Did Mary die or not?/Assumption

[ConstantineTG]

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 But as one who has studied historical documents and literary criticism it is Suspicions 101 to dig into the reason for different titles and names as “historians”/redactors love to simplify and unite (look at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.

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.

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.

If you want reference please backread the entire thread. We’re already referenced teachings by saints, Church Fathers and Liturgical prayers which conclusively says Mary passed away, was resurrected, and assumed into heaven.

 

[beehumble]

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.

Again, I brought up the sculpture as an interesting point, not some type of proof.

I thought the other points made in that post were more salient to the discussion, a discussion by the way that has no answer since there is no dogma on it.

The question remains: If Bl. Mary is without sin, then why did she have to die?

God bless you.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

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.

There were probably few commissions of “religious art” that didn’t have some form of “secular” influence, even if as innocent as a subject that became the basis for a depiction of a saint. Stories abound from that era.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I only brought up the Michelangelo thing as an interesting point …

… and it is indeed interesting. I brought up Caravaggio again in this thread simply to point out that the idea of the “death” of Mary was not unknown in the West, and the lack of clarity of the Tradition ironically stems from the dogmatic declaration.

Likewise, the dogmatic declaration cannot be used as proof that she did not die (although Tradition on the matter is highlighted at least five times in the Apostolic constitution).

Blessings to you, as well!

 

[beehumble]

The only reason I can think that she did die is that in her perfect humbleness to God, her Son, she would not want to be seen by anybody as exceeding Him Who did die, so in her humbleness, even though she is without sin, made sure to always be seen as less than her Son (because she is a mere creature and she is not proud and knows, accepts, and loves her place in God’s plans) and therefore died.

I think but am not sure that this is Bl. JP II’s reasoning on it.

God bless you.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I think we have a tendency to think of death as the end of physical life alone, but perhaps it is meant as a permanent separation from God.

In the Eastern Churches we chant (several hundred times over the course of the Pascal season):

Christ is risen from the dead! By death He trampled death, and to those in the tombs, He granted life!

In that prayful reflection on the essence of the Resurrection, are we professing a belief that people will no longer die in the physical sense? If Christ trampled death, why do we still die?

 

[beehumble]

Perhaps part of it is for the future, Second Coming, when everything that comes to us through the death/resurrection will be fulfilled, and all will rise. “Behold I make all things new!” Jesus says in the last book, Revelation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Mary died because she’s human, like you and me. It is in our nature, post-fall, that we will die. Christ himself didn’t change that but instead made death not the end but the transition into the world to come.

Mary does not have a different humanity than you and I.

 

[beehumble]

Mary died because she’s human, like you and me. It is in our nature, post-fall, that we will die. Christ himself didn’t change that but instead made death not the end but the transition into the world to come.

Mary does not have a different humanity than you and I.

Bl. Mary did not suffer the *effects *of the fall, the original sin. Bl. Mary is human, but humans were created immaculate and immortal and sinless, and meant to live forever. Adam and Eve would have lived forever had they not sinned. Bl. Mary is the New Eve, and Jesus is the New Adam. They prefigure the restored, renewed, immaculate world to come. When Jesus comes, the earth will be made new again and all the righteous will rise, receive new bodies and live forever, just as God had always planned. “Behold I make all things new!” She is human, but more like the first humans, and the last, than like us in the middle of the fall.

She is an unfallen human, and unfallen humans do not die.

I am not saying Bl. Mary did not die, I am saying the argument that she is human and therefore died is not necessarily on solid ground. Bl. Mary is not the same as the rest of us who are fallen, because she was and is immaculate, which was necessary since she was to be (and is) the Mother of God.

On points where we are not given clarity from on high, such as this one, I always feel it means the point is not important for our salvation. (And this is not to say in the future a Pope wont declare that Bl. Mary never died, making the point important!)

God bless you.

 

[Good_Fella]

The only reason I can think that she did die is that in her perfect humbleness to God, her Son, she would not want to be seen by anybody as exceeding Him Who did die, so in her humbleness, even though she is without sin, made sure to always be seen as less than her Son (because she is a mere creature and she is not proud and knows, accepts, and loves her place in God’s plans) and therefore died.

I think but am not sure that this is Bl. JP II’s reasoning on it.

God bless you.

I can’t think of a better reason why Mary would die. Human mortality should only be natural for her as it is for us in our humanity. But the difference between Mary and the human race is she wasn’t subject to death on account of sin, but on account of her virtues. So her death was more the result of an orientation produced by the quality of her soul than an inescapable natural fate and subjection concomitant of a sinful nature. Thus it was fitting that Mary should die as much as it was fitting she should be preserved free from the stain of all sin and bodily corruption, though she did not necessarily have to die according to God’s justice. Our Blessed Mother excels far above us in the order of divine grace in our common humanity.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If you want reference please backread the entire thread. We’re already referenced teachings by saints, Church Fathers and Liturgical prayers which conclusively says Mary passed away, was resurrected, and assumed into heaven.

CT my challenge to your above unsupported opinion was:
"Please supply some solid references for your phrase “Mary was resurrected.”

I contend that the phrase “Mary was resurrected” has not been accepted by reputable Catholic tradition as correctly applicable to the Virgin. I surmise that this is because the agreed reality we are pointing to (which lies behind the correct phrase “she was assumed”) is of a seriously different nature from that we speak of when we say “Jesus was resurrected.”

CT if you want your opinion to be taken seriously then you need to put up a serious reference/quote you are prepared to own and debate:shrug:
Vague generalisations and pointing “over there somewhere” are not solid references that assist readers to take your view seriously.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

CT my challenge to your above unsupported opinion was:
"Please supply some solid references for your phrase “Mary was resurrected.”

I contend that the phrase “Mary was resurrected” has not been accepted by reputable Catholic tradition as correctly applicable to the Virgin. I surmise that this is because the agreed reality we are pointing to (which lies behind the correct phrase “she was assumed”) is of a seriously different nature from that we speak of when we say “Jesus was resurrected.”

CT if you want your opinion to be taken seriously then you need to put up a serious reference/quote you are prepared to own and debate:shrug:
Vague generalisations and pointing “over there somewhere” are not solid references that assist readers to take your view seriously.

From Blessed Pope John Paul II:

*"3. It is true that in Revelation death is presented as a punishment for sin. However, the fact that the Church proclaims Mary free from original sin by a unique divine privilege does not lead to the conclusion that she also received physical immortality. The Mother is not superior to the Son who underwent death, giving it a new meaning and changing it into a means of salvation.

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. "*

It is easily seen that the resurrection of Mary is being taken for granted by Blessed Pope John Paul II.

The death of Mary is an old established tradition, which therefore implies a resurrection to a glorified body, before her Assumption into Heaven.

Much of the doctrine regarding Mary’s death and resurrection is implied in the dogma of the Assumption. The death of Mary, and her resurrection are all implied if not expressly articulated. In an earlier age, Catholic Christians KNEW that an Assumption into Heaven was not possible without a glorified body. They also KNEW that a glorified body is given at our resurrection (which included the Virgin Mary) The doctrine of the Assumption is startling in that this resurrection and Assumption into Heaven took place soon after her death, because of her special privileges as Mother of God, Ark of the Covenant, and the Immaculate Conception. But the GOSPEL of the resurrection WAS NOT suspended in the case of the Virgin Mary, just the timing was unique to her in all of Salvation History.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

In this way, Mary becomes our example of the promise of eternal salvation made to all of us, which she realized upon her death before all humanity and without having to wait for the Final Judgment.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

From Blessed Pope John Paul II:…"3.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. "

ASJ Obviously I do not deny that Mary died.
Obviously I do not deny that soon thereafter she was present in heaven with glorified body and soul united.

However I do not believe this alone legitimates formal or liturgical use of the phrase/title the “Resurrection of Mary.” The “manner” of how the “result” , which we all agree on, was achieved looks to be important in this regard.

JPII appears to explicitly avoid the direct phrase “Mary’s Resurrection” (or any similar direct phrase) in your example above.

I am suggesting tradition is raising a flag, signalling an essential difference between the word “resurrection” applied to Jesus and applied to Mary.

That is why it does not seem to be legitimately said of Mary directly.
Ancient iconography appears to show a reclining (dead) Mary ascending all the way to heaven, not a standing, alive Mary. This may be significant.

Obviously Mary was raised by God’s power, Jesus by his own. That may be all that is being signalled by the subtlety I am noting. However there may be more to it.

I would be interested if there was ever an ancient church of note named “The Church of the Resurrection of Mary.” I cannot find any, perhaps others can.

Interestingly there do seem to be ancient churches of the Ascension of Mary.

 

[CB_Catholic]

ASJ Obviously I do not deny that Mary died.
Obviously I do not deny that soon thereafter she was present in heaven with glorified body and soul united.

However I do not believe this alone legitimates formal or liturgical use of the phrase/title the “Resurrection of Mary.” The “manner” of how the “result” , which we all agree on, was achieved looks to be important in this regard.

JPII appears to explicitly avoid the direct phrase “Mary’s Resurrection” (or any similar direct phrase) in your example above.

I am suggesting tradition is raising a flag, signalling an essential difference between the word “resurrection” applied to Jesus and applied to Mary.

That is why it does not seem to be legitimately said of Mary directly.
Ancient iconography appears to show a reclining (dead) Mary ascending all the way to heaven, not a standing, alive Mary. This may be significant.

Obviously Mary was raised by God’s power, Jesus by his own. That may be all that is being signalled by the subtlety I am noting. However there may be more to it.

I would be interested if there was ever an ancient church of note named “The Church of the Resurrection of Mary.” I cannot find any, perhaps others can.

Interestingly there do seem to be ancient churches of the Ascension of Mary.

Traditionally we speak of the “resurrection of the body” as in our Creeds. Why, then, would we speak of OUR bodily resurrection, but not Mary’s? The difference is not in the resurrection, but in the incorruptibility of the body of the BVM and her bodily Assumption into heaven. The resurrection of Mary’s body is the same as what will happen to us. that is one of the reasons the feast is so important to us. What happened to Mary will happen to us.

Jesus ASCENDED into heaven under His own power. Mary was ASSUMED into heaven by the power of God. This is distinct from the resurrection, and I think that is where your confusion lies.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Blue Horizon:

JPII appears to explicitly avoid the direct phrase “Mary’s Resurrection” (or any similar direct phrase) in your example above.

Or, as I said, it is taken for granted. It is not like there is some movement afoot denying the resurrection of the Virgin Mary (is there?) Nevertheless his phrase “To share in Christ’s Resurrection, Mary had first to share in his death.” EXPLICITLY states Mary shared in Christ’s resurrection. There is really NO interpretation that you can put on those words to deny that Blessed JPII is saying that the Virgin Mary had a resurrection.

What I think is confusing to people, is that because so much emphasis has been placed on the Assumption while little if anything was said about the resurrection of Mary, that people FORGOT the Gospel, which proclaims that WE ALL will die, and on the last day, Rise Again, either to death eternal, or Life eternal. The Gospel is not made void because the Virgin Mary was raised and Assumed into heaven soon after her death. There is JUST a difference of time for the BVM. The Gospel of the Resurrection to a new glorified body and eternal life has not been abrogated on any account, most especially for the BVM, the perfect disciple of Her Son.

To claim that the Virgin Mary DID NOT Rise from the Dead in a glorified body nullifies the Assumption itself! Blessed JPII EXPLICITY SAID that the reason the Papal document Mun.Dei. did not actually specify Mary’s death (and subsequent and necessary resurrection) was because it wasn’t deemed timely FOR THAT PARTICULAR DOCUMENT, not that it wasn’t already an established reality and belief of the Church.

To deny the resurrection of the Virgin Mary is to go beyond Church teaching and tradition. Artistic renderings of the Assumption do not overthrow the Gospel.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Or, as I said, it is taken for granted. It is not like there is some movement afoot denying the resurrection of the Virgin Mary (is there?) Nevertheless his phrase “To share in Christ’s Resurrection, Mary had first to share in his death.” EXPLICITLY states Mary shared in Christ’s resurrection. There is really NO interpretation that you can put on those words to deny that Blessed JPII is saying that the Virgin Mary had a resurrection.

What I think is confusing to people, is that because so much emphasis has been placed on the Assumption while little if anything was said about the resurrection of Mary, that people FORGOT the Gospel, which proclaims that WE ALL will die, and on the last day, Rise Again, either to death eternal, or Life eternal. The Gospel is not made void because the Virgin Mary was raised and Assumed into heaven soon after her death. There is JUST a difference of time for the BVM. The Gospel of the Resurrection to a new glorified body and eternal life has not been abrogated on any account, most especially for the BVM, the perfect disciple of Her Son.

To claim that the Virgin Mary DID NOT Rise from the Dead in a glorified body nullifies the Assumption itself! Blessed JPII EXPLICITY SAID that the reason the Papal document Mun.Dei. did not actually specify Mary’s death (and subsequent and necessary resurrection) was because it wasn’t deemed timely FOR THAT PARTICULAR DOCUMENT, not that it wasn’t already an established reality and belief of the Church.

To deny the resurrection of the Virgin Mary is to go beyond Church teaching and tradition. Artistic renderings of the Assumption do not overthrow the Gospel.

ASJ you have yet to understand my point.
If I have clearly stated Mary is in heaven, body (which was taken from the tomb) and soul how can I deny she has risen from the dead?

Tradition has clearly (and apparantly with intent) avoided describing the manner by which that reality came about by the** title/phrase ** “The Resurrection of Mary.”

I suggest the reason is because both her raising from the dead and her removal from earth to heaven are in fact co-terminus and cannot really be separated out (as they can with Jesus). Hence the unique ** title/phrase **“Assumption of Mary.”

I believe that is a valid theological position - unless you can prove otherwise.

 

[ConstantineTG]

ASJ you have yet to understand my point.
If I have clearly stated Mary is in heaven, body (which was taken from the tomb) and soul how can I deny she has risen from the dead?

Tradition has clearly (and apparantly with intent) avoided describing the manner by which that reality came about by the** title/phrase ** “The Resurrection of Mary.”

I suggest the reason is because both her raising from the dead and her removal from earth to heaven are in fact co-terminus and cannot really be separated out (as they can with Jesus). Hence the unique ** title/phrase **“Assumption of Mary.”

I believe that is a valid theological position - unless you can prove otherwise.

That is indeed the Tradition, that Mary was resurrected and immediately assumed into heaven. Unlike Christ who still had things to do for 40 days, Mary went straight to heaven body and soul.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

ASJ you have yet to understand my point.
If I have clearly stated Mary is in heaven, body (which was taken from the tomb) and soul how can I deny she has risen from the dead?

Tradition has clearly (and apparantly with intent) avoided describing the manner by which that reality came about by the** title/phrase ** “The Resurrection of Mary.”

I suggest the reason is because both her raising from the dead and her removal from earth to heaven are in fact co-terminus and cannot really be separated out (as they can with Jesus). Hence the unique ** title/phrase **“Assumption of Mary.”

I believe that is a valid theological position - unless you can prove otherwise.

I have misunderstood you then, for which I apologize. Your suggestion that Mary’s resurrection and Assumption all happened in a single event is perfectly sound, and reflects my own belief on what happened, and what tradition tell us.

However, that would not alter the fact that Mary DID have a resurrection. Although as you pointed out we don’t speak of the resurrection of Mary as if it were an isolated event as it can be said of our Lord and Savior. But I think it should be understood that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary implies a resurrection to a glorified body in that event.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have misunderstood you then, for which I apologize. Your suggestion that Mary’s resurrection and Assumption all happened in a single event is perfectly sound, and reflects my own belief on what happened, and what tradition tell us.

However, that would not alter the fact that Mary DID have a resurrection. Although as you pointed out we don’t speak of the resurrection of Mary as if it were an isolated event as it can be said of our Lord and Savior. But I think it should be understood that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary implies a resurrection to a glorified body in that event.

ASJ
All good thanks.

The only further reflection I would like to make is the following.

Jesus’s resurrection is a “fact” - in the sense that there were witnesses who saw his glorified state “through the senses.” They did not **believe **in Christ’s resurrection as we post-Apostolic Christians must do. They saw.

Mary’s case is of a different calibre. Because there were no witnesses to her glorified new life it is not a “fact” in the sense defined above. It is a belief, even by the apostles.

Her body’s “translation” (the disappearance of her incorrupt, dead body to heaven) may have been witnessed by the apostles - which would make that aspect a fact rather than a belief. Alternatively, even her “translation” may not have been actually witnessed which means we are dealing with a belief, based on the lesser fact of “the inexplicable empty tomb”.

This may be behind tradition’s reluctance to give Mary’s unique manner of rising to new life the same ** title **“resurrection” that we gave to Christ. His rising to life was witnessed by the Church militant and triumphant. Mary’s only by the Church triumphant.