Adamnan of lona, De locis sanctis, Book 1, Ch.
12

"Near Jerusalem and the wall of the Temple is Gehennon, which is the Valley of Jehoshaphat…..In the
same valley, there is a round Church of St. Mary, divided by stone slabs; in the upper part there are four
altars; in the eastern part there is a second, and on its right side is an empty tomb, in which Mary is said
to have rested for some time. However, no one knows by whom and when it was taken."- Bede the
Venerable, Liber de Locis Sanctis, Book 1, Ch. 5
“The entire Church celebrates her Dormition on the 18th day before the Kalends of September. Her
sacred body, like the blessed Moses's body mentioned in Holy Scripture, is not found on the earth. Yet,
the pious Mother Church, firmly founded in its observances with unwavering faith, commemorates her
venerable memory with such a festive spirit that it does not hesitate to believe that she has passed away
in accordance with the nature of the flesh. However, regarding the hidden location of this venerable
temple of the Holy Spirit, that is, the flesh of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the sobriety of the Church,
combined with piety, prefers not to know more than necessary, rather than holding on to something
frivolous and apocryphal. For the testimonies of the evangelists suffice for her to commend the holiness
and life of the Virgin and Mother of the Lord, and she (the Church) considers it unnecessary to inquire
further about her."- Ado of Vienne, Libellus de festivitatibus sanctorum apostolorum

"The Falling Asleep of Mary, the Holy Mother of God. Though her most sacred body is not to be found
on earth, Holy Mother Church still celebrates her venerable memory with no doubt that she had left this
life. But as to where the venerable temple of the Holy Ghost has been hidden by divine Providence, the
sobriety of the Church prefers pious ignorance to any frivolous or apocryphal doctrine. “- Martyrology of
Usuard

However, because your prayer demands it, I, being absent, have taken the opportunity to write to you
about the Assumption of the same Blessed Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary. May your holy
community have the gift of a Latin sermon on the day of such great solemnity, where, with God's favor,
the tender infancy may experience the sweetness of milk and think of extraordinary things from small
ones. May this whole day be spent in praise each year with joy, lest, perhaps, if the apocryphal work,
"On the Passing of the Virgin," comes into your hands, you accept uncertainties as certainties. Many
Latins out of love for piety, embrace it more dearly for reading. Especially since nothing else can
certainly be learned from it except that on this glorious day, she left her body. Moreover, a tomb is
shown to us until the present day in the middle of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, which is situated between
Mount Zion and the Mount of Olives. You, O Paula, also beheld it with your eyes, where a church was
built in her honor floored with that wondrous stone: in which, as you know, it is said by everyone that
she was buried, but now the tomb is shown to be empty. I say this because many of our people doubt
whether she was assumed together with her body or whether she departed, leaving her body behind. It
is not known, however, how, or at what time, or by whom her most holy body was carried away from
there or whether she was resurrected. Although some people want to affirm that she has already been
resurrected and is clothed in blessed immortality with Christ in the heavens. The same is asserted about
the blessed John the Evangelist, her minister, to whom the Virgin was entrusted by Christ, because in his
tomb (as it is said) only manna is found, which is also seen to flow. We do not know which of these can
be taken as true. Nevertheless, we commit the whole matter to God, to whom nothing is impossible,
rather than rashly define something by our authority that we do not know of: just as about those whom
we believe have risen with the Lord according to the testimony of the Gospel. But whether they have
returned to the dust of the earth, we do not have certain knowledge, except what we read: "For many
bodies of saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection,
they went into the holy city, Jerusalem, and appeared to many" (Matthew 27:52-53). ……….Which, since
nothing is impossible to God, we do not deny what happened to the Blessed Virgin Mary, though for
caution, with faith preserved, it is more fitting to hold an opinion with a pious desire than to define
unadvisedly what is not known without danger.- Paschasius Radbertus, Epistle of Pseudo-Jerome to
Paula and Eustochium,'

"It is said that the Virgin Mary was taken to heaven on this day. But in what order she moved from here
to the heavenly realms, no Catholic history recounts. The Church of God not only recommends rejecting
Apocrypha [about Mary's assumption] but also ignoring them altogether. And indeed, certain
documents deal with her assumption, but they are anonymous, which, as I said, makes them so cautious
that it is difficult to quote them to confirm the truth of the matter. Some are troubled because her body
was not found on earth, and about her assumption in the body, as we read in an apocryphal document,
we find nothing in any Catholic history. They must be told that if Moses's body, with whom God spoke
face to face, is not found on earth, it is foolishness to seek the body of her through whom God
accomplished the majesty of earthly incarnation. […] There is also no Latin author among the Latins who
openly spoke of her departure. [...] And what more should we say about what we are considering here,
since even John the Evangelist, who accepted her under the Lord's cross, did not leave anything in
writing about it for posterity? No one could tell it more faithfully if God wanted it to be revealed than
the one who received her to take care of her, and against the custom did not leave his mother.
Therefore, it remains to be said that man should not falsely and openly manufacture what God wanted
to keep hidden. At the same time, the truth of her assumption was shown in this way, according to the
Apostle, 'whether in the body or out of the body' (2 Cor 12:2) we do not know, we believe that she was
taken up above the angels."- Ambrose Autpert "Sermon for the Feast of the Assumption of Mary" 2-3

“The Lord, through his piety, committed the blessed maiden his mother to the chaste man John, who
had ever lived in pure virginity; and on that account he was especially dear to the Lord, so much so that
he would commit to him that precious treasure, the queen of the whole world: no doubt, that her most
pure virginity might be associated with that chaste man with grateful fellowship in pleasant converse. In
them both was one virtue of unbroken chastity, but a second attribute in Mary; in her is fruitful virginity,
so as in no other. In no other person is their virginity, if there be fruitfulness; nor fruitfulness, if there be
perfect virginity. Therefore, now are hallowed both the virginity of Mary and her fruitfulness through
the divine birth; and she excels all others in virginity and in fruitfulness. Nevertheless, though she was
especially committed to the care of John, yet she lived in common, after Christ's ascension, with the
apostolic company, going in and going out among them, and they all with great piety and love
ministered to her, and she fully informed them of all things touching Christ's humanity; for she had from
the beginning accurately learned them through the Holy Ghost, and seen them with her own sight;
though the apostles understood all things through the same Ghost, and were instructed in all truth. The
archangel Gabriel held her uncorrupted, and she continued in the care of John and of all the apostles, in
the heavenly company, meditating on God's law, until God, on this day, took her to the heavenly throne,
and exalted her above the hosts of angels. There is not read in any book any more manifest information
of her end, but that she on this day gloriously departed from the body. Her sepulchre is visible to all
beholders to this present day, in the midst of the valley of Jehosaphat. The valley is between Mount Sion
and the mount of Olives, and the sepulchre appears open and empty, and thereupon is raised, in her
honour, a large church, with wondrous stonework. To no mortal man is it known how, or at what time
her holy body was brought from thence, or whether it be borne, or whether she arose from death:
though some doctors say, that her Son, who on the third day mightily from death arose, that he also
raised his mother's body from death, and placed it with immortal glory in the kingdom of heaven. In like
manner very many doctors have set in their books concerning the requickened men who arose from
death with Christ, that they are raised forever. They profess verily that those raised men would not have
been true witnesses of Christ's resurrection, unless they had been raised forever. Nor do we deny the
eternal resurrection of the blessed Mary, though for caution, preserving our belief, it befits us that we
rather hope it, than rashly assert what is unknown without any danger.”- Aelfric of Eynsham “On the
Assumption of Blessed Mary”

"Today, Christ has elevated His Mother to glory so that she would no longer endure our misery, recalling
the law that says: “He who forsakes his parents in distress shall be deprived of burial.” Thus, He did not
forsake His Mother on earth but raised her to heaven and established His dwelling around her. Indeed, it
is true that we are unsure whether she was taken up with her body, although this point is the subject of
a pious belief. What we must admit is that the feast aims to honor Mary in the manner of those who
bring gifts and do not show them until they arrive before those to whom they must offer them. And one
can appropriately apply to this Assumption the passage from Ezekiel about the cherubim who stand
continually in the presence of God. Having received a mission concerning her, they spread their wings,
covering her head with two of their wings, as Isaiah expresses it, and her feet with two others, meaning
her conception and her assumption, both of which remain hidden from us."- Peter of Celle, “First
Sermon for the Assumption of the Virgin Mary”

"Concerning today's solemnity, that is, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, it is difficult to find
what can be specifically said. Confined within the limits established by the Fathers, which we are
forbidden to exceed, we dare to define nothing else except that today, Mary has been taken up
(whether with her body or without her body, I do not know; God knows), not for a time, nor only to the
third heaven, if there are several heavens, but to a perpetual and blissful abode, assumed to the highest
heavens. Indeed, assumed by Him who took flesh from her on earth, to whom alone He subordinated
her in heaven. For after Him, the fruit of her womb, we believe she has been so ordered and placed in
heaven, or if she has not yet risen, to be placed, that immediately after her beloved soul, her soul itself
may be disposed for wisdom; and after her body, her body also for glory."- Isaac of Stella, “51st Sermon
for Assumption of the Virgin Mary”

"So, Christ rose and after the resurrection ascended into heaven. But whether the Virgin Mother will rise
again, and when she will rise or ascend, is uncertain. Therefore, Christ warns the daughters of
Jerusalem, that is, the Churches, not to define anything about the resurrection of the glorious Virgin or
its timing. This is not distinct from what the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles have done. And this is
what follows: 'I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or the hinds of the field, that you do
not awaken or arouse the beloved until she pleases.' O daughters of Jerusalem, that is, the Churches, I
adjure you by the gazelles or the hinds of the field, imitating in this the ancient and modern doctors, not
to awaken or arouse the beloved. That is, do not firmly assert, as if from authoritative sources, that the
Virgin has been raised or awakened from the sleep of death until she pleases. It is as if to say: This is
reserved for the will of the Virgin, which is in harmony with the divine will, so that she may choose to be
known as having been raised. Therefore, when she wishes this to be revealed or not revealed, in her
assumption, the Spirit, speaking on behalf of the citizens of the heavenly realm, says: “Who is this that
ascends through the desert...?”- Alain de Lille, Elueidatio in Cantica canticorum, Ch. 1

“But afterward (meaning after Pentecost), with John continuing in his service, her calling not delayed for
long, she departed to the Son, and met by angels and escorted by them, that illustrious soul was taken
up to heaven. Whether in a body or without a body, no authoritative scriptural statement has defined,
but in whatever manner it may be, there is no doubt that she is with Christ.”- Arnold of Bonneval, From
the Praises of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Ch. 189

Unto the Mother of this Jesus Christ, Son of God, death came that she might taste his cup. The Lord
commanded the exalted hosts above in the flaming legions, the seraphim of light. Choirs of watchers
descended in their raiment; with a loud voice they sang their psalms. All the righteous of every
generation came & gathered, behold also the righteous & the patriarchs from of old! The sound of that
choir of prophets sings praise, this one to that one, as seers of truth. The priests of old & all the
company of the sons of Levi, with their sacrifices & their oblations & their offerings. That company of the
twelve chosen apostles stands & prepares the virginal body of the blessed one for burial. John, as a
steward of truth true near & enshrouded the glorious body of the blessed one. Two illustrious apostles,
chosen of the Testaments, were entrusted with that treasure of truth. The righteous Nicodemus
prepared the body of her Son for burial, & the body of this Virgin, that chosen son of thunder. The
pastors & their flocks came to the top of the mountain, reverend priests & ministers with their thuribles.
The winds struck the great dome of the heavens in gusts; the heights & the depths chanted praise with
their harps. A light shone forth on that place where men & watchers were waiting to prepare the most
fair one for burial. As the Lord had descended & prepared his servant Moses for burial, so together with
them He buried the Mother, according to the flesh. On a mountaintop within luminous clouds, Moses,
the prophet, was buried by God. And even Mary herself, on that mountain in Galilee, was buried by the
watchers & also by the angels, together with God. John, the youthful virgin, true near & embraced the
pure mother who had been committed to him by our Savior. He was a mediator between God & men
while the watchers descended with great ineffable solemnity. In a cave of stone, & the new sepulchre of
Nicodemus, they introduced & placed the Son of this blessed one. And again this pure mother of the Son
of God, they introduced & placed her in a cave, in a sepulchre from a cave of stone. All that company of
the apostles gathered together & stood by, while in truth, their Master (together) with them laid her in
the grave. Ranks & companies, also choirs of the sons of light; a clamor of watchers & a multitude of
burning flames. Fiery seraphim with wings closely covered by flames, with legions & their heavenly
divisions. Mighty cherubim who were yoked beneath his throne are moved by wonder to give praise
with their Hosannas. Followers of Gabriel, a glowing fiery multitude, & variously transformed in their
natures. Followers of Michael full of movement in their dissent, feasting, rejoicing, making merry this
day with their Alleluias. Heaven & the air of glory were filled with celestials who journeyed & came
down to the place of earth. A sweet & pure fragrance blew from the thuribles of the exalted multitude
when they met to descend to earth. The demons fled in the host of darkness; also, all the souls that
were afflicted were again assuaged………In heaven, the watchers; & the depths, man; in the air, glory:
when the Virgin Mary was buried as one deceased. A light shone on that company of disciples, also on
her neighbors & her relations & her kindred. The heavenly company performed their “Holy, Holy, Holy,”
unto the glorious soul of this Mother of the Son of God. Fiery seraphim surrounded the soul of the
departed & raised the loud sound of their joyful shouts. They shouted & said: “Lift up, O gates, all your
heads, because the Mother of the King seeks to enter the bridal chamber of light.” Heaven was full of
the sweet music of the angels, but the depths were troubled, together with the disciples who were filled
with grief. The Church on high & that below cried out with one hand, for neither those above nor those
below could suffice to tell of her. - Jacob of Serugh “Homily Concerning the Burial, That Is To Say, The
Death Of The Holy Virgin Mother Of God, Mary, & How She Was Buried By The Apostles” Jacob of Serug:
On the Mother of God (Popular Patristics Series #19), Mary Hansbury, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
1998, pp. 89-100.

The earliest of these atypical narratives is probably a homily on the Dormition by Jacob of Serug, which
identifies itself as a work delivered before a church council in Nisibis in 489. Martin Jugie challenged the
homily’s authenticity, arguing from the relative youth of its manuscript tradition, but it seems more
likely that Jugie in fact objected more to its explicit indication of the Virgin’s death and burial, since he is
often quite generous with other, more problematic texts that appear to support his own immortalist
view. In the years since Jugie’s early work, however, a rather strong consensus has emerged that the
homily is in fact authentic, a point demonstrated particularly by its remarkable topographic dissimilarity
with the rest of the Dormition traditions. In all likelihood then Jacob composed this homily in the late
fifth century, as the homily’s prologue indicates, and certainly before his death in 521. The homily
describes the events of the Virgin’s death, burial, and entry into heaven in a unique and highly poetic
account, but there is no question of Mary’s bodily Assumption in its narrative. Despite the wishful
thinking of some modern interpreters, there is no indication of her bodily presence in heaven, and only
the translation of her soul is described: “The heavenly assemblies with their cries of ‘Holy’ led the
glorious soul of the mother of the Son of God. The fiery Seraphim were surrounding the soul that was
translated.”- Shoemaker, Stephen J.. Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and
Assumption. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2002. Pg. 63-64

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).

Academic quotes on medieval agnosticism and ignorance about the fate of the Virgin Mary’s body

Was her pure and holy body really left to decompose on earth? The question appears to have concerned
the monks at Malmesbury. But in seeking to address their concerns, William was confronted by a lack of
authoritative sources: A further inference may be made as to the loftiness of this virgin: a matter not of
affirmation but of argumentation. I speak without prejudice either to the caution of the ancients, who
made no definite statement about her Assumption or ascension, or to any more probable opinion that
may have occurred to moderns. For some—and I am of their company—are not a little worried as to why
our writers have either deliberately passed the matter over or hesitatingly kept silence, failing to assert
roundly that the Lady, the Mother of the Lord, has already risen, and ascended to heaven with her virgin
body. As this passage makes clear, there was still considerable confusion surrounding the question of
Mary’s Assumption, despite the long history of the problem, to which William points by mentioning the
“cautious statements of the ancients.” These may have included a number of Carolingian scholars, who
expressed considerable doubt with respect to the Assumption Apocrypha. The most important of these,
Paschasius Radbertus (785–865), had urged caution with respect to the Apocrypha in a letter of advice to
the nuns under his care on the texts to use for the Assumption liturgy and advised the Song of Songs
instead. Fulton has pointed out that Paschasius recommended the text on the basis that it could be read
as a narrative of Mary’s relationship with Christ, and ultimately her own life and death. The letter in
which Paschasius laid out his ideas, referred to as the Cogitis me, became incorporated into the
Assumption liturgy as office readings throughout Western Europe. Despite Paschasius’s convictions
about the reliability of the Song of Songs in relation to Mary’s life and death, the text’s ambiguous
phrase “Who is she who rises up from the desert?” found repeatedly throughout the liturgy for the feast
day did not resolve the confusion about the precise nature of Mary’s ascension. Paschasius’s
contemporaries, such as Ambrose Autpertus (d. 784) and later Usuardus (d. ca. 875), noted the troubling
absence of Mary’s relics on earth, though without coming to any conclusions. The same is true for
Adamnán, abbot of Iona, in his account of the holy sites of Byzantium and the Holy Land; he noted her
body’s absence from its tomb in Josaphat but refused to decide whether she had ascended bodily to
heaven. In eleventh-century England, the homilist Aelfric removed some of Paschasius’s doubts and
digressions from the Cogitis me, when reworking it into a sermon for the Assumption, but gave no more
credence to the apocryphal materials on Mary’s death than he did to those about her birth.……Echoing
this text, the entry for the Assumption in the martyrology of Usuardus, which exists in an early twelfth-
century copy from St. Augustine’s Canterbury, makes clear that the offertory prayer refers only to her
physical death: “Even if [Mary’s] most holy body is not found on earth, still the holy mother church, in no
doubt that [Mary] died in accordance with the condition of flesh, celebrates [Mary’s] blessed memory on
this feast day. As to where that most venerable temple of the Holy Spirit has been hidden away by divine
decree and will, is a matter on which the sober devotion of the church has preferred to know nothing
rather than to profess some frivolous and apocryphal tenet.” This text, which would likely have been
read out in the chapterhouse or at mealtimes, thus explicitly cautions against believing that Mary rose
bodily. Although the feast would appear to celebrate a bodily Assumption, and the absence of Mary’s
body on earth would seem to indicate that it rose, the martyrology issued a sharp warning about trusting
this unconfirmed conclusion.- Ihnat, Kati. Mother of Mercy, Bane of the Jews: Devotion to the Virgin
Mary in Anglo-Norman England. United States: Princeton University Press, 2016. Pg. 76-78

Besides a pseudepigraphic homily of uncertain date but included in the homiliary of Alanus, abbot of
Farfa (mid-eighth century), the earliest original homilies on the Assumption of the Virgin are those
written by Ambrose Autpert (before 784), and Paul the Deacon (after 787). Their homilies offer the first
Western written attestation of the belief in her bodily Assumption after the one left by Gregory of Tours.
The Merovingian Bishop Arculf, who visited the Holy Land in c.670–80, had been more skeptical: in
referring to the empty rock tomb in the Valley of Jehoshaphat in which “for a time Mary remained
entombed”, he adds that “how or when, or by whom, her holy body was carried from this tomb, or
where it awaits resurrection, no one can be sure.”…….. Both Autpert and Paul held the same pious
respect for the feast of the Assumption. At the start of their homilies, they encourage their congregation
to celebrate “the day in which the Virgin Mary migrated from this world”, or her “birthday into heaven”,
and hold it in greatest respect above the commemoration of other saints because Mary is above all other
saints having borne the ‘creator of life’ and the ‘prince of martyrs’.81 Autpert urges his audience not to
look for her body on earth because she has been ‘taken up [to heaven] above the angels’, where she
reigns with Christ.82 This statement makes the question of her bodily Assumption appear ‘almost
redundant’, as noted by Mary Clayton, who concludes that ‘the extravagance of his [Autpert’s] tribute [to
Mary] is new in the West and must derive in some way from the Greeks’.83 As a matter of fact, similarly
to Greek homilists,84 Autpert accepts the mystery of Mary’s transition to the afterlife and openly claims
to believe that she was taken to heaven, in a place above the angels, although admitting that he does
not know if ‘with her body or without it’, quoting the Apostle Paul (2 Corinthians 12, 2–3)…….Despite the
fact that the feast of the Assumption was institutionalized in the Carolingian Empire in 826, the lack of a
scriptural basis and doctrinal definition of Mary’s migration to heaven still caused anxiety among the
Franks. They were obsessed with the concept of correctness, not only in the exercise of power,
administration, and legislation but also in liturgy and theology, as they believed that correct prayer and
worship were the foundations for the well-being of the sovereign and his people. In order to provide an
authoritative source for Mary’s Assumption, Paschasius Radbertus (d. 865), a learned monk and then
abbot of the important monasteries of Corbie and St Riquier, forged a long letter on the theme, known
as the Cogitis me, in the name of the eminent Church Father Jerome…….The letter–treatise intended to
offer reflections on the Assumption in the Latin language,223 while warning that the corporeal migration
of Mary had been transmitted only by unreliable sources.224 Henry Mayr-Harting argued that Paschasius
wrote the Cogitis me ‘under the shadow of the iconoclastic controversy and the continuing and intense
Carolingian discussion about the role of images in worship’, and thus he may have been driven to caution
about the corporeal Assumption of Mary whom he imagined only spiritually present above the angels.-
Dell'Acqua, Francesca. Iconophilia: Politics, Religion, Preaching, and the Use of Images in Rome, C.680 -
880. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis, 2020. Pg. 262-263, 295-296
“Insular writers of the late seventh and early eighth centuries made the next significant contribution to
Western Mariology. The earliest such discussion of Mary's fate after death is in Adamnan’s (ab. 704) De
locis sancts. In recounting Arculf’s visit to Josaphat he describes the church dedicated to Mary there: "In
the eastern part of which, an altar is situated, and to its right side, there is a rocky empty tomb of Mary,
in which she is said to have rested at some point. However, regarding the same tomb, how, when, or by
whom the sacred body was taken or in which place it awaits resurrection, no one, as it is reported, can
know for certain." In this passage, Adamnan implies that Mary had died and had been buried in
Josaphat, but he excludes the resurrection of her body. That he alludes to the fate of Mary's body as an
open question intimates that he knew of discussion on the topic, presumably from apocryphal sources.
Otherwise, his attitude, one of discrete agnosticism, is typical of the orthodox position, although the
implied certainty that Mary's body had not already been resurrected goes further than most statements
on the topic…..The implied doubts of Adamnan become rejection of one of the apocryphal assumption
narratives in Bede. In his Liber de locis sanctis he abridged Adamnan's account of the empty tomb: "to
its right, an empty tomb is located, in which Holy Mary is said to have rested at some point, but by
whom or when is not known." Bede, then, omits Adamnan's implied denial that the resurrection of Mary
could already have taken place but again insists that no one knows by whom or when her body was
removed from the tomb…….The opposition between the two currents of thought on the death of Mary,
already to be seen in the writings of Bede, is summed up by Barré for the Carolingians: ‘"The great fear
of some is to recklessly exaggerate the data of revelation, while that of others is not to recognize in Mary
all the glory due to her." The pronouncements of Adamnan and Bede exercised a profound influence
over the Carolingians and, although homilies for the feast of the Assumption were composed, none
treated the corporal assumption as an established belief, and many avoided the question altogether.
Pseudo-Augustine Sermon the work of Ambrosius Autpertus, abbot of Benevento (ob. 784), for example,
defends the feast as one which merits acceptance and goes on to discuss its object: “But in what order
she moved from here to the heavenly realms, no Catholic history recounts. The Church of God not only
recommends rejecting apocrypha, but also ignoring them altogether. And indeed, certain documents
deal with her assumption, but they are anonymous, which, as I said, makes them so cautious that it is
difficult to quote them to confirm the truth of the matter. Some are troubled because her body was not
found on earth, and about her assumption in the body, as we read in an apocryphal document, we find
nothing in any Catholic history.”……..This benevolent neutrality, as Scheffczyk terms it, "is similar to the
attitudes expressed in Cogitis me, an epistolary tract which is most probably to be attributed to
Paschasius Radbertus (c. 860), but which professes to be a letter of Jerome's.” Although Paschasius
Radbertus begins by warning against “That apocryphal account of the passing of the same Virgin" and
the dangers of "doubt instead of certainties" his description of Mary's passage into heaven does not
stress the purely spiritual aspect of the event, which is described in very physical terms. It is depicted in
detail, in terms mainly taken from the Song of Songs, deliberately, as Radbertus says, to fill the lack of
such accounts. Raising the subject of the corporal assumption, Radbertus compares the case of Mary to
that of John the Evangelist, of those resurrected with Christ, and of David but concludes: ”Nothing is
impossible for God and we do not deny that this has happened concerning the blessed Mary, although
for caution’s sake and in order to preserve our faith, it is more appropriate to imagine it with pious desire
than ill-advisedly to define that which is safely unknown.”- Clayton, Mary. The Cult of the Virgin Mary in
Anglo-Saxon England. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Pg. 14-22
The First Homily for the Assumption of Mary combines the explication of a theological tract with two
hagiographic exempla. Ælfric introduced the Homily by stating that he was about to comment on a
complex letter by Jerome (now ascribed to Paschasius Radbertus), and then related how Mary was called
to Heaven and was received by her Son. The verity of Mary’s Assumption had never been questioned,
not even in the midst of the heated Carolingian debates on the matter. What was at stake, particularly in
the decades following the Council of Mainz (813), was whether her ascent to Heaven had been corporal,
like that of the Apostle John, or solely spiritual. With its agnostic position, Paschasius’ work, circulating
under the name of Jerome, was welcomed as the decisive word on the impossibility of proving Mary’s
corporal assumption. The letter became immensely influential not only on dormition and homiletic
literature but also on the liturgy (especially the martyrologies). Both Ado and Usuardus followed it and
Abbo of Fleury made copious use of its doctrine in his florilegium of sermons. Therefore, once again,
Ælfric is following an established tradition and, despite his customary synthesizing efforts, he translated
almost verbatim Paschasius’ pivotal caveat, at the core of the whole debate: “We do not deny the
eternal resurrection of the Holy Mary, though, for caution in keeping our faith, it is fitting that we believe
in it, rather than we unwisely assert that which is unknown without any danger” for his listeners (‘This
letter is too diverse for us to tell and too complicated for you to hear’) and moved on to more edifying
matters, exemplifying Mary’s intercession with God on behalf of those who believe in her.”- Corona,
Gabriella, ed. “Ælfric’s First Homily for the Assumption of Mary.” In Aelfric’s Life of Saint Basil the Great:
Background and Context, 51–73. Anglo-Saxon Texts. Boydell & Brewer, 2006. Pg. 51-53