Did Mary experience physical death before her assumption?

[SAVINGRACE]

"The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven at the end of her earthly life is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church. On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII, exercising papal infallibility, declared in Munificentissimus Deus that it is a dogma of the Church “that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” As a dogma, the Assumption is a required belief of all Catholics; anyone who publicly dissents from the dogma, Pope Pius declared, “has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”

While the Eastern Orthodox believe in the Dormition, they object to the papal definition of the dogma, seeing it as unnecessary, since belief in Mary’s bodily assumption, tradition holds, goes back to apostolic times.

Pope Pius XII, in the text explaining his definition of the dogma of the Assumption, refers repeatedly to the Blessed Virgin’s death before her Assumption, and the consistent tradition in both the East and the West holds that Mary did die before she was assumed into Heaven. However, since the definition of the Assumption is silent on this question, Catholics can legitimately believe that Mary did not die before the Assumption." (catholic.com)

 

[GaryTaylor]

My apology, we are at the emotional part of the thread I see induced with personal opinion.

The fact is Mary was either assumed body and soul, or her soul was received in heaven first and then her body days later. This isn’t even mentioning assumed “alive” body and soul. She could have died whatever that means and been assumed body and soul. So there are a “few” possibilities. I find it fascinating we are still insisting the Pope said Mary died and insisting this is a fact still.

So then why is it we are insisting the body and soul were separated and by death which could be the only way to reconcile this belief? Who could possibly know this? Private revelation not investigated? A Saint mentioned it and thats the infallible truth in 500-AD? Is it infallible Mary died and was raised on the third day? Of course not, its pious belief. Again the liturgy is mentioned and again we ignore the spotless. stainless, immaculate aspect of these?

There are no witnesses. Its not in scripture. Its not documented or ever a single word mentioned for what 5-6 hundred years. No private revelation was ever investigated or documented. And no artifacts can be verified. Death of Mary was “never” defined by the Church. The earliest testimony by a Saint warns of this path and his words are still a “fact”

 

[SAVINGRACE]

My apology, we are at the emotional part of the thread I see induced with personal opinion.

The fact is Mary was either assumed body and soul, or her soul was received in heaven first and then her body days later. This isn’t even mentioning assumed “alive” body and soul. She could have died whatever that means and been assumed body and soul. So there are a “few” possibilities. I find it fascinating we are still insisting the Pope said Mary died and insisting this is a fact still.

So then why is it we are insisting the body and soul were separated and by death which could be the only way to reconcile this belief? Who could possibly know this? Private revelation not investigated? A Saint mentioned it and thats the infallible truth in 500-AD? Is it infallible Mary died and was raised on the third day? Of course not, its pious belief. Again the liturgy is mentioned and again we ignore the spotless. stainless, immaculate aspect of these?

There are no witnesses. Its not in scripture. Its not documented or ever a single word mentioned for what 5-6 hundred years. No private revelation was ever investigated or documented. And no artifacts can be verified. Death of Mary was “never” defined by the Church. The earliest testimony by a Saint warns of this path and his words are still a “fact”

My post regarding the Pope’s statement came directly from Catholic.com.

Are they and their researchers wrong?

 

[GaryTaylor]

My post regarding the Pope’s statement came directly from Catholic.com.

Are they and their researchers wrong?

Did you read the last sentence of my post, the most relevant one?

What is your point? Mine is…

The fact is Mary was either assumed body and soul, or her soul was received in heaven first and then her body days later. This isn’t even mentioning assumed “alive” body and soul. She could have died whatever that means and been assumed body and soul. So there are a “few” possibilities. I find it fascinating we are still insisting the Pope said Mary died and insisting this is a fact still.

So then why is it we are insisting the body and soul were separated and by death which could be the only way to reconcile this belief? Who could possibly know this? Private revelation not investigated? A Saint mentioned it and thats the infallible truth in 500-AD? Is it infallible Mary died and was raised on the third day? Of course not, its pious belief. Again the liturgy is mentioned and again we ignore the spotless. stainless, immaculate aspect of these?

There are no witnesses. Its not in scripture. Its not documented or ever a single word mentioned for what 5-6 hundred years. No private revelation was ever investigated or documented. And no artifacts can be verified. Death of Mary was “never” defined by the Church. The earliest testimony by a Saint warns of this path and his words are still a “fact”

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t know which researchers are wrong in their opinion. And there are many Catholic sights which proposed different opinions on the topic as the understanding varies. Its not a matter of posting one and suggesting they are not wrong while ignoring the opinions in others. To understand what was stated is to be able to openly discuss the topic which in the end reached what is infallible.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CE0QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicculture.org%2Fculture%2Flibrary%2Fview.cfm%3Fid%3D469&ei=q7KmU6ihH8-fyASe0IGwDw&usg=AFQjCNFaER2fnCGms2NYSmBjq9NqpCmmqQ&bvm=bv.69411363,d.aWw

Death is not defined, body and soul in heaven is.

1. Having completed the course of her earthly life: Due to the dispute over the fact of Our Blessed Lady’s death, the question of the precise scope of the doctrine of the Assumption was likewise a matter of dispute among theologians prior to November 1, 1950. Some maintained that the object of this privilege is the glorious resurrection of the Blessed Virgin, presupposing, therefore, the fact of her death.4

This opinion was based upon the reasoning that in theological investigation we must not separate those truths which are inseparable in Tradition, the Liturgy, and the pious belief of the faithful. This opinion took for granted that the death, glorious resurrection, and bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin were taught as inseparable truths in Tradition and were always believed to be such by the faithful. Other theologians, on the contrary, maintained that the doctrine of the Assumption has within its scope only the glorious Assumption of Mary, body and soul into heaven, whether she died or not.5

The fact of Mary’s death and subsequent resurrection is uncertain. We cannot say, therefore, that they are included within the scope of the definition of Pope Pius XII.6 For a Pope defines only what is certain. And should it be established later beyond shadow of doubt that Mary actually died and subsequently rose again before her sacred body saw corruption, this new discovery would have no bearing whatever upon the scope of the definition in the Munificentissimus Deus. For that alone is within the scope of a definition which the Holy Father or an Ecumenical Council intends to define at the moment of definition. And, by the same reasoning, those who maintain that Mary did not die cannot say that Pope Pius XII defined that Mary was assumed into heavenly glory without having previously died and risen again. The fact alone of her Assumption, body and soul, into heaven is now of faith by virtue of this Constitution, and not her death, resurrection, or bodily immortality.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

What is your point? Mine is…

The fact is Mary was either assumed body and soul, or her soul was received in heaven first and then her body days later. This isn’t even mentioning assumed “alive” body and soul. She could have died whatever that means and been assumed body and soul. So there are a “few” possibilities. I find it fascinating we are still insisting the Pope said Mary died and insisting this is a fact still.

So then why is it we are insisting the body and soul were separated and by death which could be the only way to reconcile this belief? Who could possibly know this? Private revelation not investigated? A Saint mentioned it and thats the infallible truth in 500-AD? Is it infallible Mary died and was raised on the third day? Of course not, its pious belief. Again the liturgy is mentioned and again we ignore the spotless. stainless, immaculate aspect of these?

There are no witnesses. Its not in scripture. Its not documented or ever a single word mentioned for what 5-6 hundred years. No private revelation was ever investigated or documented. And no artifacts can be verified. Death of Mary was “never” defined by the Church. The earliest testimony by a Saint warns of this path and his words are still a “fact”

since the definition of the Assumption is silent on this question, Catholics can legitimately believe that Mary did not die before the Assumption.

And the Pope did say that Mary died and then was assumed. Whether it was ‘infallibly’ proclaimed or not is the moot point.

 

[GaryTaylor]

since the definition of the Assumption is silent on this question, Catholics can legitimately believe that Mary did not die before the Assumption

Correct

Why is it silent? And that is an “infallible fact” above which as the above Catholic sight clearly stated is open to discussion? And that is regardless who likes it or not? I fail to see your point. The fact anyone stated anything about death does not top the infallible statement nor the reason it was was defined. You agree with the research in the above Catholic sight? Further as has been repeated Marys Death was never defined by the Church.

Whether it was ‘infallibly’ proclaimed or not is the moot point.

Incorrect

"The fact of Mary’s death and subsequent resurrection is uncertain. We cannot say, therefore, that they are included within the scope of the definition of Pope Pius XII.6 For a Pope defines only what is certain. And should it be established later beyond shadow of doubt that Mary actually died and subsequently rose again before her sacred body saw corruption, this new discovery would have no bearing whatever upon the scope of the definition in the Munificentissimus Deus. For that alone is within the scope of a definition which the Holy Father or an Ecumenical Council intends to define at the moment of definition. And, by the same reasoning, those who maintain that Mary did not die cannot say that Pope Pius XII defined that Mary was assumed into heavenly glory without having previously died and risen again.

The fact alone of her Assumption, body and soul, into heaven is now of faith by virtue of this Constitution, “and not her death, resurrection, or bodily immortality.”"

How about the research on this Catholic sight?

 

[josie_L]

I see I have to spell it out.

since the definition of the Assumption is silent on this question, Catholics can legitimately believe that Mary did not die before the Assumption.

And whether you like it or not, the Pope did say that Mary died and then was assumed. Whether it was ‘infallibly’ proclaimed or not is the moot point.

I believe the pope was quoting others, i.e., he was not per se endorsing this point of view or rather giving his own thoughts on the matter, that being said, he may have very well believed that she died. The thing is it was left out of the dogma, as such, the issue is still debatable so to speak, one can endorse the view that she died and/or that she didn’t (although I believe the majority of Catholics, including Roman Catholics believe she died).

 

[GaryTaylor]

(although I believe the majority of Catholics, including Roman Catholics believe she died).

I don’t disagree, the issue isn’t even at this point though, as either can be believed. The issue is defining death in a manner which the Church never defined. This is taking a liberty which is way beyond human comprehension. Especially when in the doctrine there are statements such as …

“God has lavished upon this loving associate of our Redeemer, privileges which reach such an exalted plane that, except for her, nothing created by God other than the human nature of Jesus Christ has ever reached this level.”

Then according to scripture, Elijah never died, nor did Enoch.

Its just not as simple as one might propose. So then when we say Mary died, the immediate question is how, or what do we mean by death in this case where it is not defined.

 

[prodromos]

Again the liturgy is mentioned and again we ignore the spotless. stainless, immaculate aspect of these?

We do not ignore these aspects as you repeatedly claim. We do, however, interpret them within the Orthodox theological understanding of the Incarnation which has not been influenced by Blessed Augustines’ particular view on original sin.

There are no witnesses. Its not in scripture. Its not documented or ever a single word mentioned for what 5-6 hundred years. No private revelation was ever investigated or documented. And no artifacts can be verified.

What do you think her miracle working sash/belt is then?

Death of Mary was “never” defined by the Church. The earliest testimony by a Saint warns of this path and his words are still a “fact”

I still can’t fathom how you don’t consider that the liturgical worship of the Church as NOT being the faith defined by the Church. Yes, the fact that St Epiphanius expressed his opinion is not in any doubt. Ultimately the consensus of the Church is always above the opinions of individuals in the Church, even if they are saints.

 

[prodromos]

Its just not as simple as one might propose. So then when we say Mary died, the immediate question is how, or what do we mean by death in this case where it is not defined.

There is no confusion or question regarding any other persons death. You sound just like former president Bill Clinton and his definition of “is”
slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html

 

[GaryTaylor]

There is no confusion or question regarding any other persons death. You sound just like former president Bill Clinton and his definition of “is”
slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html

No not at all, the entire faith is absolute beauty. But one restrictive thought that Marys death had to happen step by step in such a fashion isn’t required belief for Catholics. I also believe as I have said, its why it was left open. As to any miracles associated with the apostolic Church’s, I believe in miracles through Marys intercession, we all should.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

There is no confusion or question regarding any other persons death. You sound just like former president Bill Clinton and his definition of “is”
slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html

The Orthodox viewpoint makes more sense to me. Don’t know we complicate things.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Orthodox viewpoint makes more sense to me. Don’t know we complicate things.

How so when one paradigm is more exclusive and the other inclusive. To criticize from the exclusive paradigm makes more sense how in this situation?

 

[wynd]

How so when one paradigm is more exclusive and the other inclusive. To criticize from the exclusive paradigm makes more sense how in this situation?

Because the Orthodox paradigm (which was also previously the Catholic paradigm) is: the liturgy and prayers and traditions of the church say the Theotokos died because she died. The new Catholic paradigm is: the liturgy and prayers and traditions of the church say the Theotokos died, but you don’t have to believe she died if you don’t want to. How does that make sense? What other Catholic beliefs have this type of liberty?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Because the Orthodox paradigm (which was also previously the Catholic paradigm) is: the liturgy and prayers and traditions of the church say the Theotokos died because she died.

This we have been through on this thread and doesn’t answer the above the question. For the Catholic position is inclusive of this.

The new Catholic paradigm is: the liturgy and prayers and traditions of the church say the Theotokos died, but you don’t have to believe she died if you don’t want to. How does that make sense? What other Catholic beliefs have this type of liberty?

Incorrect it doesn’t state she died it leaves the question open also addressed which comes back to the point above. We are not talking about other beliefs but this one in the OP.

Nothing new about the Saints thinking proposed here its ancient history and still factual as is the history in regard linked. Yet we moved past this so why be circular and not honestly address the question.

Why does exclusive and critical make more sense than inclusive. There may be a good reason but I don’t see it. And further why would anyone not Catholic insist incorrectly what Catholics are required to believe.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

What other Catholic beliefs have this type of liberty?

Creation is another belief where Catholics have choice. We can choose to literally believe the creation story in the Bible or we can believe in a evolutionary processes guided by the hand of God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Creation is another belief where Catholics have choice. We can choose to literally believe the creation story in the Bible or we can believe in a evolutionary processes guided by the hand of God.

Off the top on my head Pope Pius Humani Gereris comes to mind. I’m not sure what your saying you seem to suggest for example this isn’t required belief as with original sin.

" For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all"

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fholy_father%2Fpius_xii%2Fencyclicals%2Fdocuments%2Fhf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html&ei=LbGoU_3_BNCYqAbHjoHYDA&usg=AFQjCNFOZD6qrDpjlXLtWBRUPQep23sJIg

Or Gods covenants "God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” Required belief and a interesting topic which too comes many questions.