Assumption of Mary - tough teaching

[Vico]

Yet the idea that Our Lady did not die is a modern novelty unheard of in the Church prior to the last few centuries. Tradition is very clear - West and East - that Our Lady first died and then shared in the resurrection of Her Son to be assumed bodily into heaven. Yes, the dogmatic declaration itself does not state that She died, but consider the following:

• The ancient Eastern tradition upon which our tradition is built speaks of her Dormition, or falling asleep in the flesh. The entire tradition of the Assumption is based on the ancient Eastern account of the Apostles opening her tomb and finding her body gone.
• To this day, Eastern Catholics (and Orthodox) celebrate the feast of the Dormition, or Falling Asleep, of the Mother of God. Liturgy reflects faith…this important feast of the Eastern Church would be meaningless if she did not first die before She rose.
• Latin / Western iconography testifies to the tradition of her death. At St. Mary’s Major, the most important church dedicated to Mary in all of Western Christendom, there is a grand depiction of the Dormition (Mary falling asleep in the flesh and then being raised to heavenly glory).
• Pope Pius XII himself, in the very enclycical in which he proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption, refers to her Dormition (falling alseep / physical death).
• If Our Lord is the firstborn from among the dead, as Scripture says, and if Our Lady is the perfect type of the Church and in Her assumption reflects the ultimate glory of the Church itself, how can we theologically justify the notion that Our Lady did not share in the resurrection as all of us will? How can we deny Our Lady this glory? One cannot share in the resurrection without first dying.

No, it is not dogma that She first died…but the very novel notion that she did not has absolutely zero support from tradition…you simply can’t find it prior to a couple centuries ago. All the Fathers who speak on this matter agreed that she died. No one in the Church doubted it prior to modern times. Why does this matter to me? It is a point of contention with our Orthodox brethren…those few but vocal Latins who insist that She did not die create a stumbling block in our relations with them. It is very central to Eastern theology (which, I remind you again is the very basis of our tradition of the Assumption…we inherited it from their tradition of the Dormition) that Our Lady first died and then shared in the resurrection of Her Son.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, p. 207 shows that there were different opinions on her death from older times.

5.Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.

Mary suffered a temporal death. (Sent. communior.)

Origen (In loan 2, 12; fragm. 31), St. Ephrem (Hymnus IS. 2), Severian of Gabala (De mundi creatione or. 6, 10), St Jerome (Adv. Ruf. II, S). St. Augustine (In loan tr. 8. 9) mention the fact of her death incidentally. St. Epiphanius. who had already instituted researches into the dose of Mary’s life says: “Nobody knows how she departed this world.” He leaves undecided whether she died a natural death, or whether (according to Luke 2, 35) she died by violence, or whether she (cf. Apac. 12, 14) still lives on immortal in some place unknown to us (Haer 78, 1 I. 24). The unknown author of a sermon which has come down to us under the name of the Presbyter Timotheus of Jerusalem (6th-8th cent.) is of the opinion that the virgin is up to now immortal (that is, did not die), as He "who (in her) lived, translated her into the place of reception (that is, into the Heavenly Paradise) " (Or. in Symeonem) For Mary, death, in consequence of her freedom from original sin and from personal sin, was not a consequence of punishment of sin (cf. D 1073). However, it seems fitting that Mary’s body, "which was by nature mortal, should be, in conformity with that of her Divine Son, subject to the general law of death.

*Denzinger 1073 *(ST. PIUS V Bull “Ex omnibus afflictionibus,” Oct. 1, 1567 condemned errors included that) 73. No one except Christ is free from original sin; hence, the Blessed Virgin died because of sin contracted from Adam, and all of her afflictions in this life as well as those of other just persons were the punishments for actual sin, or for original sin.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Elijah was assumed into heaven. He was living when the Lord took him to heaven in a whirlwind. Why not Jesus’s own mother?

Elijah was not Assumed into heaven but into the sky.
Heaven was closed at this time afterall.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I was taught the Blessed Mother was taken alive into heaven without dying.

There is no Magisterial teaching that Mary was taken alive into heaven.

There is however a Magisterial teaching (and an unbroken Papal tradition) that she died.

However the latter has purposely not been dogmatically defined…yet.
So one is free to hold either but its pretty clear which way dogma will go if a further pronouncement is made in this area.

 

[Vico]

Elijah was not Assumed into heaven but into the sky.
Heaven was closed at this time afterall.

St. John Paul II’s general audience, July 21, 1999:

The depiction of heaven as the transcendent dwelling-place of the living God is joined with that of the place to which believers, through grace, can also ascend, as we see in the Old Testament accounts of Enoch (cf. Gn 5:24) and Elijah (cf. 2 Kgs 2:11). Thus heaven becomes an image of life in God. In this sense Jesus speaks of a “reward in heaven” (Mt 5:12) and urges people to “lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven” (ibid., 6:20; cf. 19:21).

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_21071999.html

 

[Markie_Boy]

Why not? At one time before things were written down, ALL of what we now hold as Scripture was tradition. The same Church that said all these books are inspired Scripture, that you admit that you accept, also says Mary was assumed into Heaven. To me, it is just as easy to reject Scripture as the Assumption. If the Catholic Church is wrong about any of the Marian dogmas, then I have no doubt that She was also wrong on saying the New Testament is Scripture.

All of scripture was tradition? Not sure that is accurate. There were scrolls that were written much closer to when things happened than 1900 years later, most quite close relatively speaking, and by people who were actually there generally.

I can see the assumption being kept as teaching, but to make it dogma?

Has the church ever made an error? How about burning people at the stake? That would seem to fall under both the faith and morals category.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

St. John Paul II’s general audience, July 21, 1999:

The depiction of heaven as the transcendent dwelling-place of the living God is joined with that of the place to which believers, through grace, can also ascend, as we see in the Old Testament accounts of Enoch (cf. Gn 5:24) and Elijah (cf. 2 Kgs 2:11). Thus heaven becomes an image of life in God. In this sense Jesus speaks of a “reward in heaven” (Mt 5:12) and urges people to “lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven” (ibid., 6:20; cf. 19:21).

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_21071999.html

St. JP II is not saying Enoch and Elijah entered into Christian Heaven, but instead he says a little later: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church sums up the Church’s teaching on this truth: “By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has ‘opened’ heaven to us. "

 

[Vico]

St. JP II is not saying Enoch and Elijah entered into Christian Heaven, but instead he says a little later: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church sums up the Church’s teaching on this truth: “By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has ‘opened’ heaven to us. "

It is a depiction of heaven, was my point in posting it.

2 Kings 2:11
Maccabees 2:58

• shamayim - Strongs 8064
• ouranos - Strongs 3772

8064 shamayim
Definition
heaven, heavens, sky
visible heavens, sky
as abode of the stars
as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
Heaven (as the abode of God)

3772 ouranos
Definition
the vaulted expanse of the sky with all things visible in it
the universe, the world
the aerial heavens or sky, the region where the clouds and the tempests gather, and where thunder and lightning are produced
the sidereal or starry heavens
the region above the sidereal heavens, the seat of order of things eternal and consummately perfect where God dwells and other heavenly beings

 

[Duane1966]

All of scripture was tradition? Not sure that is accurate. There were scrolls that were written much closer to when things happened than 1900 years later, most quite close relatively speaking, and by people who were actually there generally.

Was Moses at the creation? The flood?

Did the early Church know when they first received St. Paul’s writings, that they were reading inspired Scripture? For some Christians yes, for others no. We see this not just with the Pauline letters. Marcion and his followers only accepted Luke, and the Pauline letters. They rejected all the other books that you hold as inspired New Testament, as uninspired. On another thread, there is a poster who says he is a Nazarene, and that they have rejected the Pauline letters as uninspired from the beginning of the early Church.
Jesus never told us what the canon of the Old Testament was. The Ethiopian Jews have always accepted books as inspired that other Jews reject.

So who determines what is Scripture? I can guarantee you, the Church rejected early writings that claimed to be inspired Scripture, that some Christians at that time viewed as Scripture, and accepted other writings as Scripture that other Christians reject today.

The Church sees the Assumption in Revelation. The Church can point to Scripture for her teaching. You may say you don’t accept Her interpretation, but that just makes you the final arbiter of what is Scripture, and how it should be interpreted. You, in your wisdom feel that it is fine that the Church teach the Assumption, but people should be able to reject it based on whatever they feel at this moment of their lives. Which begs the question, if we do what you propose, why teach the doctrine at all? But you say here, to keep it as a teaching:

I can see the assumption being kept as teaching, but to make it dogma?

Why teach something as truth, and then turn around and say a person is free to reject it, with no possible ultimate consequences for their soul? Can you imagine if the Church did that with all Her teachings? We would then be free to reject books of the bible, the Trinity, modes of baptism, Jesus as fully human and God…

Has the church ever made an error? How about burning people at the stake? That would seem to fall under both the faith and morals category.

Nope, She has never taught error, though individual Catholics have. She never burned anyone at the stake. She did rule on whether a person was guilty or innocent, leaving to the secular authority to carry out a punishment, that the secular authority saw fit.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I am having a hard time with this one.

How can the church say we know infallibly Mary was assumed to Heaven, we just don’t know if she died first or not? If you had enough evidence on the assumption to know it happened - wouldn’t you know if she was dead or alive?

And, you can believe either she died and was assumed, or was assumed while alive - it’s your choice, and can still be Catholic. But if you don’t believe there is sufficient evidence of the assumption you are not allowed to receive communion, that’s not your choice, you are not Catholic?

The Assumption of Mary is a truth discerned by the Church after many years of theological reflection. The church stands as a teaching pillar in itself. While we rely on scripture and Tradition in a documentary sense, we have to also remember that Christ has given the Church itself authority as teacher.

In Acts 15, the Church led by the Apostles and elders/presbyters (priests) made a binding decision on the Church – without much scriptural warrant for the decision. Instead, it was the Church actively led by the Spirit of Truth that was able to pronounce something for all Christians everywhere. Indeed, we live by their decision today.

The church continues to have this teaching office. In every age, it is the church of God that is able to declare what in fact is Christianity and what is not. The Assumption of Mary was explicitly part of church teaching for 1000 years +. Dogma or not, the Assumption of Mary is either true or false. The church had always maintained its truth and has therefore decided to make it dogma. Whether that was practical or not, it seemed good to the church throughout the world when it was declared so.

When we separate doctrines as individual pieces of the faith, we miss the organic, connected nature of them all. Perhaps this is because we emphasize “Dogmas” which brings to mind separate, defined truths. But in reality, when we consider the Assumption of Mary in light of Church teaching in general, we see the reasonableness and even necessity of the belief. Mary is the New Eve! This is the ancient teaching of the church, and it one of the first descriptions of Mary in a theological way. She undid what the first Eve did; she said “yes!” to God; she brought about the redemption through her acceptance of God’s will. Just as her son brought about the new human family in grace, so she is the mother of this new human family. Revelation 12 refers to the woman, her son, and her other children who keep the commandments of God. Revelation and Luke reveal Mary to be the Ark that bore the New Covenant, Christ. She is therefore all-holy, as the Eastern Christian proclaim. Naturally, this led to a deeper understanding of what it meant for Mary to be “full of Grace” as Luke says. She is totally aligned with God’s will. Therefore God saw it good to prevent her from experience bodily corruption. And why should Christ see his own mother decay as such? His body is Heaven – why not hers – she who gave him his own flesh? Even today, we see saints whose dead bodies are to some degree incorrupt. Perhaps their degree of sanctity has allowed this to be so. Well how much so for Mary, who was the holiest woman of all.

 

[e_c]

MarkieBoy - Habeas corpus?

One would expect that the tomb of Mary would be the greatest pilgrimage site in Christendom. We know where all the Apostles are buried. We know where some of the Prophets are buried. Heck, we even have good stabs at where some of the PATRIARCHS are buried.

With the exception of Moses and a few other major figures… we have the bodies. No such “luck” with Mary.

God teaches that Mary is in Heaven.

Look at all those apparitions - how would that possibly jive with a body still on Earth?

Food for thought.

Make an act of faith, ask for pardon, move on.

catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=426

 

[commenter]

Sacred Tradition sheds light on scripture, often it illustrates some point in danger of being neglected. In 1950 some people complained there was no purpose for defining the Assumption. But a few years later some Catholic and Protestant theologians rather suddenly began drifting away from scriptural teaching related to Christ being supernatural. This one denied the virgin birth. That other one denied Jesus had any idea of divinity. That third one denied any possibility of Jesus performing miracles. And many, many more.

A few years after that, the attack came from another direction. The New Age Religion lured many Christians, getting away from the strictly physical, so that Jesus was not exactly any one man, but a movement, a consciousness growth, a focus of community. Supposedly Jesus, or the “Jesus symbol” became “self actualized”, as a role model for us. In fact, “Jesus” did not live in any one place or time, but flourishes whenever there is hope. The worship of spirituality.

The Assumption reinforces the supernatural nature of Jesus, his uniqueness, his raw humanity as an unborn child (but while still God), so divinity itself touched this **one and only one, **pregnant woman’s body, forever. I think Pope Pius XII foresaw what was coming before most other people did. Definition of the Assumption in 1950 was a partial protection put forth before the problem became evident to most. Without the Assumption firmly nailed into place, the damage might have been greater.

 

[Robyn_p]

Sacred Tradition sheds light on scripture, often it illustrates some point in danger of being neglected. In 1950 some people complained there was no purpose for defining the Assumption. But a few years later some Catholic and Protestant theologians rather suddenly began drifting away from scriptural teaching related to Christ being supernatural. This one denied the virgin birth. That other one denied Jesus had any idea of divinity. That third one denied any possibility of Jesus performing miracles. And many, many more.

A few years after that, the attack came from another direction. The New Age Religion lured many Christians, getting away from the strictly physical, so that Jesus was not exactly any one man, but a movement, a consciousness growth, a focus of community. Supposedly Jesus, or the “Jesus symbol” became “self actualized”, as a role model for us. In fact, “Jesus” did not live in any one place or time, but flourishes whenever there is hope. The worship of spirituality.

**The Assumption reinforces the supernatural nature of Jesus, his uniqueness, his raw humanity as an unborn child (but while still God), so divinity itself touched this **one and only one, ****pregnant woman’s body, forever. I think Pope Pius XII foresaw what was coming before most other people did. Definition of the Assumption in 1950 was a partial protection put forth before the problem became evident to most. Without the Assumption firmly nailed into place, the damage might have been greater.

This is a great point. It’s tempting to think of the Assumption as simply a “fun fact” about Mary, but it’s not. This one event encompasses and preserves the entire Christian message. The dignity of the body, the Person and mission of Christ, the destiny of all faithful believers etc… It matters a lot.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

St. John Paul II’s general audience, July 21, 1999:

The depiction of heaven as the transcendent dwelling-place of the living God is joined with that of the place to which believers, through grace, can also ascend, as we see in the Old Testament accounts of Enoch (cf. Gn 5:24) and Elijah (cf. 2 Kgs 2:11). Thus heaven becomes an image of life in God. In this sense Jesus speaks of a “reward in heaven” (Mt 5:12) and urges people to “lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven” (ibid., 6:20; cf. 19:21).

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_21071999.html

What exactly is your point?

 

[Vico]

What exactly is your point?

Heaven and sky are the same word in the old languages in the O.T., and we see that they are depictions of both heaven as the transcendent dwelling-place of God and the place that the faithful may ascend to.

 

[Good_Fella]

I am having a hard time with this one.

The Jews have had a hard time with the Resurrection of Jesus. They still believe that his disciples removed his body from the tomb to make it look like Jesus rose from the dead. Perhaps one of Jesus’ wealthy followers in the Sanhedrin bribed the guards. Someone might cry: “But the Bible says otherwise!” So? How do we know that what is written in the NT is actually true? We can only know in the light of faith. The same goes for the Assumption. Neither events can be historically proven. It’s the word of the Apostles and of the Church against that of the Jews who have rejected Jesus. Mary’s Assumption depends on whether Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.

How can the church say we know infallibly Mary was assumed to Heaven, we just don’t know if she died first or not? If you had enough evidence on the assumption to know it happened - wouldn’t you know if she was dead or alive?

It makes no difference whether Mary died or not. What matters is that the Assumption happened “at the end of the course of her earthly life,” so Pope Pius Xll put it in his Apostolic Constitution that defines the Assumption.

And, you can believe either she died and was assumed, or was assumed while alive - it’s your choice, and can still be Catholic. But if you don’t believe there is sufficient evidence of the assumption you are not allowed to receive communion, that’s not your choice, you are not Catholic?

What Pope Pius defined was not how Mary’s life on earth ended, but rather how her eternal life with God in heaven had begun. All who die do not necessarily go to heaven, and all who die by the Last Day and are predestined to glory are not assumed body and soul into heaven. The dogma is primarily concerned with this singular privilege that Mary’s Son granted his mother in honour of her and in honour of his heavenly Father who preserved Mary free from all stain of original sin. Mary did die, but God did not let his faithful daughter and the mother of His Son to see corruption (cf. Ps.16:10).

"Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
Luke 1, 42

blessedaboveallwomen.co/2016/04/02/all-generations-shall-call-me-blessed/

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

There is no Magisterial teaching that Mary was taken alive into heaven.

There is however a Magisterial teaching (and an unbroken Papal tradition) that she died.

However the latter has purposely not been dogmatically defined…yet.
So one is free to hold either but its pretty clear which way dogma will go if a further pronouncement is made in this area.

“… we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”
Pope Pius Xll. Munificentissimus Deus

It’s interesting that Pope Pius refers to the course of one’s earthly life rather than just one’s earthly life itself. The course of one’s earthly existence naturally begins at birth and ends, or is completed, at death. So perhaps the Pope is implicitly expressing his belief that Mary did die. If she did, then she could fully participate in her Son’s own resurrection. Why would anyone have laid Mary in a tomb while she was in a state of coma? It doesn’t make sense. How could anyone close to Mary have known what should happen to take place? She must have died, but she passed “gently through the night” like going to sleep in a peaceful and joyous state of bliss unscathed by even the slightest fear. She probably beheld her Son right before she closed her eyes.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

Elijah was assumed into heaven. He was living when the Lord took him to heaven in a whirlwind. Why not Jesus’s own mother?

What Enoch and Elijah experienced wasn’t the same thing.

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the first fruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
*1 Corinthians 15, 20-23 *

Elijah appeared with Jesus and Moses on Mount Tabor in a transfigured state. Only Jesus and Mary gloriously exist body and soul in Heaven by their resurrection. Enoch, Elijah, and Moses still await the redemption of their bodies on the Last Day. Jesus is the first fruit.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

The Jews have had a hard time with the Resurrection of Jesus. They still believe that his disciples removed his body from the tomb to make it look like Jesus rose from the dead. Perhaps one of Jesus’ wealthy followers in the Sanhedrin bribed the guards. Someone might cry: “But the Bible says otherwise!” So? How do we know that what is written in the NT is actually true? We can only know in the light of faith. The same goes for the Assumption. Neither events can be historically proven. It’s the word of the Apostles and of the Church against that of the Jews who have rejected Jesus. Mary’s Assumption depends on whether Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.

It makes no difference whether Mary died or not. What matters is that the Assumption happened “at the end of the course of her earthly life,” so Pope Pius Xll put it in his Apostolic Constitution that defines the Assumption.

What Pope Pius defined was not how Mary’s life on earth ended, but rather how her eternal life with God in heaven had begun. All who die do not necessarily go to heaven, and all who die by the Last Day and are predestined to glory are not assumed body and soul into heaven. The dogma is primarily concerned with this singular privilege that Mary’s Son granted his mother in honour of her and in honour of his heavenly Father who preserved Mary free from all stain of original sin. Mary did die, but God did not let his faithful daughter and the mother of His Son to see corruption (cf. Ps.16:10).

"Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
Luke 1, 42

blessedaboveallwomen.co/2016/04/02/all-generations-shall-call-me-blessed/

PAX
:heaven:

Logic can prove the Ressurection. The Psalm you refered to speaks of Christ not Mary.

 

[Good_Fella]

Logic can prove the Resurrection. The Psalm you refered to speaks of Christ not Mary.

How does logic prove the resurrection?

In its primary context, David is expressing his confidence that God will not abandon his soul in Sheol, but shall resurrect him. Mary was resurrected in the most perfect way after her Son.

The psalm primarily applies to Jesus in its secondary fulfillment, but also to Mary who is equally blessed with the fruit of her womb (cf. Gen. 3:15). In the NT, only Jesus, Mary, and the kingdom of heaven are called blessed (eulogemenos/ eulogomene), the masculine and feminine forms of the original verb eulogeo. Both Jesus and Mary embody the kingdom of God in their humanity, standing in opposition to the dominion of Satan upon Adam’s abdication of man’s dominion. Paul tells us that the wages of sin is death. Both Jesus and Mary were sinless, so neither of them were subject to the law of sin and death. Their bodies were exempted from undergoing putridity and corruption. Mary is the ideal model of the mustard seed among all human creatures, which Jesus likened to the kingdom of God.

blessedaboveallwomen.co/2016/05/23/my-soul-glorifies-the-lord/

*PAX *
:heaven:

 

[zz912]

Psalm 132

1 Lord, remember David
and all his self-denial.
2 He swore an oath to the Lord,
he made a vow to the Mighty One of Jacob:
3 “I will not enter my house
or go to my bed,
4 I will allow no sleep to my eyes
or slumber to my eyelids,
5 till I find a place for the Lord,
a dwelling for the Mighty One of Jacob.”
6 We heard it in Ephrathah,
we came upon it in the fields of Jaar:a
7 “Let us go to his dwelling place,
let us worship at his footstool, saying,
8 ‘Arise, Lord, and come to your resting place,
you and the ark of your might.
9 May your priests be clothed with your righteousness;
may your faithful people sing for joy.’ ”
10 For the sake of your servant David,
do not reject your anointed one.
11 The Lord swore an oath to David,
a sure oath he will not revoke:
“One of your own descendants
I will place on your throne.
12 If your sons keep my covenant
and the statutes I teach them,
then their sons will sit
on your throne for ever and ever.”
13 For the Lord has chosen Zion,
he has desired it for his dwelling, saying,
14 “This is my resting place for ever and ever;
here I will sit enthroned, for I have desired it.
15 I will bless her with abundant provisions;
her poor I will satisfy with food.
16 I will clothe her priests with salvation,
and her faithful people will ever sing for joy.
17 “Here I will make a hornb grow for David
and set up a lamp for my anointed one.
18 I will clothe his enemies with shame,
but his head will be adorned with a radiant crown.”