How else does one complete the course of their earthly life except to die? It makes no sense to go so far as to proclaim her Assumption but leave her death up to speculation based on the tradition that says both happened. Why anyone would assume “completed the course of her earthly life” means anything but her physical death when it’s stated quite clearly in other parts of the document is beyond me.The Assumption definition does not state one way or the other the The Blessed Virgin Mary died. That is not part of the dogma… 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.
however it is taught, as shown outside the definition: … this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
I agree that she did die, but some choose to believe she just transitioned from one state to the other. Nothing inherently wrong with such pious thoughts, just don’t dogmatize it.How else does one complete the course of their earthly life except to die? It makes no sense to go so far as to proclaim her Assumption but leave her death up to speculation based on the tradition that says both happened. Why anyone would assume “completed the course of her earthly life” means anything but her physical death when it’s stated quite clearly in other parts of the document is beyond me.
Some people seem to try to use her dormition (falling asleep) as a justification, but it’s simply a euphemism for physical death. We say the same about everyone.I agree that she did die, but some choose to believe she just transitioned from one state to the other. Nothing inherently wrong with such pious thoughts, just don’t dogmatize it.
There’s just no basis whatsoever for such a belief.I agree that she did die, but some choose to believe she just transitioned from one state to the other. Nothing inherently wrong with such pious thoughts, just don’t dogmatize it.
There is something wrong with it in that it contradicts the previously held belief, even found in the same Bull that proclaimed the dogma, that the Theotokos did die.I agree that she did die, but some choose to believe she just transitioned from one state to the other. Nothing inherently wrong with such pious thoughts, just don’t dogmatize it.
I understand, and you are preaching to the choir – the fact is, the majority of Latins agree with the rest of us:There is something wrong with it in that it contradicts the previously held belief, even found in the same Bull that proclaimed the dogma, that the Theotokos did die.
And of course given the text of the document and the conditions for a proclomation to be dogmatic and infallible, we know it didn’t proclaim her death dogmatically, but that hardly means that she didn’t die.I understand, and you are preaching to the choir – the fact is, the majority of Latins agree with the rest of us:
newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-blessed-virgin-mary-latin.html
The only “open-question” is, did the proclamation of the dogma of the Assumption mean to give a dogmatic answer to whether the Theotokos died - this may have been misunderstood to mean that this was an open question.
I think this has it backwards. Her "death"is of no significance. Her translation, body and soul, to heaven - that she is alive, eternally - that is what we celebrate. The triumph over death. The liturgical texts of the feast are explicit about her “deathless dormition”.It makes no sense to go so far as to proclaim her Assumption but leave her death up to speculation…
I agree, that is what we celebrate, it’s just an odd thing when people try to pick and choose on this issue . the Kontakion says, “Neither the tomb, nor death could hold the Theotokos, / Who is constant in prayer and our firm hope in her intercessions. / For being the Mother of Life, / She was translated to life by the One who dwelt in her virginal womb.”I think this has it backwards. Her "death"is of no significance. Her translation, body and soul, to heaven - that she is alive, eternally - that is what we celebrate. The triumph over death. The liturgical texts of the feast are explicit about her “deathless dormition”.
Indeed, death could not hold her.I agree, that is what we celebrate, it’s just an odd thing when people try to pick and choose on this issue . the Kontakion says, “Neither the tomb, nor death could hold the Theotokos, / Who is constant in prayer and our firm hope in her intercessions. / For being the Mother of Life, / She was translated to life by the One who dwelt in her virginal womb.”
Not so. Her death and resurrection are both connected and important: For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection (Rom. 6:5).I think this has it backwards. Her "death"is of no significance. Her translation, body and soul, to heaven - that she is alive, eternally - that is what we celebrate. The triumph over death. The liturgical texts of the feast are explicit about her “deathless dormition”.
The liturgical texts also establish quite explicitly that she experienced death, and remark upon the significance of this death as being the bridge which led her to eternal life.I think this has it backwards. Her "death"is of no significance. Her translation, body and soul, to heaven - that she is alive, eternally - that is what we celebrate. The triumph over death. The liturgical texts of the feast are explicit about her “deathless dormition”.
Very perceptive.Not so. Her death and resurrection are both connected and important: For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection (Rom. 6:5).
I wonder if there is any Patristic backing for this idea. The text quoted is making a different point altogether - as, in context, it is clearly referring to our death to sin and our sharing of his death in baptism. There is nothing here that suggests that we our physical death is a necessary condition to our sharing in the resurrection.Not so. Her death and resurrection are both connected and important: For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection (Rom. 6:5).
6 What shall we say, then? shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. For we that are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer therein?
3 Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?
4 For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed, to the end that we may serve sin no longer.
7 For he that is dead is justified from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ:
9 Knowing that Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more, death shall no more have dominion over him.
10 For in that he died to sin, he died once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God:
11 So do you also reckon, that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God, in Christ Jesus our Lord.
We’ve traveled this road in previous threads. The references to death are many. But, typically, they are not explicit that she experienced death - whatever that might mean, given her incorruption and assumption. Nothing like: “she suffered, died, and was buried”. Instead they focus on the triumph over death: “death could not hold”, “virgin after childbearing, and alive after death”…The liturgical texts also establish quite explicitly that she experienced death, and remark upon the significance of this death as being the bridge which led her to eternal life.
Not. See above.Very perceptive.
Not sure about the importance of death in connection with her role as the new Eve: if Eve had not sinned, would she have died? Is death a requirement for a truly human experience or is that really only part of the fallen experience? And what was the experience of Enoch and Elijah?If she did not die then she did not truly have the human experience. The humanity of the theotokos as the second Eve is very important, just as Christ’s humanity as the second Adam is theologically important.
Christ too then, whose body did not suffer incorruption and who on the fortieth day ascended into the heavens must then be said not to have died, following this logic. Of course, that then would result in the dissolution of the entire Christian religion, so I suppose we should admit that the Virgin did in fact die, lest we should conclude that death of her Son was not real. For his body, like hers, did not experience corruption.We’ve traveled this road in previous threads. The references to death are many. But, typically, they are not explicit that she experienced death - whatever that might mean, given her incorruption and assumption.
The texts are quite explicit that what she experienced was death.Nothing like: “she suffered, died, and was buried”. Instead they focus on the triumph over death: “death could not hold”, “virgin after childbearing, and alive after death”…
At the same time, “deathless dormition” is verbatim.
I think his perception that death and resurrection are intimately connected is spot on. Indeed, the idea of bodily death as a form of passing over into eternal life, as a form of putting off mortality to gain immortality, is a major theme in a major patristic thought concerning the Dormition. See for example, these excerpts from St. John of Damascus’ three homilies on the Dormition.Not. See above.
Surely you know the next questions from here? Jesus Christ is God, no? When did God die? Mystery, the Hypostatic Union, one person subsists in two natures. So how is it that the perception of death is spot on?Christ too then,
It is not known, but commonly believed that the Blessed Virgin Mary died a physical death. Another way was described for Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11). "… Cardinal Pizzardo, the Secretary of the Congregation of the Holy Office, in an address on the occasion of the First International Mariological Congress in Rome (1950) referred to the question of the end of the life of the Blessed Virgin as a very obscure problem, and one which demands further study and clarification by theologians.23How else does one complete the course of their earthly life except to die? It makes no sense to go so far as to proclaim her Assumption but leave her death up to speculation based on the tradition that says both happened. Why anyone would assume “completed the course of her earthly life” means anything but her physical death when it’s stated quite clearly in other parts of the document is beyond me.