CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[Hercules253]

Good Fellow, I think you should read this article from TIME Magazine, its very interesting and will talk about the historical truth on how Pius came up with that dogma. Not many Catholics are aware of this.

CLICK HERE

 

[Benadam]

So in summary, Catholics say they don’t exactly know if Mary died first before assuming into Heaven and then a thousand years they finally made up their mind (you call it divine revelation) and now claim that she didn’t die after all but assumed body AND soul into Heaven and that this is infallible and if you don’t believe this you have fallen away from the Catholic Faith.

 

[Good_Fella]

Actually I don’t think it could be more loud and clear. Pius explicitly claims that and since he claims that, it is infallible…in fact the Catechism follows him:

966 "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."

Being “taken up body and soul into heavenly glory” doesn’t necessarily presuppose that Mary either died first or was assumed while living. The Catholic Church favors the eastern tradition of Mary’s dormition and celebrates this event in the life of Mary. However, Pope Pius refrained from declaring the event of Mary’s physical death a dogma. He declared the incorruptibilty of Mary’s body a dogmatic truth which must be believed by all Christians. Mary could have escaped the corruption of death by either avoiding the tomb or by being raised to new life before decomposition would naturally set in.

That’s interesting that you say the Pontiff doesn’t know exactly how Mary’s life ended (even though he does state it) but I guess this pope does when he says-

• “if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt **that which we have defined the “Assumption of Mary", ***let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith” (Munificentissimus Deus, 45,)
  -The papal bull of 1950 declared this

• “Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church’s ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin’s bodily Assumption into heaven…as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned - is a truth revealed by God and something consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church.”*
  Munificentissimus Deus, 12, Pope Pius Xll, 1 November 1950

As far as the end of Mary’s earthly life is concerned, Catholics are not bound to give their full sacred assent to the belief in Mary’s physical death under the pain of anathema. We are obligated to believe that “after the course of her earthly life” our Blessed Mother was preserved free from the corruption of death and bodily assumed into heaven. Meanwhile the sensus fidelium assent to the apostolic tradition of Mary’s dormition which originated in Palestine but did not become widespread in the early centuries. Faith in Christ had to first be established under the protective guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Catholics say:
they don’t exactly know if Mary died first before assuming into Heaven and then a thousand years they finally made up their mind (you call it divine revelation) and now claim that she didn’t die after all but assumed body AND soul into Heaven and that this is infallible and if you don’t believe this you have fallen away from the Catholic Faith.…hey the “infallible” popes said all this, not me.

Catholics acknowledge that there is no scriptural account of the end of Mary’s life, but they affirm that there is scriptural support for the constant traditional belief (paradosis) in the bodily assumption of Mary and her preservation from the corruption of death. We have never had to make up our mind over the question of Mary’s assumption to begin with, since this event has always been a part of the deposit of faith since apostolic time: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven has always been an infallible teaching of the Church notwithstanding the relative silence of the early Church Fathers. The ECFs indicate that the early Church believed in Mary’s assumption in view of their allusions to Mary as the sinless and pure new Eve and the undefiled and incorruptible ark of the Covenant. Please read the entire Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius and see for yourself how the pontiff appeals to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition - not to mention the sensus fidelium with regard to Mary’s end in this life - in his dogmatic definition.

“The apostles entrust the ‘Sacred deposit’ of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church…[the Magisterium] teaches only what has been handed on to it…All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith” (Catechism, 84-86).

True. The deposit of faith is something dynamic which develops over time in its fullness.

PAX :harp:

 

[Benadam]

True. The deposit of faith is something dynamic which develops over time in its fullness.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

The Blessed Virgin Mary said to St. Bridget of Sweden:

*"One day when I was admiring the love of God in a spiritual ecstasy, my soul was filled with such joy that it could hardly contain itself. And during that contemplation my soul departed from my body. You cannot imagine what splendor my soul perceived then, and with what honor the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit welcomed it, and with what a multitude of angels it was carried upward.

"But those persons who were in my house with me when I gave up my spirit fully understood what divine mysteries I was then experiencing, because of the unusual light that they saw. Thereafter those friends of my Son who had been brought together by God buried my body in the valley of Josaphat. Countless angels accompanied them.

"My body lay entombed in the ground. Then it was taken up to Heaven with infinite honor and rejoicing. There is no other human body in Heaven except the glorious body of my Son and my body*.

“That my Assumption was not known to many persons was the will of God, my Son, in order that faith in his Ascension might first of all be firmly established in the hearts of men, for they were not prepared to believe in his Ascension, especially if my Assumption had been announced in the beginning.”

The Revelations of St. Bridget were judged favorably by Pope Gregory Xl and Pope Boniface lX. The Council of Constance (1414-18) and the Council of Basel (1431-49) judged them to be in conformity with the Catholic faith and worthy of belief.

Pax Christu :harp:

I have a problem with this: Elijah.

 

[Hercules253]

Being “taken up body and soul into heavenly glory”** doesn’t necessarily presuppose** that Mary either died first or was assumed while living. The Catholic Church favors the eastern tradition of Mary’s dormition and celebrates this event in the life of Mary. However, Pope Pius refrained from declaring the event of Mary’s physical death a dogma. He declared the incorruptibilty of Mary’s body a dogmatic truth which must be believed by all Christians. Mary could have escaped the corruption of death by either avoiding the tomb or by being raised to new life before decomposition would naturally set in.

You’re right- It doesn’t mean that she died or not and she could of escaped death but according to Pius, its seems he’s leaning more towards that she didn’t die

5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

14… But this in no way prevented them from believing and from professing openly that her sacred body had never been subject to the corruption of the tomb, and that the august tabernacle of the Divine Word had never been reduced to dust and ashes

-MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS
Pope Pius XII

Catholics tend to answer this by always saying that “its not important if she died or not”…is it because they really don’t know? Or is it because it wasn’t passed down through apostolic tradition?
Last, why don’t Catholics accept Eastern Orthodox view that Mary died? Eastern Orthodox claim it was a traditional fact that Mary indeed died. What’s holding Catholics back from accepting it??

A. If Mary died, there would of been a tradition claiming she died, which there is…

B. If Mary was assumed into Heaven without death like Elijah and Enoch, then there would be tradition of that as well, but there is isn’t…

So once again why doesn’t the Church side in favor with the Orthodox view?

What’s interesting is that in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs along with Catholic tradition, they have every single account of every apostle’s death.
They know where Peter is buried, they know that Paul died in Rome during Nero’s reign (according to Clement). I mean they have an account for everyone’s death and where they died. The list goes on forever!
But for some strange reason they have no clue to where or if Mary, the most important revered figure as Queen Theotokos of Heaven in the Catholic Church besides the Trinity, died or not!..hhmmmmm…

that’s very questionable…

 

[Good_Fella]

You’re right- It doesn’t mean that she died or not and she could of escaped death but according to Pius, its seems he’s leaning more towards that she didn’t die

5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

14… But this in no way prevented them from believing and from professing openly that her sacred body had never been subject to the corruption of the tomb, and that the august tabernacle of the Divine Word had never been reduced to dust and ashes

-MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS
Pope Pius XII

What you should mean to say is that Pope Pius favors the tradition that Mary did die, but that her body didn’t “remain” in the tomb, for it wasn’t subject to the universal law of the “corruption” of death on account of her freedom from original sin.

Catholics tend to answer this by always saying that “its not important if she died or not”…is it because they really don’t know? Or is it because it wasn’t passed down through apostolic tradition?
Last, why don’t Catholics accept Eastern Orthodox view that Mary died? Eastern Orthodox claim it was a traditional fact that Mary indeed died. What’s holding Catholics back from accepting it??

Again, Mary’s Dormition and Assumption was originally passed down to us from the apostles by a private oral Tradition that gradually became more widespread in time. The Catholic Church does give its pious assent to the eastern tradition of Mary’s dormition. See the CCC #966.

A. If Mary died, there would of been a tradition claiming she died, which there is…

B. If Mary was assumed into Heaven without death like Elijah and Enoch, then there would be tradition of that as well, but there is isn’t…

So once again why doesn’t the Church side in favor with the Orthodox view?

The Church sides with the Byzantine Catholic view.

PAX :harp:

 

[Benadam]

I have a problem with this: Elijah.

Elijah was transfigured imo but not elevated to the heaven of the Resurrected.

 

[Good_Fella]

You’re right- It doesn’t mean that she died or not and she could of escaped death but according to** Pius, its seems he’s leaning more towards that she didn’t die** .

5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

14… But this in no way prevented them from believing and from professing openly that her sacred body had never been subject to the corruption of the tomb, and that the august tabernacle of the Divine Word had never been reduced to dust and ashes

-MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS
Pope Pius XII

The Assumption of Mary is infallibly declared a dogma (an explicitly revealed divine truth) of the Church. The Dormition (“falling asleep” at the precise moment of physical death when our Lady’s soul left her body) of Mary and her Resurrection from the dead (the point at which Mary’s soul was reunited with her body) just before she was assumed into heaven are non-infallible teachings of the ordinary Magisterium. Pope Pius clearly refers to the death and resurrection of Mary in seven paragraphs of his Apostolic Constitution:

*[14.] “In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only-begotten Son, had actually passed from this life.”

[17.] “Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death.”

[18.] “As she kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.”

[20.] “…this feast shows, not only that** the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt**, but that she gained a triumph over death.”

[21.] “It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact during childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption after death.”

[22.] “,she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.”

[40.] “Hence, the revered Mother of God…finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken body and soul to the glory of heaven.”*

Indeed, some individual Catholics doubt whether Mary had actually died and had been resurrected from the dead before she was assumed into heaven, but since the Church non-infallibly teaches the Dormition and Resurrection of Mary and has celebrated these events on feast days for centuries in the eastern Catholic Tradition, all Catholics are expected to give their pious assent with a complete mind and will to these teachings which the pontiff brings to our attention in his definition of the Assumption. Individual Catholics who piously dissent from them do so apart from the sensus fidelium (the sense/mind of the faithful).

What’s interesting is that in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs along with Catholic tradition, they have every single account of every apostle’s death.
They know where Peter is buried, they know that Paul died in Rome during Nero’s reign (according to Clement). I mean they have an account for everyone’s death and where they died. The list goes on forever!
But for some strange reason they have no clue to where or if Mary, the most important revered figure as Queen Theotokos of Heaven in the Catholic Church besides the Trinity, died or not!..hhmmmmm…

John Foxe was an extreme Protestant reformer and a vehement anti-Catholic. He was criticized by almost every ecclesiastical historian of his time. I wouldn’t put any faith in an extremely prejudiced individual who was severed from the historic Christian faith and outside the Church.

PAX :harp:

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Some folks in this thread claim that Pius took no position on whether Mary “died.” In fact, Paragraph 20 of the Enecyclical talks about Mary’s “dead body” not corrupting before assumption.

If her body was not, in fact, “dead,” then the encyclical contains error.

So, Mary died.

The Encyclical also favorably quotes four sources which discuss Mary’s death.

Anyone who says that the Enecyclical “takes no position” on whether Mary actually died is simply not reading it. They are wrong. It says that Mary died. It is full of discussion that Mary died.

 

[Hercules253]

What you should mean to say is that Pope Pius favors the tradition that Mary did die, but that her body didn’t “remain” in the tomb, for it wasn’t subject to the universal law of the “corruption” of death on account of her freedom from original sin.

So in other words she did die first then. Or else why would you have a tomb for a living person?

Again, Mary’s Dormition and Assumption was originally passed down to us from the apostles by a private oral Tradition that gradually became more widespread in time. The Catholic Church does give its pious assent to the eastern tradition of Mary’s dormition. See the CCC #966.

Dormition commemorates the “falling asleep” or death of Mary. You just stated that it was originally passed down from the apostles right? So why didn’t Pope Pius, through apostolic tradition, declare that Mary died first then but instead, left that issue open ended in his MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS? That doesn’t make any sense.
If the assumption or death was passed down through apostolic tradition like you say then why is the Church confused if she died or not?? It should have been settled a long time ago. If the Pope “favors” the dormition but doesn’t declare it official, then that means that he is uncertain then. Why should he be uncertain since it was passed through apostolic tradition, according to you?

So what official document states that “The Assumption of Mary” was passed down to us from the apostles?
The Catholic Church acknowledges that there was “NO” apostlic tradition passed down regarding the assumption of Mary. You can say it was through divine revelation and tradition but not apostolic tradition. Where are you getting that from?? The only thing regarding the assumption that was passed down through tradition was men’s theology and opinions. I guarantee you will not find anything or where it says that “the assumption of Mary was a belief passed down from the original apostles”…because it doesn’t exist! The Catholic Church knows this and so I don’t know how you know otherwise.
CCC #966 only talks about the assumption of Mary and nothing more.

Like I said, Foxe’s book of Martyrs and the Catholic Church has every single accurate account of every apostle that died and where they died but for some strange reason they have nothing on Mary, the most revered of them all? No witnesses, records, or anything? No documents say they saw Mary assume or that there were eye witnesses that saw it. At least the Orthodox has tradition…weird…really weird.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Elijah was transfigured imo but not elevated to the heaven of the Resurrected.

See 2 Kings 2:11.

 

[Scardinoz]

I have to say that for a long time this has been a point I have struggled with. However, I read this…
Immaculate Conception and Assumption:

There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.

It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.

This being said, on my own I can say that it is possible that God chose to take up Mary’s body after she died. With the authority and responsibility of the pope to guide the followers of Christ, I can trust.

 

[guanophore]

Technically, the teaching is that Mary ascended body and soul to Heaven

No, technically, the teaching is that only Jesus could “ascend” because He did so under His own power. All the rest of us must be “assumed” or taken up, as we cannot go under our own power.

It is strange that non-Catholic Christians struggle with this. At the end of time, those who are saved among those who are still alive will be assumed body and soul into Heaven while alive, a much more exciting privilege than what Mary experienced.

Yes, I agree! I have always found that strange, and the denial of purgatory, even though accepting the “rapture” which is clearly understood to mean that we will be “changed” before entering heaven.

14 But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a year, two years, and a half-year. Revelation 12:14.

This might correspond more to the flight into Egypt.

In Scripture, the “eagle” is the Holy Spirit. Baby eagles are Christians. Flying baby eagles are Christians being assumed into Heaven. Here, the Revelation 12 Mother of the Child Who Would Rule the World with an Iron Rod is being given “eagle wings” for “flying.”

And the salient point being that it does not happen by her own will, but is “given” to her.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

No, technically, the teaching is that only Jesus could “ascend” because He did so under His own power. All the rest of us must be “assumed” or taken up, as we cannot go under our own power. QUOTE]

Hi, friend.

Note well: Everything added by me in this thread is my opinion. Even quotations and cites are my opinion, because my use of the third party material may not be correct.

That being said…

You write so dramatically cocksure on this point, and yet the Scriptures do not support your certainty. 1 Timothy 3:16 refers to the event with the Passive Voice…

16 Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion, Who was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed to the Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.

The Jerome Biblical Commentary actually did a mini-essay on this question. They note that Mark 16:19, Acts 1:2, 1:11, and 1:22, as well as 1 Timothy 3:16 all employ the Passive Voice – the Ascension was done to Jesus; He didn’t do it Himself.

 

[Benadam]

See 2 Kings 2:11.

2 K 2 :11

11 And the number of the days that David abode, reigning in Hebron over the house of Juda, was seven years and six months.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

2 K 2 :11

11 And the number of the days that David abode, reigning in Hebron over the house of Juda, was seven years and six months.

1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles

2 Kings 2:11.

 

[Benadam]

1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles

2 Kings 2:11

 

[Mannyfit75]

You know, after reading all the responses from so called “Christians” (Non-Catholic) and from Catholic Christians, I find it why they persist that the Church’s Doctrine of the Assumption is “erroneous” just because it is not explicit in the Bible. Then again, the Bible made no mention of the Trinity. That doctrine was not form until 300s AD. Yet, we Orthodox Christians affirm the belief in a Trinitarian God.

Now, non-believers who are not Catholic want to challenge Catholics here to denounce the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary? What right do you have to tell us what to believe? You are not Catholic, it is not required by your Church to believe that Mary assumed body and soul into heaven.

We Catholics believe it not merely because some Pope declare it to be so, but because God granted us a Church with authority guided by the Holy Spirit to be protected from Error. From this Divine Office, the Church has infallible authority to bind and loose concerning teachings on “faith and morals.”

These cannot be compromise at all. It is by our faith in God’s Church that Mary assumed. For us Catholics to deny this belief is to deny that God did not give us a Church with Authority, or better yet. We shouldn’t put trust in God period because God did not gave Peter and the Apostles to Bind and Loose.

We, Catholics know better. We know that Jesus did gave the Church authority and what the Pope said about the Assumption is settle. This discussion ends.

You are not Catholic and you should not concern yourself with this Catholic doctrine because it is not REQUIRED FOR YOU to believe in it.

 

[Good_Fella]

So in other words she did die first then. Or else why would you have a tomb for a living person?

Yes, she did, And she was resurrected from the dead before she was assumed into Heaven with her soul reunited with her body in glory.

Dormition commemorates the “falling asleep” or death of Mary. You just stated that it was originally passed down from the apostles right? So why didn’t Pope Pius, through apostolic tradition, declare that Mary died first then but instead, left that issue open ended in his MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS?

The matter of Mary’s dormition wasn’t left “open-ended”. The Apostolic Constitution includes this non-infallible teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, only it hasn’t been defined a dogma. The dormition of Mary and her assumption are two distinct events. Catholics are expected to give their pious assent to the doctrine of Mary’s dormition, but the anathema does not apply to belief in Mary’s dormition, only to her assumption. Mary’s heavenly glorification is at the heart of the matter. Yet being free to piously speculate otherwise (dissent) with regard to the non-infallible teaching of the Dormition doesn’t mean that one should notwithstanding the omission of an anathema. Aquinas freely questioned the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception before its feast was instituted by Sextus lV in 1476 and it was defined a dogma by Pius lX in 1854, but he shouldn’t have for it was still an infallible truth as part of our sacred Tradition. Pope Sixtus refrained from declaring the Immaculate Conception for a reason only known to our Lord. And I doubt the Apostles were granted perfect knowledge of the full implications of this privilege granted our Lady.

A predecessor of Pope Pius may some day define the Dormition when the time is ripe, which would mean there no longer is any room for pious dissent from the teaching of the ordinary Magisterium. It’s people like yourself who compel the sacred Magisterium to define a doctrine of the Church a dogma so that there is no confusion. To say that the Dormition of Mary is an “open-ended” question that must still be resolved amounts to admitting that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception ultimately rested on theologians like Aquinas in order to be defined a dogma. But the truth is the Holy Spirit declares what is an infallible and irrevocable divine truth when He hears what must be said at a given time. (Jn 16:12-13). Pope John XXlll said: “I never speak infallibly.” Pope Pius exercised a charism conferred on him at an appointed time that strictly concerned the Assumption.

That doesn’t make any sense. If the assumption or death was passed down through apostolic tradition like you say then why is the Church confused if she died or not??

The Church isn’t confused. Mary’s dormition is a non-infallible teaching of the ordinary Magisterium and a feast celebrated in the Catholic Church.

It should have been settled a long time ago. If the Pope “favors” the dormition but doesn’t declare it official, then that means that he is uncertain then. Why should he be uncertain since it was passed through apostolic tradition, according to you?

It isn’t that the pontiff is uncertain about the Dormition. He is simply concerned with defining the Assumption. Meanwhile he is reminding us that the Dormition mustn’t be disassociated from the Assumption.

So what official document states that “The Assumption of Mary” was passed down to us from the apostles?

2 Corinthians 1: 21-22; Ephesians 2:20; 2 Timothy 2:2.

The Catholic Church acknowledges that there was “NO” apostlic tradition passed down regarding the assumption of Mary. You can say it was through divine revelation and tradition but not apostolic tradition. Where are you getting that from?? The only thing regarding the assumption that was passed down through tradition was men’s theology and opinions

1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15

CCC #966 only talks about the assumption of Mary and nothing more.

“in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life.”

Foxe’s book of Martyrs and the Catholic Church has every single accurate account of every apostle that died and where they died but for some strange reason they have nothing on Mary…

Maybe Foxe never regarded Mary an apostle and martyr.

PAX :harp: