One video I’d like to respond to is from Gavin Ortlund from Truth Unites, titled, “Why Mary’s Assumption is Indefensible”, you can find the link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skuBFLns8WA
In around the 41:00-44:00 minute marks of the video, Gavin introduces ” The Relative Clause Argument” in the context of the passage from St. Epiphanius
Which is here:
“And if I should say anything more in her praise, [she is]
like Elijah, who was a virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so,
and was taken up and has not seen death. She is like John who leaned on
the Lord’s breast, “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”
I want to demonstrate why this argument is weak or problematic for several reasons.
Why The Relative Clause Argument is Implausible, If not Impossible:
Firstly, the argument hinges on a rigid interpretation of the relative clause, assuming that because it directly refers to Elijah, it cannot imply anything about Mary.
Second, The passage’s language is poetic and comparative, not meant to be parsed with strict grammatical rules like modern prose. Thus, insisting on a narrow grammatical interpretation may overlook the nuance and broader implication intended by the author.
In patristic writings, comparisons often imply shared characteristics, even if not all details are explicitly stated. Therefore, the audience might reasonably infer that if Elijah was assumed into heaven, the comparison suggests a similar fate for Mary, especially given her unique role in salvation history. The argument about the relative clause distracts from Epiphanius’s main point—that Mary, like Elijah, is honored for her role and character but not worshiped. The relative clause argument is a poor interpretation because it focuses too narrowly on grammatical structure while ignoring the passage’s broader context, theological implications, and rhetorical style. By doing so, it misrepresents the intended meaning and significance of the comparison Epiphanius is making between Mary and Elijah.
Only Elijah is Virgin and Assumed and Mary is Neither.
To take this view, there are things you MUST accept as being true. If the relative clause is to be applied one must believe St. Epiphanius meant only Elijah was a virgin and assumed and that only John rested on the breast of Jesus. This interpretation would mean that Mary could not have been a virgin and could not have shared that intimate moment with Jesus. There is no in-between. The argument forces an exclusive assignment of attributes, leaving no room for any shared or overlapping qualities, thereby precluding the possibility that Mary could possess any of these attributes.
It seems implausible for Epiphanius to say Mary was not a virgin because his entire religious framework is dependent on the doctrine of the Virgin Birth!
Again, this shows why the argument is weak, the passage’s language is poetic and comparative, and it’s not meant to be parsed with strict grammatical rules like modern prose.
Gavin says the church says if you don’t believe you are to be anathema, or sent to hell.
The Catholic Church has not issued an ex-cathedra statement explicitly declaring that those who do not believe in Marian dogmas are to be anathematized.
The term “anathema” has been largely replaced by other disciplinary measures, and the Church focuses more on dialogue and reconciliation. For instance, the First Vatican Council in 1870, which defined the doctrine of papal infallibility, did not use the term “anathema” for those rejecting Marian dogmas. The emphasis today is on encouraging understanding and adherence rather than issuing direct anathemas.
Again, The Catholic Church does not teach that disbelief in Marian dogmas results in automatic anathema.
Historically, “anathema” was used to indicate severe ecclesiastical censure, but modern Catholic teaching focuses on pastoral care and reconciliation. For example, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (defined by Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus, 1854) and the Assumption (defined by Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus, 1950) did not come with explicit anathemas against dissenters. The Church acknowledges that while acceptance of these dogmas is important for full communion, it does not equate disbelief with automatic excommunication or eternal damnation (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 846-848).
In summary, while “anathema” historically indicated severe exclusion from Church communion, it did not automatically mean eternal damnation. It was meant to be a corrective measure with the hope of eventual reconciliation.
The catholic church teaches that one must believe in the Marian dogmas in the same manner as they are truth.
If one were to search through history you’d find a plethora of evidence of this up to and past the reformation. While direct and explicit statements rejecting the Assumption of Mary are not prominent in early Christian writings, there is substantial evidence that suggests early Christians held beliefs about Mary’s “special end”.
These beliefs were reflected in liturgical practices, apocryphal texts, and the veneration of Mary, even though the formal doctrine of the Assumption as defined by the Catholic Church was established much later. The evidence supports the idea that veneration of Mary and beliefs related to her end were present in early Christianity, even if the exact doctrine of the Assumption was not yet fully articulated.
In whichcase, somethings need not be defined, less they are faced with opposition.
Source: Epiphanius. (n.d.). Panarion: Books II & III. Retrieved August 28, 2024, from https://ia800501.us.archive.org/18/items/EpiphaniusPanarionBksIIIII1/Epiphanius%20-%20_Panarion_%20-%20Bks%20II%20%26%20III%20-%201.pdf
