Assumption of Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnPaul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.).

So Mary’s body has to be somewhere that supports human life.

Location is defined by coordinates (i.e., xyz/GPS) plus time.

So is Mary’s body on earth somewhere in our future - since she is outside of time now in eternity?

**I realize there is no definitive teaching on this matter, but this question could be fun to conjecture about. **

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
The title should be* The Location of Mary*. And I don’t think any human being has the I.Q. to figure this question out since we’d have to transcend time and space.

PAX
:heaven:
 
Faith1960 said:
Anyone else know where Heaven is?
Click to expand...
Heaven and Hell are said to be all around us…although God does refer to Heaven being ‘UP’, like when he says Satan was thrown DOWN from Heaven to the earth, so, out in deep space maybe, another planet at the other side of the universe, somewhere so far, mankind will never be able to reach it by technology.

I tend to think they are on ‘different planes’ or dimensions.
 
Gorgias said:
Nor does it equal doctrine. 😉
Click to expand...
That Mary died is a clear doctrine of the Church Gorgias. You will never be disadvantaged by holding to it firmly for so has most of the Church, and all the Magisterium, the long length of its history.

The problem you seem to have is that you seem to equate “doctrine” (ie a teaching) with dogma or clear anathema’s to the contrary.

Such an explicit demand and need for certainty in every Church teaching is not actually Catholic or in accord with tradition - such ultra montanism is but a recent fad of the last few centuries that I hope the current Church grows out of eventually.
 
mikekle said:
Heaven and Hell are said to be all around us…although God does refer to Heaven being ‘UP’, like when he says Satan was thrown DOWN from Heaven to the earth, so, out in deep space maybe, another planet at the other side of the universe, somewhere so far, mankind will never be able to reach it by technology.

I tend to think they are on ‘different planes’ or dimensions.
Click to expand...
I suppose Heaven would be in a higher dimension and Hell in a lower one.

PAX
:heaven:
 
Blue_Horizon said:
That Mary died is a clear doctrine of the Church Gorgias. You will never be disadvantaged by holding to it firmly for so has most of the Church, and all the Magisterium, the long length of its history.

The problem you seem to have is that you seem to equate “doctrine” (ie a teaching) with dogma or clear anathema’s to the contrary.

Such an explicit demand and need for certainty in every Church teaching is not actually Catholic or in accord with tradition - such ultra montanism is but a recent fad of the last few centuries that I hope the current Church grows out of eventually.
Click to expand...
That is nonsense. The Church does NOT teach that Mary died before being assumed. It is neither an infallible nor a non-infallible teaching.
 
thistle said:
That is nonsense. The Church does NOT teach that Mary died before being assumed. It is neither an infallible nor a non-infallible teaching.
Click to expand...
If the Church has held this in unbroken tradition from earliest times, and Munificentissimus Deus says so three times, and JPII personally taught that Pius held this (but didn’t put it in the infallible section of the Dogma of the Assumption purely for reasons of toleration rather than uncertainty) … then I call that at least a non-infallible teaching, one might even call it a certain teaching that allows for dissent 👍.

Some theologians have in fact maintained that the Blessed Virgin did not die and and was immediately raised from earthly life to heavenly glory. However, this opinion was unknown until the 17th century, whereas a common tradition actually exists which sees Mary’s death as her entry into heavenly glory.

I am sorry that offends you - as for me, I am with tradition and the Popes on this teaching.

But yes, at the moment, you may still validly dissent re this ancient teaching.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
If the Church has held this in unbroken tradition from earliest times, and Munificentissimus Deus says so three times
Click to expand...
MD says, three times, that this has been “unbroken tradition from [the] earliest times”? Really? Are you sure about that?

The two quotes you provided us from MD mention a tradition from only the time of Charlemagne, as well as a quote taken out of context: not MD 17, but MD 20, where Pius is stating that homilies which explain the feast of the Assumption have touched upon the death of the Virgin Mary. Again – not doctrinal, but homiletic. If we may hold to either opinion, then naturally, there would be sermons that mention one or the other of the opinions.
Some theologians have in fact maintained that the Blessed Virgin did not die and and was immediately raised from earthly life to heavenly glory. However, this opinion was unknown until the 17th century
Click to expand...
Do you have a citation for this “unknown until the 17th century” claim?
But yes, at the moment, you may still validly dissent re this ancient teaching.
Click to expand...
Oh… so, it’s not doctrine, then? 😉
 
Blue_Horizon said:
If the Church has held this in unbroken tradition from earliest times, and Munificentissimus Deus says so three times, and JPII personally taught that Pius held this (but didn’t put it in the infallible section of the Dogma of the Assumption purely for reasons of toleration rather than uncertainty) … then I call that at least a non-infallible teaching, one might even call it a certain teaching that allows for dissent 👍.

Some theologians have in fact maintained that the Blessed Virgin did not die and and was immediately raised from earthly life to heavenly glory. However, this opinion was unknown until the 17th century, whereas a common tradition actually exists which sees Mary’s death as her entry into heavenly glory.

I am sorry that offends you - as for me, I am with tradition and the Popes on this teaching.

But yes, at the moment, you may still validly dissent re this ancient teaching.
Click to expand...
Catholics may not dissent from a Church teaching. We are bound by both infallible and non-infallible teachings.
The fact that we are NOT bound to believe Mary died first proves it is not a Church teaching.
 
Gorgias said:
MD says, three times, that this has been “unbroken tradition from [the] earliest times”? Really? Are you sure about that?

The two quotes you provided us from MD mention a tradition from only the time of Charlemagne, as well as a quote taken out of context: not MD 17, but MD 20, where Pius is stating that homilies which explain the feast of the Assumption have touched upon the death of the Virgin Mary. Again – not doctrinal, but homiletic. If we may hold to either opinion, then naturally, there would be sermons that mention one or the other of the opinions.

Do you have a citation for this “unknown until the 17th century” claim?

Oh… so, it’s not doctrine, then? 😉
Click to expand...
Are you having a bad day or something?
Let’s take it slowly… MF says Mary died three times.

As for the rest… I have no reason to gainsay JP2’S own words though of course you are free to… he did after all say these things noninfallibly in a pastoral homily… though I respect his mind and scholarship unlike yourself.
 
thistle said:
Catholics may not dissent from a Church teaching. We are bound by both infallible and non-infallible teachings.
The fact that we are NOT bound to believe Mary died first proves it is not a Church teaching.
Click to expand...
You are really good at tautologies Thistle.
Unfortunately though certain, that doesn’t make them true.

Yes, last time I looked, all brothers strangely do seem to have the same parent.
But do those two guys over there have the same parent… that’s a completely different call :eek:.

Do you think there can be a “certain” teaching which the Pope has not yet declared must be held with certainty? I do.

If a teaching has been held since time immemorial and only debated by non Magisterial theologians in recent 300 years and recent Pope’s keep preaching the ancient teaching, and no Pope has held the dissenting view, … well yes, I call this a teaching.

You are free to hold a dissenting view on this as yet non-infallibly defined teaching. If people like yourself persist in vocally opposing this ancient teaching the Magisterium will no doubt clarify the matter infallibly one day. That is how evolution of dogma works.

If you really believe that your recent view that Mary did not die, only 200-300 years old and never held personally by the Pope’s, will be the winning contender… then I admire your faith, though it probably isn’t catholic in the original meaning of that word.
 
Then what is it? I get so frustrated by these threads and I had decided that I didn’t have the energy for this one today, but here I am.

Mary’s death is clearly taught by the Church. It is taught explicity in the liturgy of the Eastern Churches and an entire feast is celebrated in it’s honor. It was universally held in the west for the vast majority of the Church’s existence.

If it is a teaching of the church that is neither doctrine nor dogma, what is it?
 
Are you saying that it is not taught by the church? Because the Eatstern Liturgies are very catechetical, and the fact of Mary’s dormition, which is a euphamism for the death of a Christian, is explicity taught in the liturgies of the Eastern Churches. Give me an example of another major feast that would fall in the category of “theological speculation”.
 
From Munificentissimus Deus:
“20. However, since the liturgy of the Church does not engender the Catholic faith, but rather springs from it, in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree, it follows that the holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ’s faithful. They 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, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.”

Try reading the entire document “in union with the Universal Church” and not as a legalistic lawyer looking for loopholes. 🤷
 
I am saying that a dogma does not drop from a clear blue sky.
Dogmas arise from clearly observable preceeding circumstances and conditions.

One of those evolving situations is sometimes increasingly strident dissent from what was up to that time considered a clearly held, long-time traditional belief, liturgical practice and even a common place teaching. Such was the divinity of Christ for example.

I call that “evolution” of a dogma, you may call it something else, the reality is the same.
 
The Catholic Church does have a feast celebrating the death of Mary.
It is called The Dormition.

One needs to appreciate it is not big in the Latin Rite, but it is in the East, and it appears at least as ancient as that of the Assumption.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top