Did Mary die or not?/Assumption

[Irishgal49]

IG
There is a weakness in your logic/methodology that might be worth reflecting on.
The map is not the landscape.
We are limited to navigating the map but God walks the landscape.

In the end what you seem, to be saying is that God has to be consistent with our maps of how we think He works. If your map (Biblical theology) was a perfect representation of God’s past will/works then…maybe.

But maps are very imperfect and incomplete compared to the terrain. Maps are only two dimensional but Reality is very unpredictable and always making us re-think our wonderful map “laws” and projections of how the unknown “should be.”

It is therefore not uncommon for maps to conflict, even though the terrain is one.

This is what seems to be happening in this discussion. The “map” based on a mainline Church Tradition clearly differs from your personal Biblical theology “map” on this point.

But, instead of reflecting whether your map is too simplistic/perfect and perhaps in need of an update and deeper theologising…you say the other map isn’t worth considering because it suggests the terrain in question is inconsistent with principles inherent in your map.

This is somewhat flawed logic. A sort of non self-critical idealism where unknown reality must bow to our ideas of known reality rather than the other way around.

God is consistent with Reality - not with our maps of Reality.
God’s consistency may thus look like inconsistancy to “map-readers.”

Therefore views of reality that are inconsistant with your theology are not damned by that reason alone - especially if based on other sources of truth wider/outside of a somewhat isolated and literal Biblical theology.

The difference between Truth and fiction is profoundly simple - only fiction has to make sense.

When we are attached too deeply to a desire for things to make sense/consistency Reality cannot speak to us as deeply as it could. In the end Reality need not make human intellectual sense or consistency. It may be beyond our capability to contain it. Such are the ways of God.

That your theology makes you deeply doubt common sense things like the aging of Mary when mainline tradition would not force you into such a corner is not a good omen for that theology.

Excellent comments. I didn’t technically say that Mary didn’t age I just made a comment that I had no idea about her body becoming old and frail…a corruption of sorts. I have no idea and certainly wouldn’t affirm that she didn’t age.

All of this is certainly worth pondering but you aren’t really saying WHY the Church allows for holding either view of Mary’s assumption (raised from the dead versus in a sleep state). It seems that the issue shouldn’t be what I believe (although I always welcome direction about how to approach theological problems as I struggle hard in this area) but rather, why the Church has two positions that are acceptable to believe. You are all showing me all this documentation but it is this very same Church who holds that we can believe either way. This is not MY idea, my teaching, or me disobeying the Church. This is allowed and I’m wondering why this is the case.

There has to be a reason why the Church has allowed this difference in belief. I am curious as to what that is.

 

[Irishgal49]

*The difference between Truth and fiction is profoundly simple - only fiction has to make sense.

When we are attached too deeply to a desire for things to make sense/consistency Reality cannot speak to us as deeply as it could. In the end Reality need not make human intellectual sense or consistency. It may be beyond our capability to contain it. Such are the ways of God.

That your theology makes you deeply doubt common sense things like the aging of Mary when mainline tradition would not force you into such a corner is not a good omen for that theology.*

For me if it doesn’t hold up to common sense then I cannot buy it. That doesn’t mean I expect God or the workings of God to be 100% comprehensible but I do expect that there be sense in it. Where there is no sense, I have no peace and I’m not going there without a whole lot of wrestling. I will not sign up for any belief in any church without seriously ensuring I’m not being duped. I am not sure if that is because I’ve been abused as a kid or due to the fact I have 2 mental illnesses or both or neither. I have no idea.

I have always been this way and I wish more than anything I could pick up a Catechism and say, “If this says it I believe it” but I can’t. It feels out of control and I freak. I have asked God many times to give me the grace to just step across that line of faith but I can’t do it. I just can’t. I have to wrestle it out until some semblance of sense comes and then I can say, “OK good enough, I am OK with that.” Then I can move onto the next belief. I have about 5 or 6 key things I cannot agree with at this time. I did resolve a large issue for me this summer so I’m hopeful I can move forward. I don’t know why I am the way I am…but I sincerely feel what I believe strongly. I know God understands me.

 

[Irishgal49]

It would completely undermine the Patristic teaching of death as the passing into a new life, as a participation in the paschal mystery. The Theotokos was not exempt from death, even if one were to affirm the Immaculate Conception, as Good Fella pointed out.

Well then file some sort of lawsuit or petition because your Church allows for a difference in belief on this matter.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I have always been this way and I wish more than anything I could pick up a Catechism and say, “If this says it I believe it” but I can’t. It feels out of control and I freak. I have asked God many times to give me the grace to just step across that line of faith but I can’t do it. I just can’t. I have to wrestle it out until some semblance of sense comes and then I can say, “OK good enough, I am OK with that.” Then I can move onto the next belief.

There’s nothing wrong with that approach, so long as you engage with an open mind.

Thinking about this exchange to date and your statements as regards this particular subject, may I suggest you start by working backwards?

Does it make sense to you that Mary was privileged above any other human by being assumed body and soul into heaven, before the Final Judgment?

 

[Irishgal49]

There’s nothing wrong with that approach, so long as you engage with an open mind.

Thinking about this exchange to date and your statements as regards this particular subject, may I suggest you start by working backwards?

Does it make sense to you that Mary was privileged above any other human by being assumed body and soul into heaven, before the Final Judgment?

Working backwards is a great idea! I’m just asking all of you who have been in this faith far longer than me, WHY does the Church say there are no definitive/mandatory beliefs on this if everyone seems to see pounds of evidence in this regard.

I really like the working backwards. I have some KEY issues with Church teachings I’d like to try the working backwards with, since this one is not a matter of disobedience. I have a good 5 or 6 things that I would like to find some ways to resolve my differences. Neat idea.

 

[Irishgal49]

Does it make sense to you that Mary was privileged above any other human by being assumed body and soul into heaven, before the Final Judgment?

Yes I do believe that.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Well then file some sort of lawsuit or petition because your Church allows for a difference in belief on this matter.

My Church does not allow for a difference of belief on this matter. The death and bodily resurrection of the Theotokos is celebrated liturgically as one of the Great Feasts of the year, and it is part of the Tradition of the Orthodox Church. The idea that the Theotokos did not die is not part of our Tradition, and that is reason enough for us never to believe it. But hypothetically speaking, I was presenting an objection to the belief that the Theotokos never died, drawing from the shared Tradition between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, which should be valid in either Church. I am certainly not telling you what you or your Church should believe, just trying to add something to the discussion as a sort of devil’s advocate.

 

[jimmy]

Yes I do believe that.

So Jesus died, but not Mary? How does that make any sense?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Yes I do believe that.

So Jesus died, but not Mary? How does that make any sense?

That’s jumping ahead a bit, Jimmy, as Christ is surely in a different class - human and divine.

If I may suggest, perhaps a better next question affirms that Mary was uniquely privileged in this way, which was just acknowledged.

The conflict then once again arises as to what exactly happened to Elijah.

If Mary’s assumption was indeed unique, what happened to Elijah?

 

[Irishgal49]

So Jesus died, but not Mary? How does that make any sense?

Well it makes sense because Jesus died for our sins. Jesus was God and came to die for that purpose. He had that mission. He chose to lay down his life for us.

Mary is not God and Jesus would certainly be more than able to take her to heaven without dying.

 

[Irishgal49]

That’s jumping ahead a bit, Jimmy, as Christ is surely in a different class - human and divine.

If I may suggest, perhaps a better next question affirms that Mary was uniquely privileged in this way, which was just acknowledged.

The conflict then once again arises as to what exactly happened to Elijah.

If Mary’s assumption was indeed unique, what happened to Elijah?

Elijah isn’t a problem for me because my ex (who is a Conservative Jew) says that Elijah had to come in the flesh and confirm the arrival of the Messiah. I felt that was why he appeared at the Transfiguration.

 

[Irishgal49]

My Church does not allow for a difference of belief on this matter. The death and bodily resurrection of the Theotokos is celebrated liturgically as one of the Great Feasts of the year, and it is part of the Tradition of the Orthodox Church. The idea that the Theotokos did not die is not part of our Tradition, and that is reason enough for us never to believe it. But hypothetically speaking, I was presenting an objection to the belief that the Theotokos never died, drawing from the shared Tradition between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, which should be valid in either Church. I am certainly not telling you what you or your Church should believe, just trying to add something to the discussion as a sort of devil’s advocate.

I didn’t know that. Thank you for explaining that and I guess I should have looked at your faith declaration on your profile. My apology.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

My Church does not allow for a difference of belief on this matter. The death and bodily resurrection of the Theotokos is celebrated liturgically as one of the Great Feasts of the year, and it is part of the Tradition of the Orthodox Church. The idea that the Theotokos did not die is not part of our Tradition, and that is reason enough for us never to believe it. But hypothetically speaking, I was presenting an objection to the belief that the Theotokos never died, drawing from the shared Tradition between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, which should be valid in either Church. I am certainly not telling you what you or your Church should believe, just trying to add something to the discussion as a sort of devil’s advocate.

And that’s the challenge here, dear brother, as Sacred Tradition did not change as a result of this dogmatic declaration - in fact, it so much as says so quite clearly.

1. This belief of the sacred pastors and of Christ’s faithful is universally manifested still more splendidly by the fact that, since ancient times, there have been both in the East and in the West solemn liturgical offices commemorating this privilege. The holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church have never failed to draw enlightenment from this fact since, as everyone knows, the sacred liturgy, “because it is the profession, subject to the supreme teaching authority within the Church, of heavenly truths, can supply proofs and testimonies of no small value for deciding a particular point of Christian doctrine.”

The problem is that the dogmatic declaration encompassed only part of the Tradition - that is, that the Theotokos was assumed body and soul into heaven, without having to wait for the Final Judgment.

There should still be no difference between Orthodox and Catholic belief, to your point, if shared Sacred Tradition has indeed been maintained as regards the entire belief on the Dormition and the Assumption.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Elijah isn’t a problem for me because my ex (who is a Conservative Jew) says that Elijah had to come in the flesh and confirm the arrival of the Messiah. I felt that was why he appeared at the Transfiguration.

But do you believe he was assumed into heaven, body and soul, before the Resurrection itself and before Mary was assumed?

 

[Irishgal49]

But do you believe he was assumed into heaven, body and soul, before the Resurrection itself and before Mary was assumed?

He had a purpose. He was part of the prophecy that was to be fulfilled. Jesus certainly doesn’t need anyone for anything in the large sense, but all the prophecies about Him were fulfilled and this was a biggie. Heck the Jewish groups here where I live still set a place for Elijah and prop their doors open, waiting for him to come and tell them the Messiah is here.

The old testament teaching said he was taken up in a fiery chariot. His body and soul went up in a chariot. He appeared at the Transfiguration, where he went between those two, I have no idea. Peter, James, and John must have recognized him for that account to be written. His presence would have been total confirmation to any devout Jew that Jesus was the Messiah.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

He had a purpose. He was part of the prophecy that was to be fulfilled. Jesus certainly doesn’t need anyone for anything in the large sense, but all the prophecies about Him were fulfilled and this was a biggie. Heck the Jewish groups here where I live still set a place for Elijah and prop their doors open, waiting for him to come and tell them the Messiah is here.

The old testament teaching said he was taken up in a fiery chariot. His body and soul went up in a chariot. He appeared at the Transfiguration, where he went between those two, I have no idea. Peter, James, and John must have recognized him for that account to be written. His presence would have been total confirmation to any devout Jew that Jesus was the Messiah.

All that sounds reasonable, so the “it’s already happened” argument is set aside.

Now the tough question, but phrased differently.

So far, we’ve asked - why did MD leave the question of Mary’s death open ended?

Perhaps a better question is - did it? or more specifically, did MD change anything about our beliefs regarding Mary, except for declaring as dogma that she was assumed, body and soul, in heaven?

 

[jimmy]

Well it makes sense because Jesus died for our sins. Jesus was God and came to die for that purpose. He had that mission. He chose to lay down his life for us.

Mary is not God and Jesus would certainly be more than able to take her to heaven without dying.

The problem with that is that your argument for why Mary didn’t die is because Elijah and Enoch didn’t so therefore she didn’t because she was greater than them. Jesus is greater than her, yet he was subject to death from his very conception.

Jesus would be more than capable of taking any man to heaven without dying, so that is not an argument in favor of her not dying.

Thirdly, you have removed Mary from the human condition that Jesus entered. The redemption of man happened through Christ entering communion with us and accepting our condition. He was made incarnate as a fallen man, and death was the direct conclusion of the Incarnation. Christ was not born free of death; he born as a fallen man with a fallen nature. Through the uniting of our nature to his, and his death and resurrection he redeamed us. But you have removed Mary from that communion. She is seperated out as some superhuman that is not a member of fallen man. She is a prefall human, unlike Jesus. And you somehow think it is admirable for her to be seperated out from the human family tree.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Irishgal49:

The old testament teaching said he was taken up in a fiery chariot.

Did you know that Elijah sent a LETTER to king Jehoram 10 YEARS after he was “assumed” as you think into heaven?

It’s in the Bible. Here’s a quote from the link you have no time to look at:

" The new king of Israel was another son of Ahab, Jehoram, or Joram as he is sometimes called. The beginning of his reign marked the year of his removal of Elijah (2 Kings 1:18 and 3:1). During this king’s reign, Elisha was the recognized prophet of God (2 Kings 3:11). In the fifth year of Joram king of Israel, the son of the king of Judah began to reign along with his father in Judah (2 Kings 8:16). His name also was Jehoram. The first thing he did to establish his kingdom rule was to put his relatives to the sword lest they should claim the throne from him (2 Chronicles 21:4). For nearly six years he followed the ways of the nations about him and did evil in the sight of God.

Almost ten years had now expired since Elijah was taken from the people. After this wicked rule by the Jewish king, God chose Elijah to write a letter and have it sent to the king! The contents of the letter are found in 2 Chronicles 21:12-15. From the wording of this letter, it is clear that Elijah wrote it after these events had occurred, for he speaks of them as past events, and of the diseases as future, Two years after the king became diseased the king died, having reigned only eight short years (2 Chronicles 21:18-20).

This proves that the letter was written about ten years after Elijah had been taken to another location by the whirlwind. God used Elijah to convey the message because he was the prophet of God in the days of the present king’s father, and the son was not going in the ways of his obedient father, Jehosophat. This letter proves that he was alive someplace else. The Bible does not reveal how much longer Elijah lived after writing the letter, but it does say that it is appointed for all men to die once (Romans 5:12,14, 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, Hebrews 9:27).

A similar incident to Elijah’s took place in Acts 8:39,40. Phillip was caught up into the first heaven, as Elijah was, and was transported to another location approximately 30 miles away. Another similar incident happened to Ezekiel, in which the spirit took him away (Ezekiel 3:12). The spirit lifted him up “between the earth and the heaven” and brought him “to Jerusalem, to the door of the inner gate” (Ezekiel 8:3). Afterwards, the spirit took him up to Chaldea (Ezekiel 11:24). "

 

[ByzCathCantor]

A similar incident to Elijah’s took place in Acts 8:39,40. Phillip was caught up into the first heaven, as Elijah was, and was transported to another location approximately 30 miles away.

Ironically, Sacred Tradition has it that most of the Apostles (except for Thomas) were transported to Jerusalem to be at Mary’s side before her Dormition in a similar fashion.

 

[Irishgal49]

From what you have all been saying it doesn’t seem to have declared anything different. They merely declared what was already commonly believed and known to be true.