Did Mary experience physical death before her assumption?

[dvdjs]

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.

Nice straw man.

The death of Jesus is clearly different. His death, its significance, his time in the tomb, his descent into Hades, are core elements of dogma and lex orandi.

The Theotokos passed from earthly life to heavenly life and we know nothing about the time in between, not even how much time, if any, by dogma or lex orandi. It is a mystery.

For some unknown reason there are those who feel the need to go further and spell out every detail. Curiously, this comes from quarters that are all too ready to faulty the Latins for this impulse. In this case it is especially odd, since the speculation about a matter that neither the CC or the OC has dogmatized,

 

[dvdjs]

I think his perception that death and resurrection are intimately connected is spot on.

It is a interesting thought, though not dogmatic, that is made very clearly in the quoted homily. However, it has nothing at all to do with the ostensible proof text from Romans.

 

[dvdjs]

The texts are quite explicit that what she experienced was death.

See for example, these troparia from the canons of matins on the day of the Dormition:

Death has become for you, pure Virgin, a crossing to an eternal and better life, translating you from one which perishes to one which is truly divine and without change, to gaze in joy upon your Son and Lord.

Once the sacred enclosure of life, you have found eternal life; for through death you, who gave birth to life in person, have passed over to life.

In you, O Virgin without spot, the bounds of nature have been overcome; for childbirth remains virgin, and death is betrothed to life; Virgin after bearing child, and alive after death, O Mother of God, may you ever save your inheritance.

I am afraid that you stretch the idea of “explicit” beyond meaning.

The liturgical texts taken as a whole, have a clear rhetorical tone that consistently juxtaposes truth of her ongoing life and translation to heaven against the idea of her death, which is seen as having been vanquished. The meaning, as I understand it, is “death” is not “death”, but instead, a crossing,* instead* a passage. Instead of, not a recovery from - just as virginity was not recovered after childbearing, but mystically is a continuation through.

This perspective is consistent with with the very deep idea of the “deathless dormition”.
It does not elevate death to having some great part of the plan of salvation. But it returns it to its proper place: trampled down, vanquished.

 

[Muzhik]

Nothing new to add; just got tired of seeing the wrong thread title being used.

 

[GaryTaylor]

but some choose to believe she just transitioned from one state to the other. Nothing inherently wrong with such pious thoughts

You do realize there are others in Scripture?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=879571&highlight=Enoch+Elijah

 

[Cavaradossi]

The meaning, as I understand it, is “death” is not “death”,

I am afraid that I shall never accept such a docetic interpretation of our liturgical texts. It seems then that we are at an impasse, as I believe, in accordance with St. John of Damascus that the Theotokos’ bodily death had great significance as the putting off of mortality for immortality and the passage way into eternal life which is shared by Adam’s descendants.

 

[whoisdiss]

There is no official stance within the Latin Rite churches about this. Though Eastern Rite churches have a official stance. Basically Latin Rite says, that Mary may have died or may not have died, but it’s clear she was bodily assumed. Most Latin Rite Catholics think she died first before her assumption, including me, but you don’t have too. Now Eastern Rite Catholics official stance on whether she died or not is that she did die first before her assumption. But it does not really matter, if she died first she died first. If she didn’t die first, she didn’t die first.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, I didn’t come by to labor the point, I just don’t think its as simple as suggested, and the numerous debates we have had over this through the past few years are indicative of this.

 

[dvdjs]

I am afraid that I shall never accept such a docetic interpretation of our liturgical texts. It seems then that we are at an impasse, as I believe, in accordance with St. John of Damascus that the Theotokos’ bodily death had great significance as the putting off of mortality for immortality and the passage way into eternal life which is shared by Adam’s descendants.

I believe that you are entitled to your opinion on the great significance of bodily death. But this opinion is, evidently, not necessary; it is not dogma, nor, going back to Damascene, has it been seen as precipitating the need for dogmatic proclamation of the “death” of the Theotokos". And I adhere to that opinion of the church.

Your raising the specter of Docetism suggests that you may be taking the idea more than a little too far. Even though for all humanity, death has been trampled down and vanquished, that in no way suggests that Christ only seemed to have a human body and to suffer and die on the cross. On the contrary, it was his very real passion through which death was trampled down and vanquished.

 

[MacQ]

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.

I think the simple answer is we don’t know anything about the end of her earthly life.
And it doesn’t matter.
She lives.

 

[Nine_Two]

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?

Are you suggesting Christ didn’t die?

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

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.

You are correct that the context of the quotation is a discussion of baptism, but we may generalize from this a principle which is true outside baptism as well. Participation in the sufferings of Christ is a common theme throughout Paul’s epistles. For example, yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him (Romans 8:17). This is very patristic. Consider Thomas Aquinas’s explanation of why baptism should not take away all the temporal effects of sin.

Baptism has the power to take away the penalties of the present life yet it does not take them away during the present life, but by its power they will be taken away from the just in the resurrection when “this mortal hath put on immortality” (1 Corinthians 15:54). And this is reasonable. First, because, by Baptism, man is incorporated in Christ, and is made His member, as stated above (3; 68, 5). Consequently it is fitting that what takes place in the Head should take place also in the member incorporated. Now, from the very beginning of His conception Christ was “full of grace and truth,” yet He had a passible body, which through His Passion and death was raised up to a life of glory. Wherefore a Christian receives grace in Baptism, as to his soul; but he retains a passible body, so that he may suffer for Christ therein: yet at length he will be raised up to a life of impassibility. Hence the Apostle says (Romans 8:11): “He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also our [Vulgate: ‘your’] mortal bodies, because of His Spirit that dwelleth in us [Vulgate: ‘you’]”: and further on in the same chapter (Romans 8:17): “Heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him.”
newadvent.org/summa/4069.htm#article3

To say that Mary ought not to have died is a grave distortion of the teaching of the Immaculate Conception. The point of the teaching is that she was most perfectly sanctified to be the Mother of God. It should not exclude her from a participation in the temporal human sufferings that Christ, who was free from all sin, suffered.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Are you suggesting Christ didn’t die?

I’m saying positively God didn’t die and suggesting Christs nature defined by council, suffering and redemptive act in regards to comprehending His death is by large still a mystery.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think the simple answer is we don’t know anything about the end of her earthly life.
And it doesn’t matter.
She lives.

And we all agree the Tradition is imperative so we should be good.

 

[dvdjs]

You are correct that the context of the quotation is a discussion of baptism, but we may generalize from this a principle which is true outside baptism as well. Participation in the sufferings of Christ is a common theme throughout Paul’s epistles. For example, yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him (Romans 8:17). This is very patristic. Consider Thomas Aquinas’s explanation of why baptism should not take away all the temporal effects of sin.

Baptism has the power to take away the penalties of the present life yet it does not take them away during the present life, but by its power they will be taken away from the just in the resurrection when “this mortal hath put on immortality” (1 Corinthians 15:54). And this is reasonable. First, because, by Baptism, man is incorporated in Christ, and is made His member, as stated above (3; 68, 5). Consequently it is fitting that what takes place in the Head should take place also in the member incorporated. Now, from the very beginning of His conception Christ was “full of grace and truth,” yet He had a passible body, which through His Passion and death was raised up to a life of glory. Wherefore a Christian receives grace in Baptism, as to his soul; but he retains a passible body, so that he may suffer for Christ therein: yet at length he will be raised up to a life of impassibility. Hence the Apostle says (Romans 8:11): “He that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also our [Vulgate: ‘your’] mortal bodies, because of His Spirit that dwelleth in us [Vulgate: ‘you’]”: and further on in the same chapter (Romans 8:17): “Heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him.”
newadvent.org/summa/4069.htm#article3

There is a distinction to be made here. These writings accept suffering (or death) as the human condition and discuss how we may graciously accept them. They are not saying that our suffering or our death is some necessary component of salvation without which we would not be able to share in divine life. It is this hint of some curious idea that Christ’s passion requires us to suffer and die as a means to eternal life - that is what I am objecting to.

To say that Mary ought not to have died is a grave distortion of the teaching of the Immaculate Conception. The point of the teaching is that she was most perfectly sanctified to be the Mother of God. It should not exclude her from a participation in the temporal human sufferings that Christ, who was free from all sin, suffered.

Why are you bringing the IC into this discussion? I certainly haven’t. (In fact, I have written here many times to try to get various EOs to stop insisting that the IC somehow implies that Theotokos was immune to death.) Moreover, I have not suggested anything about whether she “died” or not. My point is that fixation on and drawing a line on that issue is unnecessary and really obscures rather than illuminates the significance of the feast of the Dormition.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I brought up the Immaculate Conception because that is the reason that I have heard given for why Mary wouldn’t have died. In any event, the Dormition refers to Mary’s death, so either she died or all the liturgies everywhere were all wrong. Regarding suffering and death, it is not absolutely necessary that anyone suffer or die (although it is absolutely necessary to die to sin and self), but it is good and fitting that they do. There is no good reason why Mary shouldn’t have participated in these suffering just like everyone else and there is no good reason to assert that she did not die. That’s all I have to say about that.

 

[dvdjs]

I brought up the Immaculate Conception because that is the reason that I have heard given for why Mary wouldn’t have died. In any event, the Dormition refers to Mary’s death, so either she died or all the liturgies everywhere were all wrong. Regarding suffering and death, it is not absolutely necessary that anyone suffer or die (although it is absolutely necessary to die to sin and self), but it is good and fitting that they do. There is no good reason why Mary shouldn’t have participated in these suffering just like everyone else and there is no good reason to assert that she did not die. That’s all I have to say about that.

The doctrine of the IC has nothing at all to do with the physical mortality of Mary, even though some EOs wrongly claim that the Catholic doctrine requires that Mary would not die.

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.

“It is good and fitting that [people suffer and die].” It’s just amazing what turns up in these threads.

Let me try another way: while death is a mystery;. it is not a Mystery.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“there is no good reason to assert that she did not die.”

Yet Catholics may indeed believe this, since there is no dogmatic declaration on Her death, and there is no good reason to marginalize their belief. Thats the whole point being made. However they arrive here in their minds I have only attempted to exercise their thinking in such realms as CAF. And it certainly is a debatable topic which we have seen over the years. Broad sweeping statements unfounded with lacking factual historic evidence or sound theological reasoning simple hasn’t been forthcoming in regards to making this case. Then there is no reason to marginalize their beliefs and faith. Thats the good reason.

Mary was not guilty of anything! Thats the good reason to assert she did not die and according to apologists right here. Also discussed at length here.

 

[Mark121359]

Mary was not guilty of anything! Thats the good reason to assert she did not die and according to apologists right here. Also discussed at length here.

Truer words have never been spoken! However, something tells me that that Woman, whose Son was none other than God Himself, who suffered such a bitter Passion for us, would want to, like her Son, follow Him through death.

Peace, Mark

 

[Musikero31]

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.

We need to understand that Mary is totally exempted from Original Sin as per the design of our Great God. And since man (or all of us) has Original Sin, we fall into the “curses” of original sin:

“By the sweat of your brow
you shall eat bread,
Until you return to the ground,
from which you were taken;
For you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.” (Genesis 3:19)

Since Mary is exempted from Original Sin, the Church holds the teaching of the Dormition of Mary where she “slept”. This is commonly celebrated more in the Eastern Church where in Mary has completed her life here on earth.