Did Mary die or not?/Assumption

[Tantum_ergo]

Not just because a priest is a canon lawyer means they know everything. I’ve known priests who have no idea about Eastern Catholicism. One RC priest even told me that there are 12 Rites in the Catholic Church, corresponding to the 12 Apostles. We know that is not true.

Canon Law is a different thing, it is not theology. It is the law of the Church.

We always tell nominal Catholics that they must believe and follow EVERYTHING the Catholic Church teaches, yet when it comes to things like this we nit pick and argue about what is de fide and what is not. The Church is more than a list of de fide beliefs. I’m pretty sure such nitpicking did not exist in the Church prior to the influence of Fundamentalism.

Anecdotal remarks about a priest ‘you know’ who 'thinks he knows everything because he is a canon lawyer but does not know X" does not mean that EVERY PRIEST who is a canon lawyer knows nothing and that you should not trust them.

I’ll say it again, the Catholic Church DOES NOT TEACH SPECIFICALLY THAT MARY DIED. It is not nit-picking to say this and I will repeat, please show me the official teaching that states flat-out that she does.

And I will state categorically that I myself believe and follow EVERYTHING which the Church teaches. I mean everything. I’m a cradle Catholic, 56 later this month, and I consider myself a fairly well-educated practicing Catholic. I’m certainly not always correct, but I really try hard to know my faith. If you can demonstrate from the Church itself that She specifically categorically states that Mary absolutely died, and that there is NO possibility that she was assumed without dying, I will wholeheartedly accept the teaching, with THANKS for somebody correcting me if I am in error. . .but I have to tell you, in some 50 years (I started school at 6, Catholic of course, there was no kindergarten available at that time), I have NEVER heard, or read, that the Church officially states, one way or the other, whether Mary was assumed after dying, or was assumed without dying. It’s not like I’ve never read, heard, learned, or considered the issue, so I am really quite surprised to see something I had known of ‘my life long’ stated as being ‘wrong’.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Where does the Church definitively teach that she did not experience death?

The question can be asked from either perspective.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Where does the Church definitively teach that she did not experience death?

The question can be asked from either perspective.

You are a philosopher

 

[ConstantineTG]

Anecdotal remarks about a priest ‘you know’ who 'thinks he knows everything because he is a canon lawyer but does not know X" does not mean that EVERY PRIEST who is a canon lawyer knows nothing and that you should not trust them.

I’ll say it again, the Catholic Church DOES NOT TEACH SPECIFICALLY THAT MARY DIED. It is not nit-picking to say this and I will repeat, please show me the official teaching that states flat-out that she does.

And I will state categorically that I myself believe and follow EVERYTHING which the Church teaches. I mean everything. I’m a cradle Catholic, 56 later this month, and I consider myself a fairly well-educated practicing Catholic. I’m certainly not always correct, but I really try hard to know my faith. If you can demonstrate from the Church itself that She specifically categorically states that Mary absolutely died, and that there is NO possibility that she was assumed without dying, I will wholeheartedly accept the teaching, with THANKS for somebody correcting me if I am in error. . .but I have to tell you, in some 50 years (I started school at 6, Catholic of course, there was no kindergarten available at that time), I have NEVER heard, or read, that the Church officially states, one way or the other, whether Mary was assumed after dying, or was assumed without dying. It’s not like I’ve never read, heard, learned, or considered the issue, so I am really quite surprised to see something I had known of ‘my life long’ stated as being ‘wrong’.

Okay, let me put it this way. The tradition on the Dormition of Mary can be traced back to the 5th century, at least. This Assumption with no death is what? 50 years old.

 

[thistle]

Where does the Church definitively teach that she did not experience death?

The question can be asked from either perspective.

The Church does not definitively teach that Mary did not die.
The Church does not definitively teach that Mary did die.

Catholics are allowed to believe either view.

 

[Irishgal49]

Not just because a priest is a canon lawyer means they know everything. I’ve known priests who have no idea about Eastern Catholicism. One RC priest even told me that there are 12 Rites in the Catholic Church, corresponding to the 12 Apostles. We know that is not true.

Canon Law is a different thing, it is not theology. It is the law of the Church.

We always tell nominal Catholics that they must believe and follow EVERYTHING the Catholic Church teaches, yet when it comes to things like this we nit pick and argue about what is de fide and what is not. The Church is more than a list of de fide beliefs. I’m pretty sure such nitpicking did not exist in the Church prior to the influence of Fundamentalism.

I brought up canon law in reference to people saying those of us who do not believe The Blessed Mother died before her assumption are committing mortal sin and are required to believe she died. That was the reason for my canon lawyer comment. I am not required to assent to anyone’s opinion on the matter.

 

[Irishgal49]

Okay, let me put it this way. The tradition on the Dormition of Mary can be traced back to the 5th century, at least. This Assumption with no death is what? 50 years old.

A friend of mine who went to Israel about 3 years ago was told she did not die but fell into a sleep and showed the place where this occurred and then she was assumed into heaven. So it was told to pilgrims in the Holy Land.

 

[Irishgal49]

The Church does not definitively teach that Mary did not die.
The Church does not definitively teach that Mary did die.

Catholics are allowed to believe either view.

Exactly. I just firmly believe that because she never sinned and had no stain or original sin on her soul she was taken to heaven by her Son without dying. I mean if Elijah merited it how much more the Mother of God?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

A friend of mine who went to Israel about 3 years ago was told she did not die but fell into a sleep and showed the place where this occurred and then she was assumed into heaven. So it was told to pilgrims in the Holy Land.

And the reason? This has long been the belief embraced in the Tradition of the Church.

The Eastern Churches (including the Eastern Catholic Churches) celebrate this feast as the Dormition, or falling asleep. The belief is that she experienced death, but not in the classic sense. Her body was not subject to corruption as a result of her pure state of grace. This is consistent with the dogmatic declaration.

A scholarly EC priest reflected on this in written remarks published yesterday, in advance of the feast:

Pope Pius XII infallibly defined the Assumption of Mary to be Christian doctrine in 1950 and, in deference to the pious opinions of some Roman Catholics, the Holy Father avoided explicitly mentioning Mary’s death. The consistent teaching of the Eastern Fathers and the liturgical texts of the feast is that Mary shared in the common human experience of death.

Consider the dilemma in believing that Mary did not die from another perspective. Was she a divine person? Protestant and other charges of Marian worship are often supported by this belief: that is, that Mary is worshipped as a divine person.

Yet, to believe that she did die (i) is not at all inconsisent with the dogmatic declaration of the Assumption and (ii) does not in any way detract from the rightful belief that Mary experienced the fullness of bodily resurrection before any other human, glorified body and soul, and now reigns as Queen of Heaven.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The term “fall asleep” is a Christian way of viewing death, especially in the early days of the Church is is very clear. You will read this in the Gospel where St. Stephen the Protodeacon and Protomartyr was stoned to death. But the text just said he “fell asleep”. To Christians after the Resurrection, death is no longer a permanent state where you are dead. Rather you just sleep because the day will come when all will be resurrected. It is a rather long sleep but nonetheless everyone will be awoken. That is why the term “fell asleep” or sometimes “fell asleep in the Lord” is used instead of “died”. It makes sense, Jesus Christ conquered death, no one is going to die anymore.

This phrase is still commonly used by Eastern Churches, especially when referring to clergymen and monastics. But it is common to say today “die” or “pass away”. I do agree those two words sort of undermine the general resurrection that will come, but that is the lingo we have today.

So okay, the Theotokos did not die, she fell asleep and was resurrected on the third day and immediately assumed into heaven by Christ.

 

[jimmy]

There is an existing thread running on this and nobody is giving me a straight answer there.

The question should be:

Is the death of Mary a Church doctrine that binds Catholics upon pain of mortal sin?
Are Catholics who do not believe Mary died before being assumed committing a sin of grave matter?

It is moronic and foolish to believe that Mary didn’t die simply because Munificentisimus Deus, the Apostolic Constitution which defined the assumption teaches it explicitely. It says several times that Mary died. It would be irrational to say that, even though they say explicitely that she died, they then intend to leave it open whether she died when they say she reached the end of her earthly life.

It is even more foolish when you realize that the whole tradition speaks of her dying before the assumption and there isn’t one ancient document that leaves it as an open question whether she died.

Further, it is an insult to us eastern Catholics who are just as Catholic as you in the west. Is it only western theology that matters? Are you going to reject the fact that in the east the Dormition of Mary is a feast? Or is it simply that the liturgy is irrelevant to doctrine in your view? Do we fast before a feast that is merely a hypothetical event? Again, only a fool would believe this.

Regarding this concept of it binding under pain of mortal sin. Is that really the extent of your opinion of doctrine? Doctrine is the minimum that must be accepted to avoid hell? You’ve reduced it to legalism, rather than something that should be an event to rejoice about. Is that why we have the feast, so that we can celebrate the base line for avoiding hell? Or is it actually a historical event that is being celebrated? The fact is that the dormition is part of the historical event as taught by the tradition of Christianity, as well as the liturgy of the Church. To remove the dormition from the assumption is to destroy the whole idea of the feast, because you are removing it from its historical context.

 

[jimmy]

And the reason? This has long been the belief embraced in the Tradition of the Church.

The Eastern Churches (including the Eastern Catholic Churches) celebrate this feast as the Dormition, or falling asleep. The belief is that she experienced death, but not in the classic sense. Her body was not subject to corruption as a result of her pure state of grace. This is consistent with the dogmatic declaration.

A scholarly EC priest reflected on this in written remarks published yesterday, in advance of the feast:

Consider the dilemma in believing that Mary did not die from another perspective. Was she a divine person? Protestant and other charges of Marian worship are often supported by this belief: that is, that Mary is worshipped as a divine person.

Yet, to believe that she did die (i) is not at all inconsisent with the dogmatic declaration of the Assumption and (ii) does not in any way detract from the rightful belief that Mary experienced the fullness of bodily resurrection before any other human, glorified body and soul, and now reigns as Queen of Heaven.

Mun. Deus refers to the death of Mary several times. The Dormition refers to the death of Mary, not a simple sleep. Falling asleep is a euphemism for death.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Okay, let me put it this way. The tradition on the Dormition of Mary can be traced back to the 5th century, at least. This Assumption with no death is what? 50 years old.

But the wording on the actual encyclical which INFALLIBLY delineated the teaching does NOT state that she died.

Wouldn’t you suppose that if there were ONLY ONE TRADITION that the infallible declaration would reference it?

Which means that the tradition that she did not experience physical death is a lot older than 50 years. . .or that the first tradition of death (since it was NOT held as infallible teaching, much as the TRADITION of JOSEPH being a widower with children is an 'old tradition, but NOT infallible teaching), while being ‘old’, is not necessarily correct.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Mun. Deus refers to the death of Mary several times. The Dormition refers to the death of Mary, not a simple sleep. Falling asleep is a euphemism for death.

Really? Mind posting it for us? Mun. Deus that is.

 

[jimmy]

But the wording on the actual encyclical which INFALLIBLY delineated the teaching does NOT state that she died.

Wouldn’t you suppose that if there were ONLY ONE TRADITION that the infallible declaration would reference it?

Which means that the tradition that she did not experience physical death is a lot older than 50 years. . .or that the first tradition of death (since it was NOT held as infallible teaching, much as the TRADITION of JOSEPH being a widower with children is an 'old tradition, but NOT infallible teaching), while being ‘old’, is not necessarily correct.

Have you read the whole document? It refers to her death and her dead body several times. They made it quite clear that she died.

 

[jimmy]

Really? Mind posting it for us? Mun. Deus that is.

1. In the liturgical books which deal with the feast either of the dormition or of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin there are expressions that agree in testifying that, when the Virgin Mother of God passed from this earthly exile to heaven, what happened to her sacred body was, by the decree of divine Providence, in keeping with the dignity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate, and with the other privileges she had been accorded. Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: “Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.”[11]
2. However, since the liturgy of the Church does not engender the Catholic faith, but rather springs from it, in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree, it follows that the holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ’s faithful. They presented it more clearly. They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.

Notice that it points out that the liturgy springs from the faith, so consequently it is doctrine. The feast of the dormition is part of the faith, not a hypothesis.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Mun. Deus refers to the death of Mary several times. The Dormition refers to the death of Mary, not a simple sleep. Falling asleep is a euphemism for death.

I am a fellow EC, and accept this unquestionably. Yet, the main dogmatic expression does stop short of confirming and accepting the death. Yes, the “not so fine print” does it fair justice, as do the many other teachings cited here by theologians and the holy far more enlightened than we.

Nonetheless, it never ceases to amaze me how an overly legalistic orientation leads one to ignore or outright deny the Tradition (yes, capital “T”) and creates irrational doubt as to what has been known since Apostolic times and taught consistently throughout the centuries, as a result of the formulation of the dogmatic statement, rather than the essence.

As you so eloquently put it, to deny the Dormition and its meaning is to ignore the Eastern understanding that is indeed part of Catholic teaching and Tradition.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Have you read the whole document? It refers to her death and her dead body several times. They made it quite clear that she died.

The manner in which it is being read by some is akin to equating the entirety of the U.S. Constitution by reading and accepting the preamble alone.

 

[jimmy]

The manner in which it is being read by some is akin to equating the entirety of the U.S. Constitution by reading and accepting the preamble alone.

Exactly. You would think the document was two sentences long if you listened to some people explain it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You will read this in the Gospel where St. Stephen the Protodeacon and Protomartyr was stoned to death. But the text just said he “fell asleep”.

Oopsie, I wanted to say “Scripture”, not “Gospel”. St. Stephen’s martyrdom is recorded in Acts, not the Gospels

Exactly. You would think the document was two sentences long if you listened to some people explain it.

Same thing confounds me. Why write a long document when all they need to make is one point in one sentence. If what is de fide is that one sentence, why make it confusing? And that is the thing, you take it in its entirety. Like the Bible, you can’t cut out text like what Protestants do and say it is the entirety of the teaching because it is convenient to them.

Besides, the phrase “complete her earthly life” makes more sense if you read the entire document. You know that it doesn’t mean that death or no death is intentionally made vauge, but rather it is to make an emphasis that Mary is alive and fully resurrected today in heaven. Instead of the other saints whose body are still “sleeping” and awaiting resurrection.