Assumption of Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnPaul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gorgias said:
Can you provide a citation of that teaching? My understanding of the matter is different: I’ve always understood it to be the case that the Church doesn’t claim that Mary either died or was assumed without experiencing death, but that it allows the question to remain unaddressed (at least, from a dogmatic standpoint).
Click to expand...
You are correct. The Church does not DOGMATICALLY teach that the Virgin Mary died. Although this teaching is ancient Church Tradition, both East and West, and like I said, St. John Paul II taught this here.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Does matter have to have Cartesian extension?
Even Aristotle didn’t think so.
Click to expand...
Can’t we lose the philosophical jargon?

We all have human bodies; we should all be able to describe our somebodiness in plain English.

Matter per se may not require “extension,” but the human body definitely does. Without the limbs, shoulders, nose, feet, etc, sticking out in every direction, there is no human body.

Physical dimensions are an accident of the human body, but are inseparable from it.

ICXC NIKA.
 
Gorgias said:
Can you provide a citation of that teaching? My understanding of the matter is different: I’ve always understood it to be the case that the Church doesn’t claim that Mary either died or was assumed without experiencing death, but that it allows the question to remain unaddressed (at least, from a dogmatic standpoint).
Click to expand...
That is also my understanding, although I am under the impression that the Church Fathers believe she died, although I have nothing to back that up.
 
Faith1960 said:
Is there a doctrinal assertion of the Church regarding this?
Click to expand...
Yes, read the Encyclical that dogmatically proclaimed the Assumption (Munificentissimus Deus).

It is clear in there that:
  • Catholics may hold either way regarding Mary’s death as dogmatic pronunciation on this point was explicitly withheld from the formulation which was intentionally kept ambiguous precisely for this reason.
  • the reason for this ambiguity was NOT because the Magisterium has any doubt that Mary did in fact died (the Encyclical says so bluntly at least 3 times).
  • which goes to show we don’t always need to have black and white Dogma all the time and on these sorts of things the Magisterium can tolerate low level “error” in the misguided faithful.
  • recent Popes have always held that Tradition and ancient iconography has always held that Mary clearly died. (“Dormition” in the East has never meant that she did not die, it is a circumlocution, a polite euphemism).
  • Only in the last 300 yrs have contrary opinions arisen amongst the faithful. No doubt due to “modern” paintings that show Mary rising erect and awake when in fact the ancient art works had her supine and eyes closed.
This topic has been discussed thoroughly on Catholic Answers at least twice in the last 2 years. Just do a search.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Yes, read the Encyclical that dogmatically proclaimed the Assumption (Munificentissimus Deus).

It is clear in there that:
  • Catholics may hold either way regarding Mary’s death as dogmatic pronunciation on this point was explicitly withheld from the formulation which was intentionally kept ambiguous precisely for this reason.
  • the reason for this ambiguity was NOT because the Magisterium has any doubt that Mary did in fact died (the Encyclical says so bluntly at least 3 times).
  • which goes to show we don’t always need to have black and white Dogma all the time and on these sorts of things the Magisterium can tolerate low level “error” in the misguided faithful.
  • recent Popes have always held that Tradition and ancient iconography has always held that Mary clearly died. (“Dormition” in the East has never meant that she did not die, it is a circumlocution, a polite euphemism).
  • Only in the last 300 yrs have contrary opinions arisen amongst the faithful. No doubt due to “modern” paintings that show Mary rising erect and awake when in fact the ancient art works had her supine and eyes closed.
This topic has been discussed thoroughly on Catholic Answers at least twice in the last 2 years. Just do a search.
Click to expand...
I was talking about Enoch and Elijah, not Mary.
 
Faith1960 said:
I was talking about Enoch and Elijah, not Mary.
Click to expand...
Apologies, thought you were saying the same as Gorgias.

I do not believe that Catholics seriously hold that these two received the beatific vision (ie entered the Heaven of God - only a lesser material “heaven” if even that is on the cards).

To do so would appear to deny main-stream teaching that not even Abraham was in Heaven for the gates were not unlocked until Jesus went down to “hell” (ie Sheol) at his death.

I believe Abraham (and the just) were considered to reside at the top level of Sheol, awaiting Christ’s Coming and the opening of the gates of Heaven.

Re Mary’s Death:
(a) Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus (Pope Pious XII)
(b) General Audience 1997 of Pope JPII the Great.

Important quotes from these docs would seem to include:

*(a) MD17 " …to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. …“Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.”

(b) MD17 “The holy Fathers and the great Doctors…presented it more clearly. They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death…”

(c) JPII:The Council uses the terms of The Bull defining the dogma of the Assumption and states: “The Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over” (Lumen gentium, n. 59). With this formula, the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, following my Venerable Predecessor Pius XII, made no pronouncement on the question of Mary’s death. Nevertheless, Pius XII did not intend to deny the fact of her death, but merely did not judge it opportune to affirm solemnly the death of the Mother of God as a truth to be accepted by all believers. *
 
There’s a beautiful book “The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary” based on the visions of Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, who was a stigmatic mystic in the 19th century, that includes her visions of the death, burial and Assumption of Mary (available online). Her visions of the crucifixion in “The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations” were some of the ones that Mel Gibson preferred to use as the basis for much of his movie, “The Passion of the Christ”. Her many visions were extremely detailed accounts of the lives of the Holy Family in particular, but also included events from almost the entire Bible, even the creation of Adam & Eve. I highly recommend any of the books based on her visions. They are truly amazing.
 
Telstar said:
There’s a beautiful book “The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary” based on the visions of Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, who was a stigmatic mystic in the 19th century, that includes her visions of the death, burial and Assumption of Mary (available online). Her visions of the crucifixion in “The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations” were some of the ones that Mel Gibson preferred to use as the basis for much of his movie, “The Passion of the Christ”. Her many visions were extremely detailed accounts of the lives of the Holy Family in particular, but also included events from almost the entire Bible, even the creation of Adam & Eve. I highly recommend any of the books based on her visions. They are truly amazing.
Click to expand...
Thanks …will check it out!
 
JohnPaul said:
We know of course that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven.

We know that the human body requires certain environmental conditions to survive (e.g., oxygen, moderate temperatures, etc.).
Click to expand...
No, we don’t know what the glorified body will be like. Jesus was apparently able to walk through locked doors and other things that we can’t do in our current state.
 
Ignatius said:
No, we don’t know what the glorified body will be like. Jesus was apparently able to walk through locked doors and other things that we can’t do in our current state.
Click to expand...
True, but don’t you think there’s a ‘home base’ somewhere/when?
 
Blue_Horizon said:
It is clear in there that
  • the reason for this ambiguity was NOT because the Magisterium has any doubt that Mary did in fact died (the Encyclical says so bluntly at least 3 times).
Click to expand...
:hmmm: The only potential claim is that Mary was permitted to die, but was immediately assumed into heaven.

Yet, if there was not any doubt (regarding her death), why would the doctrinal assertion fail to include that certainty in its statement?
 
Gorgias said:
:hmmm: The only potential claim is that Mary was permitted to die, but was immediately assumed into heaven.

Yet, if there was not any doubt (regarding her death), why would the doctrinal assertion fail to include that certainty in its statement?
Click to expand...
JPII said: "Nevertheless, Pius XII did not intend to deny the fact of her death, but merely did not judge it opportune to affirm solemnly the death of the Mother of God as a truth to be accepted by all believers. "

IOW, that dogmatic definition was about the ASSUMPTION of the Virgin Mary. It was not the time or place for dragging in other ancillary issues.

Discretion does not equal doubt.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
JPII said: "Nevertheless, Pius XII did not intend to deny the fact of her death, but merely did not judge it opportune to affirm solemnly the death of the Mother of God as a truth to be accepted by all believers. "

IOW, that dogmatic definition was about the ASSUMPTION of the Virgin Mary.
Click to expand...
So, in a non-dogmatic context, a statement ancillary to a dogmatic definition was given. Got it. 👍
It was not the time or place for dragging in other ancillary issues.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. And subsequently, there’s been no dogmatic assertion about this ‘ancillary issue’. OK.
Discretion does not equal doubt.
Click to expand...
Nor does it equal doctrine. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top