Did Mary experience physical death before her assumption?

[GaryTaylor]

Respectfully, I feel that the Church’s opinion (teaching) goes beyond dogma.

CCC 892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when,** without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,**” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

We are not bound to adhere to mere theological opinions expressed by the Pope or bishops (like opinions that Pope Emeritus Benedict put forth in “Jesus of Nazareth”). However, according to the above statement, we are bound to believe what has been authoritatively taught by the Church-- even if it is not presented infallibly. Here is more information on de fide, veritates catholic, and the various theological opinions of the Church. It happens to mention the probable death of the Blessed Virgin Mary (SENTENTIA PROBABILIS) .

Personally, I believe the entire body of Munificentissimus Deus constitutes “authoritative teaching” that we are to adhere to with religious assent.

The Tradition is the Tradition, no-one suggested it should be not believed, disregarded, or neglected etc. The Dogma is the Dogma and you just don’t seem to accept the infallible aspect and that Catholics are not required to believe Mary died. I have no issue with it. The point with death defined still stands. You seem to want to debate which you can simply read in the apologetic’s and even speak yourself by question to them. I can’t imagine where you would hear different as I am giving their links.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

The Tradition is the Tradition, no-one suggested it should be not believed, disregarded, or neglected etc. The Dogma is the Dogma and you just don’t seem to accept the infallible aspect and that Catholics are not required to believe Mary died. I have no issue with it. The point with death defined still stands. You seem to want to debate which you can simply read in the apologetic’s and even speak yourself by question to them. I can’t imagine where you would hear different as I am giving their links.

I’m sorry, but most of the latter part of this post does not make sense to me.

I’m not implying or suggesting that anybody is disregarding Tradition or Dogma. Not one comment of mine has indicated that as a concern. My concern is that some people of the Church have lost sight of the fact that we are required to adhere to what the Church authoritatively teaches– whether or not it is an infallible declaration (see above post).
This has a direct impact on whether or not we are “free to believe” in the death of the Virgin Mary-- since that has been taught by the Church for centuries. While I do not believe that it is an offense which will get one ex-communicated, I believe that the refusal to accept the aforementioned non-infallible teachings is a contradiction of CCC 892 (which comes from Lumen Gentium 25)

Please do not be concerned about further debate, I will sign off with the hope that the links and Catechism references will be read.

 

[Vico]

I’m sorry, but most of the latter part of this post does not make sense to me.

I’m not implying or suggesting that anybody is disregarding Tradition or Dogma. Not one comment of mine has indicated that as a concern. My concern is that some people of the Church have lost sight of the fact that we are required to adhere to what the Church authoritatively teaches– whether or not it is an infallible declaration (see above post).
This has a direct impact on whether or not we are “free to believe” in the death of the Virgin Mary-- since that has been taught by the Church for centuries. While I do not believe that it is an offense which will get one ex-communicated, I believe that the refusal to accept the aforementioned non-infallible teachings is a contradiction of CCC 892 (which comes from Lumen Gentium 25)

Please do not be concerned about further debate, I will sign off with the hope that the links and Catechism references will be read.

Saint Pope John Paul II wrote in 1997:Some theologians have in fact maintained that the Blessed Virgin did not die and and was immediately raised from earthly life to heavenly glory. However, this opinion was unknown until the 17th century, whereas a common tradition actually exists which sees Mary’s death as her entry into heavenly glory.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_25061997_en.html

 

[wynd]

I’m sorry, but most of the latter part of this post does not make sense to me.

I’m not implying or suggesting that anybody is disregarding Tradition or Dogma. Not one comment of mine has indicated that as a concern. My concern is that some people of the Church have lost sight of the fact that we are required to adhere to what the Church authoritatively teaches– whether or not it is an infallible declaration (see above post).
This has a direct impact on whether or not we are “free to believe” in the death of the Virgin Mary-- since that has been taught by the Church for centuries. While I do not believe that it is an offense which will get one ex-communicated, I believe that the refusal to accept the aforementioned non-infallible teachings is a contradiction of CCC 892 (which comes from Lumen Gentium 25)

Please do not be concerned about further debate, I will sign off with the hope that the links and Catechism references will be read.

This, this, a thousand times this! The faith is NOT composed of a small list of infallible declarations. Back to my question earlier: Why bother having Tradition or councils or liturgical prayer at all if that’s the case?

If something has to be infallibly declared dogma for us to have to believe it, there’s a whole lot of the Catholic faith that can be thrown right out.

 

[GaryTaylor]

This has a direct impact on whether or not we are “free to believe” in the death of the Virgin Mary-- since that has been taught by the Church for centuries. While I do not believe that it is an offense which will get one ex-communicated, I believe that the refusal to accept the aforementioned non-infallible teachings is a contradiction of CCC 892 (which comes from Lumen Gentium 25

And this is your opinion as a theologian? So you do not believe Catholics are free to believe either way? Is that a simple yes or no? And for the third time?

You still haven’t defined death? Yes or No? And for the third time? I’m not concerned with debate. I’m concerned that you fashioning yourself as right in light of every apologist here. And for the third time, yes or no?

So there has been no debate especially when the conversation begins with nonsensical.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The faith is NOT composed of a small list of infallible declarations. Back to my question earlier: Why bother having Tradition or councils or liturgical prayer at all if that’s the case?.

This makes no sense to me. You have no infallible declarations in the Church? Is the real presence infallible? Is no salvation outside the Church infallible? Which definition and by whom? And so forth

If something has to be infallibly declared dogma for us to have to believe it, there’s a whole lot of the Catholic faith that can be thrown right out.

The faith is composed of infallible declarations and a very long list and in your Church also. Which is why your not making sense to me.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Saint Pope John Paul II wrote in 1997:Some theologians have in fact maintained that the Blessed Virgin did not die and and was immediately raised from earthly life to heavenly glory. However, this opinion was unknown until the 17th century, whereas a common tradition actually exists which sees Mary’s death as her entry into heavenly glory.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_25061997_en.html

This was already posted. I’m assuming you wanted to comment but didn’t? Not sure what your saying, perhaps you can elaborate? Are Catholics required to believe Mary died, and where above is death defined?

 

[GaryTaylor]

If Mary died or didn’t can’t be fully understood in relation to death- mortality or immortality.

The conversation is “circular”. Sorry, until you address this then there really is no conversation.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m sorry, but most of the latter part of this post does not make sense to me.

Oh I think your do understand which is indicative by your own words. If you need clarification show me where and I will elaborate for you. Here…

“This has a direct impact on whether or not we are “free to believe” in the death of the Virgin Mary-- since that has been taught by the Church for centuries. While I do not believe that it is an offense which will get one ex-communicated, I believe that the refusal to accept the aforementioned non-infallible teachings is a contradiction of CCC 892 (which comes from Lumen Gentium 25”

This indicates you DO understand and exactly whats being stated, you chose NOT to answer. And here…

So you do not believe Catholics are free to believe either way? Is that a simple yes or no? And for the third time?

You still haven’t defined death? Yes or No? And for the third time? I’m not concerned with debate. I’m concerned that you fashioning yourself as right in light of every apologist here. And for the third time, yes or no?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Prayer_Warrior-And to all these there is no response…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=823278&highlight=Did+Mary+die

“Note the Pius XII only declared that Mary had completed her earthly life. There is no mention as to if this meant death (as we know it) or if Mary was assumed while still alive. Catholics are thus free to hold either opinion.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=232146

“That Mary was assumed into heaven does not mean that she could not have died, anymore than Jesus’ Ascension meant that he could not have died. The Assumption means that, after Mary’s earthly life was over, her body and soul were glorified and raised into heaven. If she died, then her body was not allowed to corrupt in the grave but was reunited to her soul and assumed into heaven by God. This reunion and glorification of body and soul is the resurrection of the body that all of us look forward to at the end of time.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=790883&highlight=Did+Mary+die

“We don’t know if Mary died or not. The Church has not made a clarification on this. It is possible that she did. Our Lord was born without original sin and He certainly died. On the other hand, it is possible that Our Lady did not die. In either case, the Church DOES teach that she was taken up, body and soul to heaven.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=741264&highlight=Did+Mary+die

“Notice that the wording is ambiguous as to whether Mary died. It is thus permissible for Catholics to either believe that Mary died before being assumed into heaven or to believe that Mary did not die before being assumed into heaven.”

And so forth. Not one is different and there is a very long list dating back years. I think you see this.

 

[Vico]

This was already posted. I’m assuming you wanted to comment but didn’t? Not sure what your saying, perhaps you can elaborate? Are
Catholics required to believe Mary died, and where above is death defined?

I did not see that exact quote posted and wanted to emphasize that is was only a recent idea that the Theotokos may not have died a physical death. I believe that she did, that it is not defined yet, so it could be reformed, yet is part of the long established Catholic tradition, so I believe it will not be reformed.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I did not see that exact quote posted and wanted to emphasize that is was only a recent idea that the Theotokos may not have died a physical death. I believe that she did, that it is not defined yet, so it could be reformed, yet is part of the long established Catholic tradition, so I believe it will not be reformed.

Here’s the point which to me stands regardless of East-West or EO.

The infallible Dogma is a known which is quoted several times here.

We as in all of us here are speaking of death. In this case Mary.

The understanding then has to proceed from a few points.

a] Body and Soul assumed into heaven which is infallible;

b] The Soul never died which would be basic Christianity.

c] We have no consensus here as to then understanding death.

This is why I am saying the conversation becomes much deeper than what we have discussed thus far. We are speaking of mortality and immortality in relation to body and soul assumed into heaven. And further as I mentioned with Cav, this is a mystery also with Jesus Christ. I can’t quantify what is meant by death.

Which is why I view this as falling asleep-mortal-immortal. Its not so much which is right, its understanding this deeper.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Follow now? Here’s the infallible dogma…

“by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: 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.”

So the fact that death is mentioned earlier in the encyclical, doesn’t resolve body and soul assumed into heaven as mentioned above in the infallible aspect. Whats not infallible is the death aspect and for good reason from what I gather.

The soul didn’t die, so how could the body being assumed together. Sorry perhaps its been my posts which the point wasn’t correctly phrased.

Consider this point also…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=889737

 

[prodromos]

So the fact that death is mentioned earlier in the encyclical, doesn’t resolve body and soul assumed into heaven as mentioned above in the infallible aspect. Whats not infallible is the death aspect and for good reason from what I gather.

Interesting, so the liturgy of the Church is fallible? The feast days and fast days of the Church are fallible?
I’m glad I’m not a part of that Church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Interesting, so the liturgy of the Church is fallible? The feast days and fast days of the Church are fallible?
I’m glad I’m not a part of that Church.

Your answer is another “non-answer”. You must be speaking infallibly for the EO that Mary died? Where is it stated its infallible in your Church? Sorry your not making sense, your speaking with emotion about the CC instead of elaborating on what is… “death of Mary”.,in the EO.

But thats the marginalization for what you have no answer for.

 

[MacQ]

 

[josie_L]

Interesting, so the liturgy of the Church is fallible? The feast days and fast days of the Church are fallible?
I’m glad I’m not a part of that Church.

That’s so rude.

 

[josie_L]

This makes no sense to me. You have no infallible declarations in the Church? Is the real presence infallible? Is no salvation outside the Church infallible? Which definition and by whom? And so forth

The faith is composed of infallible declarations and a very long list and in your Church also. Which is why your not making sense to me.

Gary, he said “infallibly declared DOGMA”, in other words, he’s referring to beliefs that have been dogmatized, and though we have many, there are still many more beliefs that have not been dogmatized by the Church, i.e., are part of the deposit of faith, and have been taught since the beginning.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary, he said “infallibly declared DOGMA”, in other words, he’s referring to beliefs that have been dogmatized, and though we have many, there are still many more beliefs that have not been dogmatized by the Church, i.e., are part of the deposit of faith, and have been taught since the beginning.

Thanks josie. actually my mind is in one place here and since early on, I’m on contemplation of post 71 and 72.

That said, I thank everyone including yourself for your answers.

 

[wynd]

Gary, he said “infallibly declared DOGMA”, in other words, he’s referring to beliefs that have been dogmatized, and though we have many, there are still many more beliefs that have not been dogmatized by the Church, i.e., are part of the deposit of faith, and have been taught since the beginning.

My issue here is that some people are trying to take a belief that is very old and very widely attested to in texts that span across different cultures and time periods, and say that the belief is optional because it isn’t found in a particular sentence from a particular document that was written ~60 years ago.