assumption?

[idagirl]

Please excuse my ignorance on this topic, but can anyone explain the historical basis of the assumption dogma? Was there an actual witnessed event? When? And was does assumption actually mean - is it thought that her body floated upward? Is it thought that heaven has a physical location in the sky where she went to join Jesus? Or is “assumption” a word to convey an idea that Mary was granted special treatment without the claim of an actual event? Is her place of death known? Please help me understand this teaching. Thanks.

 

[thistle]

I was being facetious. Apparently the emoticon didn’t adequately convey that.

Ok, let me take this from a different angle. I’m really trying not to be argumentative here, I would actually like to understand. If the liturgical texts do not constitute Church teaching, how do you define teaching that would be non-infalible, but binding? If liturgical texts do not teach us what the Church teaches, what do they do?

It seems to me that Munificentissimus Deus was deliberately narrow and specific, as Dogmatic definitions should be. The fact that her death was not included in the definition indicates to me that it was not critical to the dogma being defined, not that the Church has no position on her death (or lack thereof). The definition of the dogma had a purpose: " Finally it is our hope that belief in Mary’s bodily Assumption into Heaven will make our belief in our own resurrection stronger and render it more effective." The Pope didn’t need to define details of her death in order to accomplish this goal.

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/the-assumption-of-mary#ixzz3AnF1ymOt

Do you happen to know the history of this belief that Mary did not die? The first time I had ever heard of the concept was when I went to hear Fr. Donald Calloway speak about a year ago. It stunned me, because I come from an Eastern background with such a strong tradition of celebrating the Dormition. I’ve researched it a lot since then, and I honestly have found nothing to indicate where it comes from, when it started, or what “evidence” is there to support it. Evidence for belief in Mary’s death is strong. We have her tomb, the ancient liturgical texts, the writings of the Fathers. Everywhere I read, it explains that the common belief is that she died, with the caveat that Catholics are free to believe that she did not. I struggle with this, because every official Church source that I read indicates that she did die, from liturgies both East and West to Munificentissimus Deus. Yes, while you state that the only “teaching” in MD is the dogmatic definition, it strongly states, while quoting those who have gone before, that Mary did die. It does not give so much as a nod to the idea that she did not die. In fact, I have yet to find any liturgical reference to her Assumption that specifically says that she did not die. Since there is such a lack of evidence, who are these people who believe that Mary did not die? Are there popes who have believed (and taught) this? Do some Bishops believe this? Theologians? Or is this simply a popular belief among the laity?

Perhaps I’m coming at this from an Eastern perspective in a Western world, Our liturgy is strongly catechetical. Liturgy is how we are formed, how our beliefs are shaped and informs our understanding of the faith. If this is not the teaching of the Church, what is? Encyclicals and other official documents? They don’t necessarily contain binding teaching, but they do contain teaching. But the liturgy is our treasure of catechesis - our beliefs encapsulated by past generations to pass the faith on to the future. It is only in recent times that ordinary laity have taken to reading papal encyclicals and pronouncements. In the past, we (in the East at least) have learned our faith primarily from the liturgy.

To give you a hint, the CCC contains a summary of Church teachings, both infallible and non-infallible, all of which bind us. It makes no difference which ones are infallible or non-infallible.
Canon Law also binds us.

As I said several times I happen to believe Mary died first before being assumed but I have friend who believes she did not. Neither of us can claim to be correct because the Church does not definitively know. All we have on her death is tradition with a small “t” which we don’t have to believe, albeit I am persuaded by everything I have read. However, that does not constitute any binding teaching.

 

[babochka]

To give you a hint, the CCC contains a summary of Church teachings, both infallible and non-infallible, all of which bind us.

Ok, then the Catechism teaches the death of Mary. Perhaps not explicity, but it is referenced as part of the Catechism. The troparion of the Feast of the Dormition is there to support the doctrine of the Assumption, which is of course the main point of faith, but if the Church were remaining carefully neutral on the subject, they would have chosen a supporting quote that did not explicitly reference her death. Dormition might be symbolic language, but it does mean death in Eastern Christianity.

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.

The Feast of the Dormition is the feast of the death and assumption of the Theotokos. When we celebrated this feast last week, we venerated an icon of Mary, lying in a tomb. The West only celebrates her Assumption on this day, but the East celebrates her** death **and assumption. I emphasize this point only to clearly define what the Dormition is, so that there is no misunderstanding that the dormition, or falling asleep, could refer to something other than actual physical death. Perhaps the Catechism does not emphasize or make the point of her death more explicit because it is, frankly, not the main point. From a faith point of view, it really doesn’t matter. Still, it is present in the CCC.

 

[PJM]

=joseph therese;Hi again tradition

The Assumption of Mary
BY MARK SHEA [shorten to fit post by PJM]

The most recent Marian dogma—the Assumption—was promulgated in 1950. But like all doctrinal developments throughout the history of the Church, it is rooted in apostolic teaching and reflected in Scripture. Pope Pius XII defined the dogma this way:

“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.”

we have the witness of the New Testament, which already takes for granted the image of Mary as a Cosmic Heavenly Figure by the time of the book of Revelation (roughly 90 AD).

And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had borne the male child… and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. Rev 12:1-6; 13, 17

Note that: she is identified not merely as the Mother of the One who is to “rule all the nations with a rod of iron”, but of “the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus”.

This obviously Marian allusion is telling, particularly because it appears in a book which is closely associated with the one evangelist who, above all, also writes a gospel to emphasize the fact that Mary is the Mother, not only of Jesus but of all the baptized:

“When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son!’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.” John 19:26-27

That said, however, we must again remember that the Tradition of the Assumption is not based on Scripture, but rather precedes the writing of the New Testament. The Church does not read a strange text in Revelation about a woman clothed with the sun and then say, “Let’s pretend this refers to Mary and invent a story about her being assumed into heaven.” Rather the Assumption occurs (most likely in the 40s or 50s AD) and the Church carries the Tradition with it into history, where it is reflected in various ways (including in Revelation 12 some forty or 50 years later).

What this reflects, ironically, is unanimity about the basic Tradition rather than doubt. The early controversies in the Church concerned the person and work of Jesus, not the Blessed Virgin. Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, assumed into heaven, turns up in tomb art as far away as Spain as early as 312 AD, indicating it was already a long settled matter by the time it crossed the Mediterranean. Similarly, various apocryphal and spurious works such as the De Obitu S. Dominae and De Transitu Virginis, as well as various Fathers of the early Church, bear witness to the Assumption.

Let them search the scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die…

Did she die? We do not know. At all events, if she was buried, she had no carnal intercourse . . . . Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires. – St. Epiphanius

Much is made of the spurious works by critics, as though the Church stole the idea of the Assumption from them. But, in fact, the spurious works are simply reflecting what was already commonly believed by Christians. Indeed, in the east, the Church promulgates the Feast of the Dormition in the fourth century and there is simply no controversy.

The question is: why did the Pope define this commonly accepted point of faith as dogma in 1950? And the answer lies in the encyclical which proclaimed the dogma: Munificentissimus Deus:

Thus, while the illusory teachings of materialism and the corruption of morals that follows from these teachings threaten to extinguish the light of virtue and to ruin the lives of men by exciting discord among them, in this magnificent way all may see clearly to what a lofty goal our bodies and souls are destined.

Mary’s destiny is the sign of our destiny. As she is the icon of the Church, so she is the Model Disciple who shows not only how to follow Christ, but the reward awaiting those who do. The Triune God wills to grant us, as he has already granted her, the ecstatic crowned glory of complete union—body, soul, and spirit—with himself in eternity. The Church, in pointing to Mary, is simply underscoring that fact. She is the great sign of Hope for all believers in Christ." by Mark Shea

 

[glendab]

Hello Brandall.

This, (catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/f/Did-The-Virgin-Mary-Die.htm) is how we learned it in RCIA.

WELCOME! :extrahappy: Glad you’re here! I’m a convert too. Isn’t RCIA an awesome experience?

Thanks for the link.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Thistle.

We are NOT in agreement. A teaching does not have to be dogmatic to bind Catholics. Non-infallible teachings bind us as well. There is no non-infallible teaching that Mary died or did not die.

I repeat that Munificentissimus Deus does NOT TEACH Mary died otherwise we would be bound by that. We are not. The reference in MD is simply a preamble about some Church fathers who believed she died (this is tradition with a small t). That is NOT A TEACHING. The CHURCH has no position on this.
The ONLY teaching in MD is the Assumption of Mary and nothing else.

As I said in earlier posts I personally believe she died first. However, as there is no binding teaching on the matter I cannot say to other Catholics you must believe Mary died.

I’ve given the link to Father Saunders’ article at EWTN, in which he states (Note that the solemn definition does not specify whether Mary physically died before being assumed or just was assumed; it simply states, “Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life…”)

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3c.htm

I think the posts that were presented by Babochka are very well put together. They are very accurate and fair and give a good synopsis of what the Church actually knows and teaches about the death of Mary. He is doing such a good job, I’m not even going to try to add a thing. Instead, I’m going to go mystic on you.

Mary is the only human to have followed her Son perfectly, without sin or fault. She lived her entire life from conception to death without so much as a misstep. Not once. Her Son died. She being conformed to her Son, would follow. I know that some have trouble with this because death being a punishment for sin, cannot grasp that being sinless she would be subject to the punishment of every other sinner. She didn’t deserve it. Look beyond that and see that neither did her Son. She followed Him perfectly even unto her singular death. For no one died like her Son and no one died like Mary either. Nor will anyone. Hers was the Holiest death of all mankind.

Glenda

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Perhaps a good analogy would be that the Council of Nicaea did not Creed did not explicitly lay out the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit, but that did not mean that Catholics were free to deny the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit. That article was added to the Creed which we say today, not because the Church newly pulled it out of hat, but because it had been believed all along. In the same way, Assumption along with the Dormition (death) of the Virgin Mary and her Assumption has been the belief of the Church, even though the Dormition was not stated explicitly in the definition of the Assumption dogma. Likewise, the Church believed in the Assumption prior to Munificentissimus Deus.

 

[Brandall]

Perhaps a good analogy would be that the Council of Nicaea did not Creed did not explicitly lay out the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit, but that did not mean that Catholics were free to deny the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit. That article was added to the Creed which we say today, not because the Church newly pulled it out of hat, but because it had been believed all along. In the same way, Assumption along with the Dormition (death) of the Virgin Mary and her Assumption has been the belief of the Church, even though the Dormition was not stated explicitly in the definition of the Assumption dogma. Likewise, the Church believed in the Assumption prior to Munificentissimus Deus.

The Church knows of the varied arguments surrounding this and does not see a need to definitely end them. Personally, it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other and I don’t mean that as a slight to anyone. I’m just happy for what the Virgin did and what that has meant to my life.

I’m a new Catholic and have not, as yet, developed a huge affection to Mary. If that one day happens, I’ll see things differently.

 

[glendab]

Hello Thistle.

To give you a hint, the CCC contains a summary of Church teachings, both infallible and non-infallible, all of which bind us. It makes no difference which ones are infallible or non-infallible.
Canon Law also binds us.

As I said several times I happen to believe Mary died first before being assumed but I have friend who believes she did not. Neither of us can claim to be correct **because the Church does not definitively know. **All we have on her death is tradition with a small “t” which we don’t have to believe, albeit I am persuaded by everything I have read. However, that does not constitute any binding teaching.

Ummmm…excuse me but the Church does know. As I said before St. John witnessed her passing and her Assumption. If he isn’t the Church, who is? I’ve heard it said that some of the Apostles actually journeyed there for the event, thus you have this depicted in iconographic writings. These are the long held beliefs of the Church Thistle. I don’t know who it is who has told you the Church has no knowledge of the passing of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but they are not correct. What gets tossed around are the “visions” of certain of the Saints regarding these Mysteries and there are a few who directly contradict each other. But they are private visions and revelations and aren’t binding on anyone to believe or disbelieve. But the fact remains, Mary died and then was Assumed body and soul into Heaven to be united with her Divine Son and then crowned Heaven’s Queen. Every time the Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary are prayed we are asked to believe this. Where do you get your information from? I’m confused.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Babochka.

Ok, then the Catechism teaches the death of Mary. Perhaps not explicity, but it is referenced as part of the Catechism. The troparion of the Feast of the Dormition is there to support the doctrine of the Assumption, which is of course the main point of faith, but if the Church were remaining carefully neutral on the subject, they would have chosen a supporting quote that did not explicitly reference her death. Dormition might be symbolic language, but it does mean death in Eastern Christianity.

The Feast of the Dormition is the feast of the death and assumption of the Theotokos. When we celebrated this feast last week, we venerated an icon of Mary, lying in a tomb. The West only celebrates her Assumption on this day, but the East celebrates her** death **and assumption. I emphasize this point only to clearly define what the Dormition is, so that there is no misunderstanding that the dormition, or falling asleep, could refer to something other than actual physical death. Perhaps the Catechism does not emphasize or make the point of her death more explicit because it is, frankly, not the main point. From a faith point of view, it really doesn’t matter. Still, it is present in the CCC.

Your posts are very good. Keep it up. One thing though - you won’t get Thistle to admit she’s wrong. And she’ll say the Eastern Church doesn’t speak for the Universal Church when it celebrates her death and Assumption and there ya go! They aren’t part of the Church as Thistle defines Church.

Glenda

 

[thistle]

Ok, then the Catechism teaches the death of Mary. Perhaps not explicity, but it is referenced as part of the Catechism. The troparion of the Feast of the Dormition is there to support the doctrine of the Assumption, which is of course the main point of faith, but if the Church were remaining carefully neutral on the subject, they would have chosen a supporting quote that did not explicitly reference her death. Dormition might be symbolic language, but it does mean death in Eastern Christianity.

The Feast of the Dormition is the feast of the death and assumption of the Theotokos. When we celebrated this feast last week, we venerated an icon of Mary, lying in a tomb. The West only celebrates her Assumption on this day, but the East celebrates her** death **and assumption. I emphasize this point only to clearly define what the Dormition is, so that there is no misunderstanding that the dormition, or falling asleep, could refer to something other than actual physical death. Perhaps the Catechism does not emphasize or make the point of her death more explicit because it is, frankly, not the main point. From a faith point of view, it really doesn’t matter. Still, it is present in the CCC.

The CCC does NOT teach the death of Mary. That is a blatant untruth.

 

[babochka]

The CCC does NOT teach the death of Mary. That is a blatant untruth.

Rather than accuse me of lying, perhaps you could take a moment to refute my points. I don’t think I’m being unreasonable in my interpretation, but I do realize that it is an interpretation. What is your interpretation of the troparion of the Dormition’s inclusion in the CCC. If it is not an acknowledgement of Mary’s death, what is it and what is its purpose?

Also, you’re never responded to my point about liturgy and its role in catechesis (teaching).

True, I enjoy a good debate, but I am truly open to being convinced. I’m stating the facts as I see and interpret them. I’m interested in knowing how you see and interpret them.

 

[thistle]

Rather than accuse me of lying, perhaps you could take a moment to refute my points. ** I don’t think I’m being unreasonable in my interpretation, but I do realize that it is an interpretation.** What is your interpretation of the troparion of the Dormition’s inclusion in the CCC. If it is not an acknowledgement of Mary’s death, what is it and what is its purpose?

Also, you’re never responded to my point about liturgy and its role in catechesis (teaching).

True, I enjoy a good debate, but I am truly open to being convinced. I’m stating the facts as I see and interpret them. I’m interested in knowing how you see and interpret them.

Okay, so now you admit it is NOT a Church teaching but only your private interpretation. I rest my case and am glad you agree the Church does NOT teach Mary died first.

Just as Munificentissimus Deus carefully uses “completed the course of her earthly life” and the CCC uses “dormition” this leaves it open to mean death or no death. If the Church taught Mary died we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

The CCC contains a summary of Church teachings. Anything that contradicts the CCC is not a teaching, even it is believed by a particular rite. As the use of the word dormition leaves it open any rite can say she died or did not die because it does not contradict the CCC. The Western Church which is the largest rite does not state anywhere that Mary died.

Remember rejecting a Church teaching (infallible or non-infallible) is a sin of grave matter and if knowing that a teaching is still rejected then a mortal sin is committed.
Ask your priest if we are bound upon pain of mortal sin to believe Mary died first before her Assumption.
I have asked a priest friend of mine (he’s in his 70’s) and two younger priests I did not know. Their answers were consistent. We must believe in the Assumption but are free to believe Mary died or did not die first.

 

[thistle]

After my post above somebody showed me this article (see below) about the Assumption document Munificentissimus Deus. Interesting article.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=469

 

[RyanBlack]

The CCC does NOT teach the death of Mary. That is a blatant untruth.

I agree with Babochka. It seems clear to me that the CCC, in paragraph 966, affirms the traditional belief of both Eastern and Western churches that the Theotokos did in fact die.

“Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.” The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.

The traditions surrounding the Dormition are clear that the Theotokos died, was buried, and resurrected. Furthermore, are not the Resurrection in which the Assumption participates and the resurrections of Christians which it anticipates resurrections from death? One who never encounters death has no need of resurrection.

 

[thistle]

I agree with Babochka. It seems clear to me that the CCC, in paragraph 966, affirms the traditional belief of both Eastern and Western churches that the Theotokos did in fact die.

“Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.” The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.

The traditions surrounding the Dormition are clear that the Theotokos died, was buried, and resurrected. Furthermore, are not the Resurrection in which the Assumption participates and the resurrections of Christians which it anticipates resurrections from death? One who never encounters death has no need of resurrection.

That is your interpretation.

The Church does NOT teach that Mary died. Catholics are NOT bound to believe Mary died.
We are bound upon pain of sin to accept all Church teachings (whether infallible or non-infallible). Mary’s death is neither. It is tradition with a small “t” which Catholics are free to ignore.

I repeat for the umpteenth time that I believe Mary died first. However, because it is NOT a Church teaching I cannot say to anyone who believes she did not die that they are wrong and committing a sin of grave matter by such a belief.

 

[babochka]

Okay, so now you admit it is NOT a Church teaching but only your private interpretation. I rest my case and am glad you agree the Church does NOT teach Mary died first.

Now you’re taking a page from my book! The definition of Dormition is not my private interpretation, it is the understanding of the Church. My interpretation is that the Church clearly teaches the death of Mary, or her Dormition would not be included in the Catechism.

Just as Munificentissimus Deus carefully uses “completed the course of her earthly life” and the CCC uses “dormition” this leaves it open to mean death or no death. If the Church taught Mary died we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

The CCC contains a summary of Church teachings. Anything that contradicts the CCC is not a teaching, even it is believed by a particular rite. As the use of the word dormition leaves it open any rite can say she died or did not die because it does not contradict the CCC.

No, “dormition” does not leave it open to death or no death. Dormition very clearly means death in Christian vocabulary. If I told you that someone had “fallen asleep in the Lord”, would you not know that I meant that person had died? Since Dormition means death, then teaching that Mary did not die contradicts the Catechism.

The Western Church which is the largest rite does not state anywhere that Mary died.

This is not correct. I quoted in a previous post the collect from the Feast of the Assumption in the Dominican Rite, which is a Western Rite. It quite clearly references her death. And the fact that the Latin Rite is the largest really has no bearing on the matter whatsoever. Historically, the various churches have emphasized different teachings because of the particular circumstances that each Church has encountered.

Remember rejecting a Church teaching (infallible or non-infallible) is a sin of grave matter and if knowing that a teaching is still rejected then a mortal sin is committed.
Ask your priest if we are bound upon pain of mortal sin to believe Mary died first before her Assumption.

My priest would be confused if I used that phrasing and wonder if I’d recently immigrated from the planet Latin.

I have asked a priest friend of mine (he’s in his 70’s) and two younger priests I did not know. Their answers were consistent. We must believe in the Assumption but are free to believe Mary died or did not die first.

It just so happens that I was at Vespers tonight while you wrote this, and I asked my priest about it. No so much the “is it a mortal sin” question, but “is it a teaching of the Church that Mary died before she was assumed into heaven?” The answer? “Of course it is? Why else do we celebrate her death and venerate the icon of her in the tomb? Her death and resurrection echo Christ’s and prefigure our own.” He had more to say, but it is late… So I asked him about this idea that this is somehow an “optional” belief and he said that he really didn’t know, as he’d never studied the question. What he was clear on, though, is that the death and Assumption of Mary are teachings of the Church, and inseparable.

I have a question for you: Prior to 1950, was belief in the Assumption optional, since it had not yet been dogmatically defined? Prior to the Council of Trent, was it optional to believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord?

It seems this needs more clarification. The Church chose not to take on this matter for clarification for whatever reasons existed at the time. The Church moves slowly and clarifies these matters as needed. Perhaps no pressing need is seen.

 

[babochka]

After my post above somebody showed me this article (see below) about the Assumption document Munificentissimus Deus. Interesting article.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=469

This seems to be a well-written and thorough article, which addresses several of my questions regarding the history of the belief that she did not die, as well as how widespread is the belief. I just skimmed it tonight, but I’ll read it again in the morning. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Brandall]

Now you’re taking a page from my book! The definition of Dormition is not my private interpretation, it is the understanding of the Church. My interpretation is that the Church clearly teaches the death of Mary, or her Dormition would not be included in the Catechism.

The CCC contains a summary of Church teachings. Anything that contradicts the CCC is not a teaching, even it is believed by a particular rite. As the use of the word dormition leaves it open any rite can say she died or did not die because it does not contradict the CCC.

No, “dormition” does not leave it open to death or no death. Dormition very clearly means death in Christian vocabulary. If I told you that someone had “fallen asleep in the Lord”, would you not know that I meant that person had died? Since Dormition means death, then teaching that Mary did not die contradicts the Catechism.

This is not correct. I quoted in a previous post the collect from the Feast of the Assumption in the Dominican Rite, which is a Western Rite. It quite clearly references her death. And the fact that the Latin Rite is the largest really has no bearing on the matter whatsoever. Historically, the various churches have emphasized different teachings because of the particular circumstances that each Church has encountered.

My priest would be confused if I used that phrasing and wonder if I’d recently immigrated from the planet Latin.

It just so happens that I was at Vespers tonight while you wrote this, and I asked my priest about it. No so much the “is it a mortal sin” question, but “is it a teaching of the Church that Mary died before she was assumed into heaven?” The answer? “Of course it is? Why else do we celebrate her death and venerate the icon of her in the tomb? Her death and resurrection echo Christ’s and prefigure our own.” He had more to say, but it is late… So I asked him about this idea that this is somehow an “optional” belief and he said that he really didn’t know, as he’d never studied the question. What he was clear on, though, is that the death and Assumption of Mary are teachings of the Church, and inseparable.

I have a question for you: Prior to 1950, was belief in the Assumption optional, since it had not yet been dogmatically defined? Prior to the Council of Trent, was it optional to believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord?

It seems this needs more clarification. The Church chose not to take on this matter for clarification for whatever reasons existed at the time. The Church moves slowly and clarifies these matters as needed. Perhaps no pressing need is seen.

The portion of ccc 966 that you site is a quote from a Byzantine Mass. Footnotes are your friend. Does including a quote make it doctrine?

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Yes, actually. If a quotation is included in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the meaning of the quotation is confirmed by it. A catechism would not quote a statement as teaching if teaching was not the CCC’s teaching. Now, you may argue that the CCC is not infallible, but you do not have any authority to dispute what it teaches.

There is a certain misconception of how the Catholic faith works, perhaps springing from an overreaction against Protestantism. Our faith does not merely consist in excerpts of papal documents and ecumenical councils. These confirm and solemnly define the faith already believed.

And in case anyone argues that the meaning of “Dormition” is ambiguous, consider this passage of scripture which is least ambiguous.

These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.