Assumption Vs.Dormition

[belgianwaffles9]

Or, Part II of my “Wait… there’s really no difference” series.

---

May the Good Lord forgive me for staring a thread which can only end in horrendous and uncharitable arguments…again​

Tonight i did some research on the Dormition to see if i could find out anything new. I was pretty sure i knew a great deal about it beforehand, but it was good to read some primary sources and learn about the liturgial traditions surrounding the Great Feast of the Dormition. I would love to learn more about the fast preceding it. (I like fasts ).

In any case, i wanted to see if there was an insurmountable difference between Catholic and Orthodox theology here, or if (like the filoque, original sin, and purgatory) is merely a matter of (1) linguistis, translations, and semantics and (2) political, jurisdictional, and/or cultural disputes.

I came to the conclusion that there is no real difference between the Orthodox dogma of the Dormition of the Theotokos and the Catholic Dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgini Mary.

What i would like here, just as in my thread about original sin, is to hear arguments from an Orthodox perspective that I have reached the wrong conclusion, and that the Orthodox dogma somehow excludes the possibility of the Catholic one being true. Latins are welcome to jump in and debate.

---

The Dogma of the Dormition Vs. The Dogma of the Assumption

The Dormition:

Bishop Kallistos, from Wikipedia:

The Orthodox Church teaches that Mary died a natural death, like any human being; that her soul was received by Christ upon death; and that **her body was resurrected **on the third day after her repose, at which time she was taken up, soul and body, into heaven in anticipation of the general resurrection. Her tomb was found empty on the third day. As Bishop Kallistos (Ware) says:

…Orthodox tradition is clear and unwavering in regard to the central point [of the Dormition]: the Holy Virgin underwent, as did her Son, a physical death, but her body — like His — was afterwards raised from the dead and she was taken up into heaven, in her body as well as in her soul. She has passed beyond death and judgement, and lives wholly in the Age to Come. The Resurrection of the Body … has in her case been anticipated and is already an accomplished fact. That does not mean, however, that she is dissociated from the rest of humanity and placed in a wholly different category: for we all hope to share one day in that same glory of the Resurrection of the Body which she enjoys even now.[2]

Wikipedia on an interesting point: (is this true?)
WIkipedia on the Dormition:

The Orthodox belief regarding Mary’s falling asleep are expressed in the liturgical texts used of the feast of the Dormition (August 15) which is one of the Twelve Great Feasts of the Orthodox Church, and is held by all pious Orthodox Christians; however, this belief has never been formally defined as dogma by the Orthodox Church nor made a precondition of baptism.

The Assumption:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia (Pre-Vatican II, and PRE- INFALLIBLE DOGMATIC DECLARATION!)

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, **where her tomb **is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The **belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary **is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that **the body was taken up to heaven. **

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.

From Munificentissimus Deus, by Pope Pius XII, The Dogmatic Declaration of the Assumption:

1. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, 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.

From Wikipedia, concerning this point:

In Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma he states that “the fact of her death is almost generally accepted by the Fathers and Theologians, and is expressly affirmed in the Liturgy of the Church,” to which he adduces a number of helpful citations, and concludes that “for Mary, death, in consequence of her freedom from original sin and from personal sin, was not a consequence of punishment of sin. 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”.[11] The point of her bodily death has not been infallibly defined, and many believe that she did not die at all, but was assumed directly into Heaven. Indeed, the papal decree which infallibly proclaims the doctrine of the Assumption, the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, leaves open the question whether, in connection with her departure, Mary underwent bodily death; that is, it does not dogmatically define the point one way or the other, as shown by the words “having completed the course of her earthly life”. [7]

…]

While Pope Pius XII **deliberately left open the question **of whether Mary died before her Assumption, the more common teaching of the early Fathers is that she did.[13][14]

So, it seems to me after this study, that the Assumption and the Dormition do NOT exclude eachother from being true. What i see is that in the Eastern tradition, the Dormition was more strictyl defined than in the west: in both east and west, it was dogma that the Blessed Virgin, the Theotokos, was assumed, body and soul, into heaven. In the East, they taught details concerning how long after her death she was risen, etc, while in the west, they did not view that information as central, instead focusing wholly on the point that she was assumed.

When the Assumption was defined as Dogma, Pope Pius XII intentionally did NOT define it as dogma that she did not first die. Indeed, the early fathers say that she did die, and Catholics can be proven to agree with this because we recognize her tomb. Some Catholics say Mary could not die because she was free of original sin; however, this need not be true, because Jesus was likewise free, but he died a natural, very human, death.

Therefore, I believe that the Dogmas of the Assumption and the Dormition are one and the same.

I invite the Orthodox to prove me wrong. As I said in my other thread:

please try to keep it academic and just explain the differences… I’m not interested in apologetics from either side, and I certainly want no arguing… That being said, let the arguing begin…

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Or, Part II of my “Wait… there’s really no difference” series.

---

May the Good Lord forgive me for staring a thread which can only end in horrendous and uncharitable arguments…again​

Tonight i did some research on the Dormition to see if i could find out anything new. I was pretty sure i knew a great deal about it beforehand, but it was good to read some primary sources and learn about the liturgial traditions surrounding the Great Feast of the Dormition. I would love to learn more about the fast preceding it. (I like fasts ).

In any case, i wanted to see if there was an insurmountable difference between Catholic and Orthodox theology here, or if (like the filoque, original sin, and purgatory) is merely a matter of (1) linguistis, translations, and semantics and (2) political, jurisdictional, and/or cultural disputes.

I came to the conclusion that there is no real difference between the Orthodox dogma of the Dormition of the Theotokos and the Catholic Dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgini Mary.

What i would like here, just as in my thread about original sin, is to hear arguments from an Orthodox perspective that I have reached the wrong conclusion, and that the Orthodox dogma somehow excludes the possibility of the Catholic one being true. Latins are welcome to jump in and debate.

---

The Dogma of the Dormition Vs. The Dogma of the Assumption

The Dormition:

Bishop Kallistos, from Wikipedia:

Wikipedia on an interesting point: (is this true?)

The Assumption:

From the Catholic Encyclopedia (Pre-Vatican II, and PRE- INFALLIBLE DOGMATIC DECLARATION!)

From Munificentissimus Deus, by Pope Pius XII, The Dogmatic Declaration of the Assumption:

From Wikipedia, concerning this point:

So, it seems to me after this study, that the Assumption and the Dormition do NOT exclude eachother from being true. What i see is that in the Eastern tradition, the Dormition was more strictyl defined than in the west: in both east and west, it was dogma that the Blessed Virgin, the Theotokos, was assumed, body and soul, into heaven. In the East, they taught details concerning how long after her death she was risen, etc, while in the west, they did not view that information as central, instead focusing wholly on the point that she was assumed.

When the Assumption was defined as Dogma, Pope Pius XII intentionally did NOT define it as dogma that she did not first die. Indeed, the early fathers say that she did die, and Catholics can be proven to agree with this because we recognize her tomb. Some Catholics say Mary could not die because she was free of original sin; however, this need not be true, because Jesus was likewise free, but he died a natural, very human, death.

Therefore, I believe that the Dogmas of the Assumption and the Dormition are one and the same.

I invite the Orthodox to prove me wrong. As I said in my other thread:

please try to keep it academic and just explain the differences… I’m not interested in apologetics from either side, and I certainly want no arguing… That being said, let the arguing begin…

They sound the same to me.

 

[AMDGtoo]

They sound the same to me.

They are one and the same. Each year in August the Byzantine Catholic parish near me celebrates the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos. They have a shrine. And the story about the Dormition is put in their bulletin. (Of course they note that it was celebrated from the 300s). Three guesses as to the date of this feast–oh the first two guesses don’t count.

Oh, BTW, the Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church was once counted as Eastern Orthodox before it returned to the Catholic Church.

 

[ralphinal]

For all intents and purposes, they are the same. the wording is slightly different, but both the understanding and the implications are the same

 

[JimG]

The Dormition and the Assumption are exactly the same doctrine. I’ve never thought that there was any conflict between the two descriptions or any reason to think that there would be any conflict.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Actually, the bodily Assumption of our Lady IS believed as dogma by the Orthodox Church and always has been. Just because it’s not been declared by a council does not mean it’s not the teaching of the Church.

References to her Assumption are seen in the texts of the Post Feast, especially on the 17 August. Lex orandi, lex credendi. (In the Byzantine use, the week or so after a Great Feast is a post-festal period, with hymns continuing in honor of the event celebrated; compare this with the Western practice of “octaves.”)

 

[bpbasilphx]

When the Assumption was defined as Dogma, Pope Pius XII intentionally did NOT define it as dogma that she did not first die.

**Actually, he did.

In the Roman office for the feast promulgated in 1950 when Pius XII dogmatized the Assumption, the fifth Matins lesson, quoting St. John of Damascus, says “But she yielded obedience to the law established by him to whom she had given birth, and, as the daughter of the old Adam, underwent the old sentence [that is, death], which even her Son, who is the very Life Itself, had not refused.” Lex orandi, lex credendi. If it’s in the liturgical formularies of the Church, it’s the teaching of the church.**

 

[chrisb]

Actually the Feast of the Assumption is ‘not’ the Feast of the Dormition. It is a conflation of the Dormition and the Apodosis of the Dormition which is observed ‘after’ the actual Feast of the Dormition on the 23rd.

Once again Catholics have ‘conflated’ and ‘confused’ the Faith. It would serve us far better to seriously study Orthodox Liturgical Theology to understand our faith better.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Actually the Feast of the Assumption is ‘not’ the Feast of the Dormition. It is a conflation of the Dormition and the Apodosis of the Dormition which is observed ‘after’ the actual Feast of the Dormition on the 23rd.

Once again Catholics have ‘conflated’ and ‘confused’ the Faith. It would serve us far better to seriously study Orthodox Liturgical Theology to understand our faith better.

I think that the OP was asking if the Catholic Dogma of the Assumption and the Orthodox Dogma of Dormition were that same not the Feast commenerating them.

 

[chrisb]

I think that the OP was asking if the Catholic Dogma of the Assumption and the Orthodox Dogma of Dormition were that same not the Feast commenerating them.

Personally I’m okay with it.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

They are one and the same. Each year in August the Byzantine Catholic parish near me celebrates the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos. They have a shrine. And the story about the Dormition is put in their bulletin. (Of course they note that it was celebrated from the 300s). Three guesses as to the date of this feast–oh the first two guesses don’t count.

Oh, BTW, the Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church was once counted as Eastern Orthodox before it returned to the Catholic Church.

All of this i have known to be true, but there are many things that the Orthodox say are false that they accuse the eastern Catholics of compromising on. I know that the eastern Catholics celebrate the Dormition, I just wanted to see if actual Orthodox Christians on this forum would say “yes, we believe they are the same” or not.

Actually, the bodily Assumption of our Lady IS believed as dogma by the Orthodox Church and always has been. Just because it’s not been declared by a council does not mean it’s not the teaching of the Church.

References to her Assumption are seen in the texts of the Post Feast, especially on the 17 August. Lex orandi, lex credendi. (In the Byzantine use, the week or so after a Great Feast is a post-festal period, with hymns continuing in honor of the event celebrated; compare this with the Western practice of “octaves.”)

Yes, i understand that. I know that nothing NEED be formally declared to be dogma. That is why i am so irked when many orthodox say, in response to the Immaculate Conception and Papal infallibility “oh, but they were only recently defined.” Well, so what? it doesnt need to be defined to be dogma, and dogma is only formally declared after enough people challenge it and such a declaration is needed.

When the Assumption was defined as Dogma, Pope Pius XII intentionally did NOT define it as dogma that she did not first die.

**Actually, he did.

In the Roman office for the feast promulgated in 1950 when Pius XII dogmatized the Assumption, the fifth Matins lesson, quoting St. John of Damascus, says “But she yielded obedience to the law established by him to whom she had given birth, and, as the daughter of the old Adam, underwent the old sentence [that is, death], which even her Son, who is the very Life Itself, had not refused.” Lex orandi, lex credendi. If it’s in the liturgical formularies of the Church, it’s the teaching of the church.**

We’re saying the same thing, i just worded it very clumsily. In my post i pointed out that the liturgical texts say she died, but nevertheless, Pope Pius XII intentionally left this point open in the dogmatic declaration itself. I pointed this out because many Orthodox say that catholics beleieve she did not die, because they believe our notion of Orginal Sin is off the mark.

Actually the Feast of the Assumption is ‘not’ the Feast of the Dormition. It is a conflation of the Dormition and the Apodosis of the Dormition which is observed ‘after’ the actual Feast of the Dormition on the 23rd.

Once again Catholics have ‘conflated’ and ‘confused’ the Faith. It would serve us far better to seriously study Orthodox Liturgical Theology to understand our faith better.

How have we conflated and confused the faith? you’ll have to be more clear than that. Explanations and documents.

I never said the feasts were the same, (though they are on the same day). I understand that, chronoligically, the Dormition happened before the assumption. I think it is interesting that in one church, people focused on Mary’s passing, and in another, on her assumption.

They’re both such important events, and i’ve always been interested in how groups focus on certain aspects more that others. Kind of similar to how i’m always trying to decide if i like Christmas better, or Easter.

Personally I’m okay with it.

With what? with saying the two dogmas are equivalent? If so, then I’m okay with that, too.

 

[chrisb]

How have we conflated and confused the faith? you’ll have to be more clear than that. Explanations and documents.

I gave you the names of both Feasts. Look them up on an Orthodox Site. The fact that you have ‘one’ Feast (the Assumption) without a proper Memorial Feast (the Dormition) gives Catholics the wrong headed idea that Our Lady the Theotokos ‘never’ died.

I never said the feasts were the same, (though they are on the same day). I understand that, chronoligically, the Dormition happened before the assumption. I think it is interesting that in one church, people focused on Mary’s passing, and in another, on her assumption.

I think it’s interested that the West is celebrating her assumption (our Apodosis) without a Memorial of her Dormition (i.e. falling asleep) and on the wrong day (August 15th) Our Lady was not taken up until after her passing which is observed on August 23rd.

With what? with saying the two dogmas are equivalent? If so, then I’m okay with that, too.

I, personally, don’t have a problem with the dogmatic language.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

I gave you the names of both Feasts. Look them up on an Orthodox Site. The fact that you have ‘one’ Feast (the Assumption) without a proper Memorial Feast (the Dormition) gives Catholics the wrong headed idea that Our Lady the Theotokos ‘never’ died.

You may be right to point out that many Latin theologians throughout history have gotten a little speculative about the Blessed Virgini’s death. But your criticism about our feast days is a bit ridiculous, i think. I do not think that we “need” a memorial of Her death in addition to a celebration of her Assumption. As I said in my last post, Latins never really concentrated on her death. They always placed their attention on her Assumtpion. Its just how it happened. Not to mention, you should be more clear in your words. Many Catholics DO celebrate the Dormition: the Eastern Catholics. Only the Latin Church does not have a specific feast for her Dormition. Thats just the way it happened. We celebrate Lent differently, have different Christmas/Epiphany traditions, etc etc. It seems to me that you are saying 'Latins are wrong because theyre not Easterns," rather than offering any real evidence.

I think it’s interested that the West is celebrating her assumption (our Apodosis) without a Memorial of her Dormition (i.e. falling asleep) and on the wrong day (August 15th) Our Lady was not taken up until after her passing which is observed on August 23rd.

Okay… this just gets even more ridiculous here. The dates of the feats are not the actual dates the events happened on, and the dates DON’T MATTER! Like I said before, Latins never focused much on her death, viewing her Assumption as much more important. So we just never memorialized her death, prefering instead to rejoice in her Assumption. As to the date… I;d liek you to explain WHY the date even matters. We celebrate lots of things on different dates! The East and the West have used many different claendars, and the east has had whole schism over calendar dates. So why would you even bring up feast DATES unless you were purposefully trying to be antagonistic.

I, personally, don’t have a problem with the dogmatic language.

Well, i guess thats what counts i guess:shrug:

 

[chrisb]

You may be right to point out that many Latin theologians throughout history have gotten a little speculative about the Blessed Virgini’s death. But your criticism about our feast days is a bit ridiculous, i think. I do not think that we “need” a memorial of Her death in addition to a celebration of her Assumption. As I said in my last post, Latins never really concentrated on her death. They always placed their attention on her Assumtpion. Its just how it happened. Not to mention, you should be more clear in your words.

I think if you did a study on how the West brought this Feast from the East into their own Liturgical Calendar you will find that there is evidence that it was a mistaken conflation of the Dormition and Apodosis. In fact the Assumption, although celebrated on the same date as the Dormition is really only the Apodosis of the Dormition. The Dormition simply never made into the Liturgical Calendar of the Western Church. With the reforms after Vatican II I would have hoped Bugnini would have spent more time consulting with the Orthodox than Lutherans and Anglicans and added this to their New Roman Calendar.

Many Catholics DO celebrate the Dormition: the Eastern Catholics. Only the Latin Church does not have a specific feast for her Dormition. Thats just the way it happened. We celebrate Lent differently, have different Christmas/Epiphany traditions, etc etc. It seems to me that you are saying 'Latins are wrong because theyre not Easterns," rather than offering any real evidence.

Many? What would you say 1-2% of the Worlds Roman Catholic population? Come on now.

Okay… this just gets even more ridiculous here. The dates of the feats are not the actual dates the events happened on, and the dates DON’T MATTER! Like I said before, Latins never focused much on her death, viewing her Assumption as much more important. So we just never memorialized her death, prefering instead to rejoice in her Assumption. As to the date… I;d liek you to explain WHY the date even matters. We celebrate lots of things on different dates! The East and the West have used many different claendars, and the east has had whole schism over calendar dates. So why would you even bring up feast DATES unless you were purposefully trying to be antagonistic.

The dates ‘do’ matter. The received these Feast ‘from’ the Eastern Church and didn’t do a great job of entering them into the Liturgical Calendar.

I’m not trying to be antagonistic but I am trying to give you the facts.

Well, i guess thats what counts i guess:shrug:

Well, I believe the West would be nourished to have both the Dormition and Apodosis in the Western Liturgical Calendar. We can always hope and pray, right?

 

[belgianwaffles9]

I think if you did a study on how the West brought this Feast from the East into their own Liturgical Calendar you will find that there is evidence that it was a mistaken conflation of the Dormition and Apodosis. In fact the Assumption, although celebrated on the same date as the Dormition is really only the Apodosis of the Dormition. The Dormition simply never made into the Liturgical Calendar of the Western Church. With the reforms after Vatican II I would have hoped Bugnini would have spent more time consulting with the Orthodox than Lutherans and Anglicans and added this to their New Roman Calendar.

You’re right. The dormition never did make it into the western calendar. And i know very well that the assumption is equivalent to the Apodosis in eastenr theology. The fact that it didnt make in into the western calendar is not, i dont think, the result of any confusion on the Latins part. If you prove this to me with historical documents, I’ll believe it (it wouldnt make any difference at all in any beliefs). However, i am inclined to believe what i already said before: the Latins concentrated more on the Assumption. Its just what they found important, and it became our tradition. Nothing wrong with that.

As to your comment about Bugnini… I completely agree.

Many? What would you say 1-2% of the Worlds Roman Catholic population? Come on now.

They’re still important. And a number of Eastern hierarchs have been very influential. They are also EXTREMELY important in our ecumenical dialogues.

The dates ‘do’ matter. The received these Feast ‘from’ the Eastern Church and didn’t do a great job of entering them into the Liturgical Calendar.

I’m not trying to be antagonistic but I am trying to give you the facts.

If they’re facts, why haven’t you provided definitive documentation. I would like to see them. I am very interested in liturgical development. Many feats and deovtions have been “borrowed” or “received” by one or the other (you say that as if the church wasnt universal, as if one group doesnt have equal claims to and saints or devotions of the other). The dates dont matter: We celebrate easter on different days, but so what?

Well, I believe the West would be nourished to have both the Dormition and Apodosis in the Western Liturgical Calendar. We can always hope and pray, right?

I suppose on one hand, yes, the West could do well with any better understanding of the Blessed Virgin’s life. However, i think there might be net harm done if we denied the development of our own tradition: Latins have always emphasized the Assumption, so we should not add the dormition “just because the east has it.” Besides, we do not need to: Catholic understanding is that the Church is universal. I can walk into any Eastern Catholic church and celebrate the Dormition. All of these feasts are the right of Catholics of EVERY right. The Church is UNIVERSAL.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Actually the Feast of the Assumption is ‘not’ the Feast of the Dormition. It is a conflation of the Dormition and the Apodosis of the Dormition which is observed ‘after’ the actual Feast of the Dormition on the 23rd.

“Apodosis” simply means “Leavetaking,” when the Office and Liturgy of a Feast are repeated on that day. (Similar to the old Latin “octave day.”)

 

[chrisb]

Actually the Feast of the Assumption is ‘not’ the Feast of the Dormition. It is a conflation of the Dormition and the Apodosis of the Dormition which is observed ‘after’ the actual Feast of the Dormition on the 23rd.

“Apodosis” simply means “Leavetaking,” when the Office and Liturgy of a Feast are repeated on that day. (Similar to the old Latin “octave day.”)

Yes but the ‘assumption’ of the translated body of Our Lady doesn’t happen until three-days ‘after’ the Feast of the Dormition. That is completely missing in the modern Western Calendar. Gone.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

Yes but the ‘assumption’ of the translated body of Our Lady doesn’t happen until three-days ‘after’ the Feast of the Dormition. That is completely missing in the modern Western Calendar. Gone.

Yes, but as i have said before… SO WHAT?!

you are saying that we are wrong simply because we are not byzantines.

Latins focused more on the assumption, so that became our tradition. I do not think anything is necessarily lost by focusing on the assumption.

Just because the latin rite of Catholicism does not have a particular feast set aside for the dormition does not mean we don’t believe it.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Yes but the ‘assumption’ of the translated body of Our Lady doesn’t happen until three-days ‘after’ the Feast of the Dormition. That is completely missing in the modern Western Calendar. Gone.

Yes, but I figure it is like how many (not all) celebrate the feast of our Lord’s resurrection on Easter without really noting Good Friday. It’s not that it never happened and it doesn’t take away from it–in fact, without Good Friday there would be no Easter Sunday. It’s that the most glorious moment is celebrated.

I think that the west has chosen to celebrate that glorious moment of the Assumption (or “leavetaking”) of the great Theotokos (our Lady, the Mother of God). IMO it doesn’t really take anything away from her.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Yes but the ‘assumption’ of the translated body of Our Lady doesn’t happen until three-days ‘after’ the Feast of the Dormition. That is completely missing in the modern Western Calendar. Gone.

It is generally not mentioned in the Byzantine liturgical texts until 17 August, except in the fairly modern Burial of the Theotokos, a special form of Matins of the 15 celebrated in some places.