Did Mary die or not?/Assumption

[rfournier103]

This is something that I have pondered about myself.

We have Revelation 12. It is obvious that the woman in the sky is Mary. Already in heaven. Are there any other passages about the Assumption besides this one? This is serious need to know stuff for me.

Thanx.

PS: I also heard there was a church that was just recently destroyed in Syria where relics of Mary supposedly were. First I’ve heard of anything like this.

Anyone…?

PPS: I’m not trying to disprove anything, or trying to paint anyone into a corner. I only want to know so I may better explain this to others. Thank you again.

 

[Catholic80]

I know that her body and soul was assumed into heaven, but did she die first and then assumed or shortly after the ascension of our lord was her body and soul assumed into heaven while she was still (physically) living? What did the early Christians believe about the assumption btw? Just wondering.

Thanks

God Bless!

I think tradition says that Mary went into a deep sleep, so deep, that the apostles believed her to be dead. They buried her, but when then apostles came back to check on her tomb, the stone was rolled away, she was gone and her tomb was covered in flowers.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I’m very interested in AmbroseSJ’s take, but would offer that tradition has it that she was assumed on the third day, symbolic of her realization of the promise of the Resurrection.

My belief is with tradition for exactly the reason you gave, because of her preeminent discipleship and holiness. If the Virgin Mary dies, then her death would be (in my opinion) in the image of her Son’s. It would not be deceptive (only appearing to be dead), nor would it be a nanosecond death where she dies and is assumed all in an instant. Our Holy Mother was the perfect disciple, and worked hand in hand with her Son, praying for sinners and spreading the Gospel.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m very interested in AmbroseSJ’s take, but would offer that tradition has it that she was assumed on the third day, symbolic of her realization of the promise of the Resurrection.

I believe we prob have to initially take the same exegetical/critical approach to tradition as we would to the Bible (which is of course silent on this matter).
That is, at historical truth level, perhaps the received tradition may not actually know the time gap either but is offering a theologoumenon - just as we are doing now.

I have seen opined elsewhere that in Jewish theology/judgement bodily corruption is “official” after 3 days.
It is accepted that the Virgin actually died and actually Assumed bodily and, while probably not definitvely defined, I think safe to say her body was in fact incorrupt in the intervening period.

While God can do what He likes it would seem unfitting for Him to preserve Mary’s body beyond the 3 days allowed by the law as it would call into question her incorruption.

So I see two answers for a max of 3 days:
(1) The tradition received doesn’t actually know so uses a theologumenon that is fitting to Jewish law/theology re corruption.
(2) The tradition actually did know the historical facts which were around 3 days. And why would God wait 3 days - well noone knows the mind of God but the reason in (1) above still remain strong. I am not so sure about directly mirroring Jesus Resurrection for a number of reasons:
(a) We have to ask why the Resurrection was around 3 days…prob for the same reason adduced in (1) above.
(b) Mary didn’t Resurrect, she Assumed. Now Jesus didn’t Ascend 3 days after death. This again seems to point back to the corruption issue setting a limit to 3 days rather than abiding in death for the same amount of time between Jesus death and Ascension.

In the end it seems we just don’t know how long and there is probably nothing useful for salvation in worrying about it .

 

[ConstantineTG]

I believe we prob have to initially take the same exegetical/critical approach to tradition as we would to the Bible (which is of course silent on this matter).
That is, at historical truth level, perhaps the received tradition may not actually know the time gap either but is offering a theologoumenon - just as we are doing now.

I have seen opined elsewhere that in Jewish theology/judgement bodily corruption is “official” after 3 days.
It is accepted that the Virgin actually died and actually Assumed bodily and, while probably not definitvely defined, I think safe to say her body was in fact incorrupt in the intervening period.

While God can do what He likes it would seem unfitting for Him to preserve Mary’s body beyond the 3 days allowed by the law as it would call into question her incorruption.

So I see two answers for a max of 3 days:
(1) The tradition received doesn’t actually know so uses a theologumenon that is fitting to Jewish law/theology re corruption.
(2) The tradition actually did know the historical facts which were around 3 days. And why would God wait 3 days - well noone knows the mind of God but the reason in (1) above still remain strong. I am not so sure about directly mirroring Jesus Resurrection for a number of reasons:
(a) We have to ask why the Resurrection was around 3 days…prob for the same reason adduced in (1) above.
(b) Mary didn’t Resurrect, she Assumed. Now Jesus didn’t Ascend 3 days after death. This again seems to point back to the corruption issue setting a limit to 3 days rather than abiding in death for the same amount of time between Jesus death and Ascension.

In the end it seems we just don’t know how long and there is probably nothing useful for salvation in worrying about it .

Mary did resurrect. She was resurrected by her Son. Her lifeless body wasn’t assumed into heaven, she was assumed body and soul, resurrected and alive, into heaven. It was the same process as Christ’s Ascension into heaven, both by the power of Christ.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Mary did resurrect. She was resurrected by her Son. Her lifeless body wasn’t assumed into heaven, she was assumed body and soul, resurrected and alive, into heaven. It was the same process as Christ’s Ascension into heaven, both by the power of Christ.

An interesting technicality worth teasing out further methinks .

I find it interesting that the East calls Mary’s Death/Assumption a Dormition - if that means anything it surely means she was indeed “lifeless” (i.e. sleeping) when Assumed body and soul into heaven. And this does seem to be the Eastern theological position.

Further, why do we describe Mary’s “Ascension” with a new word (“Assumption”) if they were exactly the same experience? Alternatively why don’t we speak of Mary’s Resurrection-Ascension instead of Dormition or Assumption?
Never in my life have I seen her Assumption in any way described with the words resurrection/ascension by a Church Doctor or Magisterial document - but I am willing to be surprised.

That is why I did not call it resurrection above because it differs significantly from Jesus who still had a fairly lengthy and lively “ministry” between Ressurection-Ascension. Also, he was alive, standing and kicking when He Ascended. (I accept Western understandings/paintings of the Assumption have Mary the same. However I do not think there is any reputable tradition of Mary actually aware or communicating with the Apostles/disciples between her death and Assumption, like Jesus did, that I am aware of).

In any case, this small technicality (which ever way it goes) doesn’t really seem to make much difference to my above response.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Blue Horizon:

Further, why do we describe Mary’s “Ascension” with a new word (“Assumption”) if they were exactly the same experience?

Because they were not the same experience. The Catholic Church teaches that the Virgin Mary was Assumed because she was lifted up to heaven by the Power of God. Likewise she was raised from the dead, unlike Jesus who resurrected. Jesus is the Resurrection and the Life. It is not a “process.” Jesus Himself makes this clear in the Gospel. John 11:25

So you are correct in describing Mary’s rising and Assumption differently. It is, in my opinion, one of those doctrines that is implicit with the doctrine of the Assumption. Maybe someday, in the fullness of time, the Church will describe this event doctrinally. But so far, we don’t have a particular word to describe Mary’s rising from the dead in her glorified body, since she is a singular example until the Last Judgment.

 

[Good_Fella]

An interesting technicality worth teasing out further methinks .

I find it interesting that the East calls Mary’s Death/Assumption a Dormition - if that means anything it surely means she was indeed “lifeless” (i.e. sleeping) when Assumed body and soul into heaven. And this does seem to be the Eastern theological position.

Eastern Orthodox Christians believe Mary fell asleep at the end of her life on earth, and that her soul was taken up to heaven at that point while her lifeless body remained in the tomb for three days until it was translated into heaven and reunited with her soul before corruption would set in. They believe Mary died, but her peaceful passing from this world could be compared with gently falling asleep which is how we Catholics see it. Apparently her body would have then been restored to life in glory when reanimated by the soul in heaven. We Catholics believe that Mary’s body was reunited with her soul in the tomb. She was gloriously taken up to heaven body and soul. Her experience according to Catholic tradition is more akin to that of Christ, who gloriously ascended into heaven forty days after he rose from the dead. What happened to Jesus was somewhat similar. His human soul left his body as it lay in the tomb for three days. He was as much alive and conscious in spirit as his body lay in repose until the resurrection.

PAX

 

[ConstantineTG]

An interesting technicality worth teasing out further methinks .

I find it interesting that the East calls Mary’s Death/Assumption a Dormition - if that means anything it surely means she was indeed “lifeless” (i.e. sleeping) when Assumed body and soul into heaven. And this does seem to be the Eastern theological position.

You need to listen to the entire Tradition to know the whole story. You cannot base what happened merely by the name given to the Feast. The entire tradition is that Mary fell asleep in the Lord, was resurrected on the Third Day, and Assumed into heaven.

Further, why do we describe Mary’s “Ascension” with a new word (“Assumption”) if they were exactly the same experience? Alternatively why don’t we speak of Mary’s Resurrection-Ascension instead of Dormition or Assumption?
Never in my life have I seen her Assumption in any way described with the words resurrection/ascension by a Church Doctor or Magisterial document - but I am willing to be surprised.

It is described by Sacred Tradition. Not everything is a Magisterial Document, that is a Second Millennium thing.

That is why I did not call it resurrection above because it differs significantly from Jesus who still had a fairly lengthy and lively “ministry” between Ressurection-Ascension. Also, he was alive, standing and kicking when He Ascended. (I accept Western understandings/paintings of the Assumption have Mary the same. However I do not think there is any reputable tradition of Mary actually aware or communicating with the Apostles/disciples between her death and Assumption, like Jesus did, that I am aware of).

Mary has no ministry in the same sense as Jesus. She didn’t need to go around making sure the Church was set. The Church was already set. And there is a reputable tradition that Mary did communicate with St. Thomas at her Assumption. That is why we have the relic of her belt/sash/girdle which she dropped to St. Thomas.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Eastern Orthodox Christians believe Mary fell asleep at the end of her life on earth, and that her soul was taken up to heaven at that point while her lifeless body remained in the tomb for three days until it was translated into heaven and reunited with her soul before corruption would set in. They believe Mary died, but her peaceful passing from this world could be compared with gently falling asleep which is how we Catholics see it. Apparently her body would have then been restored to life in glory when reanimated by the soul in heaven. We Catholics believe that Mary’s body was reunited with her soul in the tomb. She was gloriously taken up to heaven body and soul. Her experience according to Catholic tradition is more akin to that of Christ, who gloriously ascended into heaven forty days after he rose from the dead. What happened to Jesus was somewhat similar. His human soul left his body as it lay in the tomb for three days. He was as much alive and conscious in spirit as his body lay in repose until the resurrection.

PAX

A lifeless body couldn’t be translated into heavenly glory. Mary was resurrected so she received her glorified body. Her Assumption took place as soon as she was resurrected.

 

[Good_Fella]

A lifeless body couldn’t be translated into heavenly glory. Mary was resurrected so she received her glorified body. Her Assumption took place as soon as she was resurrected.

For something to be translated can mean to be transported from one place or state to another. Mary’s body didn’t necessarily have to be united to her soul before it reached heaven. Anyway, I did some further research, and what I read on the sites of a couple of Orthodox writers apparently doesn’t square with what Eastern Orthodox traditionally believe in general. I tried to check the Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but all I could find was a condensed version that doesn’t mention the Dormition/Assumption. There was mention only of Mary’s divine motherhood and perpetual virginity. My humble apology.

PAX

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Eastern Orthodox Christians believe Mary fell asleep at the end of her life on earth, and that her soul was taken up to heaven at that point while her lifeless body remained in the tomb for three days until it was translated into heaven and reunited with her soul before corruption would set in.

They believe Mary died, but her peaceful passing from this world could be compared with gently falling asleep which is how we Catholics see it.

A lifeless body couldn’t be translated into heavenly glory. Mary was resurrected so she received her glorified body. Her Assumption took place as soon as she was resurrected.

GF - there are two challenges with your summary, which I have broken apart in the quotation of your post above.

First, as CTG states rather directly, it is not Orthodox / Eastern Christian belief that Mary’s lifeless body was taken to heaven. There is in fact no real significant difference in the belief - Catholic / Orthodox - on the particulars of the Assumption itself.

The second point alludes to the difference in the overall Tradition, already well highlighted and discussed in this and a concurrent, related thread. It is the Eastern Christian perspective (not the Catholic) that sees “her peaceful passing from this world … compared with gently falling asleep”, as you have so poetically put it. The Catholic Church dogma leaves the question of Mary’s death open, yet alludes to her death several times in the Apostolic constitution. There are indeed as seen here of late a number of Roman Catholics that (i) believe that she did not die and (ii) that we are free as Catholics to believe either scenario (despite Tradition, East and West).

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I quote this here with the normal reservation on the source, but only because the reliable wisdom and words of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware were quoted in the paragraph

from Wikipedia entry for Assumption of Mary

Assumption and Dormition (Eastern Christianity) compared

The Catholic Feast of the Assumption is celebrated on August 15, and the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics celebrate the Dormition of the Theotokos (the falling asleep of the Mother of God) on the same date, preceded by a 14-day fast period. Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that Mary died a natural death, that her soul was received by Christ upon death, and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her death and that she was taken up into heaven bodily in anticipation of the general resurrection. Her tomb was found empty on the third day. “…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.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

For something to be translated can mean to be transported from one place or state to another. Mary’s body didn’t necessarily have to be united to her soul before it reached heaven. Anyway, I did some further research, and what I read on the sites of a couple of Orthodox writers apparently doesn’t square with what Eastern Orthodox traditionally believe in general. I tried to check the Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but all I could find was a condensed version that doesn’t mention the Dormition/Assumption. There was mention only of Mary’s divine motherhood and perpetual virginity. My humble apology.

PAX

The problem is the first body we have is purely a physical body. Because heaven is a spiritual place a physical body could not be brought there. That is why the body must become the glorified body similar to what Christ possessed after his own resurrection.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I quote this here with the normal reservation on the source, but only because the reliable wisdom and words of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware were quoted in the paragraph

from Wikipedia entry for Assumption of Mary

Also, as was quoted earlier in this thread, Blessed Pope John Paul II said that the Virgin Mary died. General Audience 6/25/97

"St Modestus of Jerusalem (†634), after a lengthy discussion of “the most blessed dormition of the most glorious Mother of God”, ends his eulogy by exalting the miraculous intervention of Christ who “raised her from the tomb”, to take her up with him in glory (Enc. in dormitionem Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae, nn. 7 and 14: PG 86 bis, 3293; 3311). St John Damascene (†704) for his part asks: “Why is it that she who in giving birth surpassed all the limits of nature should now bend to its laws, and her immaculate body be subjected to death?”. And he answers: “To be clothed in immortality, it is of course necessary that the mortal part be shed, since even the master of nature did not refuse the experience of death. Indeed, he died according to the flesh and by dying destroyed death; on corruption he bestowed incorruption and made death the source of resurrection” (Panegyric on the Dormition of the Mother of God, n. 10: SC 80, 107). "

"Involved in Christ’s redemptive work and associated in his saving sacrifice, Mary was able to share in his suffering and death for the sake of humanity’s Redemption. What Severus of Antioch says about Christ also applies to her: “Without a preliminary death, how could the Resurrection have taken place?” (Antijulianistica, Beirut 1931, 194f.). To share in Christ’s Resurrection, Mary had first to share in his death. "

"The experience of death personally enriched the Blessed Virgin: by undergoing mankind’s common destiny, she can more effectively exercise her spiritual motherhood towards those approaching the last moment of their life. "

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You need to listen to the entire Tradition to know the whole story. You cannot base what happened merely by the name given to the Feast. The entire tradition is that Mary fell asleep in the Lord, was resurrected on the Third Day, and Assumed into heaven.

CT “Tradition” is not a perfectly unified whole, which is why we are having this discussion.
I am open ended on this discussion. But as one who has studied historical documents and literary criticism it is Suspicions 101 to dig into the reason for different titles and names as “historians”/redactors love to simplify and unite (look at the Pentateuch) things that cannot always be so easily united. The very fact that names/titles have not been so simplified here speaks volumes. It needs to be looked at.

Please supply some solid references for your phrase “Mary was resurrected.”

I believe an attempt to use the word “resurrected” in Assumption liturgy around early medieval times gained traction in a few places for a century or two but was decidely reversed over time and has not been attempted since.

Mary has no ministry in the same sense as Jesus…

Of course she didn’t need to. That is not my point. My point is there is no reputable historical evidence that Mary’s body was observably animated in any way when ascending to heaven. It was a lifeless (i.e. sleeping) ascending. This is not an earthly “resurrection” but a heavenly “resurrection” - Jesus’s was an earthly resurrection. I just invented those expressions to make the point. Whether they are essential differences I do not know.

And there is a reputable tradition that Mary did communicate with St. Thomas at her Assumption. That is why we have the relic of her belt/sash/girdle which she dropped to St. Thomas.

You cannot be serious. This may be an established tradition but it can hardly be called “reputable” as the whole tradition derives from a “gospel” judged apochryphal by the Church. It is full of magic - like the 12 apostles suddenly being “transported” from around the world back to Jerusalem just in time for her death. Much the same sort of strange stuff found in the other apochryphal gospels e.g. that of Thomas where child Jesus made clay birds which he blessed and they flew away.

Re the belt, even if we accept this apochryphal gospel as having some theology worth considering have a re-read of the original. You will note that the ascending Virgin DID NOT hand the belt to Thomas. The passive tense is used, i.e. it dropped down from heaven.

In other words exactly the same theological point I am making is preserved even here. Mary was sleeping in her ascension. She was not fully animated in her rising/lifting. That appears to have happened fully at the top of the stairs, or, ascension/resurrection are one and the same for Mary and cannot be separated. Jesus’s Resurrection was “stand-alone.”

Look at anicent iconography - always a reclining Assumption (lifted by 4 angels) from what I can see. Jesus is always a standing Resurrection and a standing Ascension.

 

[beehumble]

Blessed Mary is without sin. Death is due to sin. So one could argue, “why should Our Lady die?” Michelangelo made Bl. Mary very young and perfect in his Pieta because he said our aging, our fleshly decay, is due to sin, but since Bl. Mary never sinned, she grew to adulthood and never aged as we do. It’s an interesting thought. And to put the exact same attributes on Bl. Mary as on ourselves is not necessary valid - “She’s human like me” doesn’t cut it. She is not like anybody else - she was born immaculate ( Adam and Eve were not ‘born’ from a mother’s womb) , and more notably, that was because she was to be and is the Mother of God.

To argue that ‘if Christ was not spared death than none of His creatures are’, is not necessarily valid either. First, Christ did not die, He was killed. Second, His reason for being was to die on the cross in atonement for our sins, so His death was His mission. Third, He did not merit death (again sinless, and being the perfect God made man) so taking this to its conclusion He would not have died either, other than it was His mission to die only for us since He did not deserve it. Fourth, He could choose to honor, to glorify, His mother by assuming her body and soul into heaven before death.

Blue Horizon and Irishgal going at it about Elijah was interesting. While Elijah was a type for John the Baptist, he was also a type for Blessed Mary, who is the Elijah who “will indeed come and restore all things” (Matt 17:11). “Elijah” is here now and telling us to repent and turn back to God. “Elijah” is here as the herald, so her Son is not far behind. The book A While Longer has more on it.

God bless you.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Michelangelo made Bl. Mary very young and perfect in his Pieta …

While the other famous Michelangelo [Merisi da Caravaggio] offered the painting entitled “Death of the Virgin”.

 

[beehumble]

While the other famous Michelangelo [Merisi da Caravaggio] offered the painting entitled “Death of the Virgin”.

I only brought up the Michelangelo thing as an interesting point, not some type of proof.

didn’t Caravaggio end up on the run for murder, and wasn’t he considered a desperado and despicable character in his day, and one who enjoyed shocking the ‘establishment’ including the religious folks, through his art?

from wiki:
"The depiction of the Death of the Virgin caused a contemporary stir, and was rejected as unfit by the parish. Contemporaries accused Caravaggio of modelling a mistress/prostitute as the Virgin…

This painting was completed at a time when the dogma of the Assumption of Mary was not yet formally enunciated ex cathedra by the pope, but had been gaining ground for some centuries. When the assumption body and soul was finally declared dogma in 1950, the doctrinal statement carefully avoided declaring whether this was before or after Mary’s death in the normal way; the New Testament does not cover the matter at all. How she passed from this world is and was therefore not a matter of Catholic dogma, although by the 17th century, the conventional belief among Catholics was that she was assumed alive, as shown in the great majority of contemporary paintings of the subject. Some envisioned a post-death Dormition as a moment when God resurrected her non-putrid body to heaven. By then most believed that she felt no pain or disease, and that she was assumed in healthy if aged body and soul prior to “death”. Caravaggio’s painting is the last major Catholic work of art in which Mary is clearly dead. "

In a recent unapproved apparition, I think she reportedly said she did not die. But words from even approved apparitions are not declared dogma, and sometimes seers, alleged or accepted, unintentionally distort what has been said.

But, all that being said, the fact remains that the wages of sin are death [sin brought death into the world - and St. Paul says the last thing Jesus conquers is death (we will all rise again at the end, just before the Last Judgment)] , and Bl. Mary never sinned, so therefore she shouldn’t necessarily have to die. Bl. Mary is the ‘new Eve’; she prefigures the immaculate world that is to come - the ‘new(restored)earth’, where there is no sin, and no death.

God bless you.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Note that classical painters made paintings based on “personal interpretation” and not sound Church teachings. The only sound Church teachings that uses ink or paint are Holy Icons.