Did Mary experience physical death before her assumption?

[GaryTaylor]

We know this, or I should say I know what your saying, its relevant how? I’m in agreement with the infallible liturgy and so forth, I have no issue there. There “is” still the Dogma-paragraph posted above, which is why the return to the posts 71-72 which are the points which lead to why there is no clarification on death I have to believe. The question is what are we saying in relation to assumed body and soul and to death? Isn’t this why Catholics are allowed to believe either way, and of course further ascent in teachings should always be sought. I would contend thats why we are having this conversation.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Dormition refers to the falling asleep of the the Theotokos. If you want to read over the Byzantine liturgical texts for the feast, you will find that they are by and large highly very nuanced about death and focused on her being alive and translated to heaven. Which is not surprising since that is what the feast is about. Not sure what is said in the Latin rite.

I do not think it wise to look for reasons, but instead accept the fact that neither the EO or CCs have dogmatized her death. There is no reason to insist on it.

The only point I could be misunderstanding is in relation to resurrected and assumption. Either would indicate body and soul or no? I don’t see where we are teaching anything new only clarifying this point, body and soul together? But this was always believed?

 

[siamus2k13]

The only point I could be misunderstanding is in relation to resurrected and assumption. Either would indicate body and soul or no? I don’t see where we are teaching anything new only clarifying this point, body and soul together? But this was always believed?

Catholic school taught us that Mary didn’t die, she was Assumed up into heaven. So, was that either incomplete or wrong?

(She’s in heaven. Stop the bickering.)

 

[GaryTaylor]

Catholic school taught us that Mary didn’t die; she was Assumed up into heaven. So, was that either incomplete or wrong?

No none of it is wrong, as stated above Marys death was never defined by the Church. So it becomes a secondary concern in its understanding. Whats important first is body and soul assumed into heaven or resurrected by Christian understanding, not simply Catholic. I’m looking at this from this point, then death comes into perspective though I’m afraid is still a mystery.

"We say that our dead have ‘fallen asleep’ or ‘passed away.’ What does this mean? This means that for the true Christian there is no death. Death was conquered by Christ on the cross. But there is a translation, i.e, a rearrangement of his condition, i.e. his soul is in another place, in another age, in another world beyond the grave, eternal, without end, that is what is meant by “falling asleep”. It is as if it were a temporary dream after which, by the voice of the Lord and the fearful yet wonderful trumpet of the Archangel, all the dead shall live and come forth each to his place: either to the resurrection of life or to the resurrection of condemnation (John 5:29). This is what the Christian means by translation. We should be ready for this translation, for the day of the general resurrection and judgment, for this indescribable world event, recorded in the Holy Scriptures.
This preparation for the meeting of the heavenly King before the dread judgment seat, after death, is essentially the person’s preparation throughout the whole of his life. This preparation means a change in all his thoughts, and the moral change of all his being, so that the whole man would be pure and white as snow, washing clean everything that defiles the body and spirit, so that he is adorned with every virtue: repentance, meekness, humility, gentleness, simplicity, chastity, mercifulness, abstention, spiritual contemplation, and burning love for God and neighbor.”

– St. John of Kronstadt, Sermon on the Dormition of the Theotokos

 

[siamus2k13]

Oh…

I have a question.

Did anybody witness Mary’s assumption into heaven?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Oh…

I have a question.

Did anybody witness Mary’s assumption into heaven?

Tradition

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTomb_of_the_Virgin_Mary&ei=HRWjU_rOJMLA8AG6hIC4Dw&usg=AFQjCNHoc0ctkrkVRDsToPo35p5UedgTUQ&bvm=bv.69411363,d.aWw

The Sacred Tradition of Eastern Christianity teaches that the Virgin Mary died a natural death (the Dormition of the Theotokos, the falling asleep), like any human being; that her soul was received by Christ upon death; and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her repose, at which time she was taken up, soul and body, into heaven in anticipation of the general resurrection. Her tomb, according to this teaching, was found empty on the third day.

 

[MacQ]

Oh…

I have a question.

Did anybody witness Mary’s assumption into heaven?

Yes, God did.
Anything else?

 

[josie_L]

Yes, God did.
Anything else?

 

[prodromos]

That’s so rude.

Perhaps, though I believe it can be helpful to make people realise they are accountable for the the way they present the Church to others, and Gary has presented a false picture of the Church.

 

[prodromos]

No none of it is wrong, as stated above Marys death was never defined by the Church.

You maintain this falsehood, making the liturgy of the Church and her feast days of no doctrinal value when they are in fact the primary teaching tool of the Church. The death of the Theotokos has indeed been defined by the Church.

 

[prodromos]

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.

This is the major problem I have with Catholic claims regarding “development of doctrine”. They claim that church teaching is made clearer, whereas the Catholic teaching about the end of the Theotokos’ life has instead become more vague.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The death of the Theotokos has indeed been defined by the Church.

Marys death hasn’t been defined by the Church.:nope:

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is the major problem I have with Catholic claims regarding “development of doctrine”. They claim that church teaching is made clearer, whereas the Catholic teaching about the end of the Theotokos’ life has instead become more vague.

Actually its adds clarity which we are discussing. Which is why the return to the posts 71-72 which are the points which lead to why there is no clarification on death I have to believe. The question is what are we saying in relation to assumed body and soul and to death? Isn’t this why Catholics are allowed to believe either way, and of course further ascent in teachings should always be sought. I would contend thats why we are having this conversation.

The resurrection of body and soul. I want to learn this point.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Perhaps, though I believe it can be helpful to make people realise they are accountable for the the way they present the Church to others, and Gary has presented a false picture of the Church.

Marys death is not defined by the Church, the Catholic Church still hasn’t defined this. Is her death infallible in this suggestion? The false picture then is what? That Marys Body an soul died with no explaination of the death of body and soul in Christian understanding?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary has presented a false picture of the Church.

The body and soul didn’t die if Mary was resurrected. Certainly the soul never died and as posted and by many the body is transformed. So wheres the false picture? The false picture is the body and soul remained together and died by the understanding of secular mortality.

 

[siamus2k13]

Why would Mary’s body have to be assumed if she died naturally?

You don’t want her to receive a new glorified body, like we are told that we will in heaven?

---

Afraid that you won’t be able to recognize her?

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

My problem is the inability to articulate a false claim that Marys body “and soul died” by a Christian understanding. Further the Church never defined Marys death. The liturgies do not answer the question of death defined. And the issue is its “impossible” Marys soul died.

So what is very old and attested to, that Marys soul died? 60-years ago bought this point front and center. And 60-years later we are suggesting Marys soul died and was resurrected? I can’t imagine how this isn’t becoming crystal clear.

I would only suggest instead of everyone insisting they are right and somehow suggesting the Catholic Church is wrong or visa-versa, we get to the core of the issue. Marys soul Did Not Die.

Now how this is further reconciled I am open to hear. Which is why I posted the Saint from the East on this topic, he adds clarity. And I call this ascending to the Church teaching.

But Marys soul didn’t die.

 

[Cavaradossi]

But Marys soul didn’t die.

I am not sure what is meant by that remark. If It is meant that the Virgin’s soul did not pass into non-being, then I must point out that Christians do not believe that souls fall into non-being after death, but rather that we believe that all souls remain, sustained by the power of God. Now if it is meant that the soul of the Virgin was not separated from her body, then I must disagree. The separation of soul and body is what is meant when we say death, and that the Theotokos experienced this is supported by the dormition accounts which teach that Christ received the Theotokos’ soul after her bodily death and also the iconography of the dormition which shows the the Theotokos’ body laid upon a tomb, while her soul is received into the arms of Christ.

See for example:

 

[GaryTaylor]

Wheres the teaching and is it infallible as suggested by others? What exactly is the teaching saying?

“Now if it is meant that the soul of the Virgin was not separated from her body, then I must disagree.”

Then her body and soul wasn’t resurrected together. I want to see this teaching in Church history.

 

[Cavaradossi]

“Now if it is meant that the soul of the Virgin was not separated from her body, then I must disagree.”

Then her body and soul wasn’t resurrected together. I want to see this teaching in Church history.

That’s all rather nonsensical. The former does not entail the latter. Furthermore, a soul cannot be resurrected without a body, as resurrection is by definition the rejoining of body and soul. We are Christians, not Platonists.