Dormition vs. Assumption of Mary

[pnewton]

The detailed life of Mary the Mother of God was revealed by God and Our Lady to St. Mary of Agreda and whose account of this, called “The Mystical City of God” was approved by several popes and a number of bishops.

While one is free to believe this, it is not part of the deposit of faith and may or may not be true. I like what EWTN said,

Some Popes have recommended reading it for its spiritual value, but not as history. The true history of these events is found only in the Gospels. - Dr. Carroll

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=338328&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

Oh, and Mary of Agreda is not St. Mary. She is not canonized, Sister Mary of Agreda.

 

[brumano]

I hate to break it to you, but according to the Mariological works I’ve gotten to reading right now, Mary did die in both traditions and was raised.
Mary Through the Centuries

Maybe you can find this one on Amazon too; it’s from an anonymous source but the story goes that during the Eighteenth Century an aged Irish Benedictine Monk was once again searching the archives of the monastery library for a long rumored but never proven to exist, illuminated copy of St. Ignatius’s Spiritual Excercises. One day at length he spied what he thought was the prized book, squeezed between massive volumes and buried beneath piles of dusty vellum. “I’ve Found It!” he shouted,“I’ve found it!” as he began ringing the tower bells calling all the brothers together; "Ahahaha,haha I have found it!! “What?” they asked, "The book, the book of course, this is the book! The Abbott relieved him of a small worn out leather bound book, with no title on the cover, “We shall see what you have found and what you have found had better be good,” he warned. With a determined sweep of his forearm and a few forceful puffs from his inflated cheeks the dust was blown from the cover of the book to the atmosphere surrounding the gasping brother. The book was opened and the Rev. Abbot began to read: "When John took Mary into his house John’s house became Mary’s house. When John was exiled Mary kept her house and many of her children came there to pray with her and to be in her company and to hear her. Visitors from all over came to visit her and ask for her counsel and her prayers, and she welcomed them all and gladly granted all their requests, but as the years went by they stopped coming and she was left alone. One day in late summer she went walking in the field among the wild flowers and looking into a golden sunset she had a premonition that her life would soon be ended. She smiled and gave her spiritual yes she strolled back home tidied up her house a bit more, layed down and closed her eyes and went to sleep… but the people started gathering around again and crying out to her to help them so again she said yes and got up and took care of all their needs and this is how it still is with her to this very day.

 

[Nine_Two]

Not if you can’t accept what you read, no i can’t; the posts said we believe it is a possibility that has a good foundation and whether you wish to admit that is true or not hasn’t got much to do with me, or it’s just simply that you can’t see it as a possibility, that’s okay the doctrine’s written for the universal church. Mary’s a unifier, not a divider. Your belief is understandable but why isn’t ours?

It’s encapsulated as a mystery in the earliest tradition about the assumption right along side with the tradition you favor; hence it was called “The Dormition of Mary.” Now before you tell me that dormition actually means death, what state were you in last night while you were sleeping; that’s right, and you don’t see that word in para 44 either do you?

I’m not sure what I just read.

I don’t see the word in most of the paragraphs of the bull. That really doesn’t prove anything.

 

[newenglandsun]

I’m not sure what I just read.

I don’t see the word in most of the paragraphs of the bull. That really doesn’t prove anything.

It’s mentioned in paragraph 17 of Pope Pius XII’s document Defining the Dogma of the Assumption where he references her death and in paragraph 19 where he addresses the dormition and assumption to be the same thing.

 

[newenglandsun]

Maybe you can find this one on Amazon too; it’s from an anonymous source but the story goes that during the Eighteenth Century an aged Irish Benedictine Monk was once again searching the archives of the monastery library for a long rumored but never proven to exist, illuminated copy of St. Ignatius’s Spiritual Excercises. One day at length he spied what he thought was the prized book, squeezed between massive volumes and buried beneath piles of dusty vellum. “I’ve Found It!” he shouted,“I’ve found it!” as he began ringing the tower bells calling all the brothers together; "Ahahaha,haha I have found it!! “What?” they asked, "The book, the book of course, this is the book! The Abbott relieved him of a small worn out leather bound book, with no title on the cover, “We shall see what you have found and what you have found had better be good,” he warned. With a determined sweep of his forearm and a few forceful puffs from his inflated cheeks the dust was blown from the cover of the book to the atmosphere surrounding the gasping brother. The book was opened and the Rev. Abbot began to read: "When John took Mary into his house John’s house became Mary’s house. When John was exiled Mary kept her house and many of her children came there to pray with her and to be in her company and to hear her. Visitors from all over came to visit her and ask for her counsel and her prayers, and she welcomed them all and gladly granted all their requests, but as the years went by they stopped coming and she was left alone. One day in late summer she went walking in the field among the wild flowers and looking into a golden sunset she had a premonition that her life would soon be ended. She smiled and gave her spiritual yes she strolled back home tidied up her house a bit more, layed down and closed her eyes and went to sleep… but the people started gathering around again and crying out to her to help them so again she said yes and got up and took care of all their needs and this is how it still is with her to this very day.

Sleep as in the euphemism for death that I have already explained? How long did they wait to gather around her again? In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, she dies, people gather around three days later and she resurrects.

 

[brumano]

I’m not sure what I just read.

I don’t see the word in most of the paragraphs of the bull. That really doesn’t prove anything.

Easy, it’s just to make one or two simple points, one, traditions that Mary only rested are just as easily at hand as those that speculate her dying. The important word in both is speculation because there is not at this time any verifiable factual information about the event itself, everyone agrees unanymously about that and if they don’t they must be resorting to some legendary account; such as the one that must exist and still survives i’m sure in the Eastern regions better than in the West, that when Mary died a preselected group of disciples secreted her body into a grave and took oaths in blood never to reveal it’s location so that the world would never know, it’s similiar to the falsehood proliferated in the novel; “The DaVinci Code” about the body of Jesus. This also explains in part why some “Orthodox” as evidenced in this and other threads about the Assumption don’t accept the dogma at all, or they have a much harder time with it because they have been taught this idea that in any event Mary died, as if it were a factual component of the Doctrine, which it is not.
Secondly, once Mary entered into this deep rest (that is the main agreement about the mystery between East and West) that was certainly longer and deeper than the normal day to day sleep periods it isn’t proven that she then died. She did not enter into a deathly coma of some sort, in our view she entered into the Lord’s rest, this is not the same as death in her case, and even we who die believe that the good, rest in death with a perpetual light that shines upon them, no?
Okay, so the way that those who tend to think that Mary died deal with this is to theorize that her death may have taken place immediately preceeding or even in a transitional phase of her assumption, and to be honest I think bl.John Paul II put this forth as a possibility, and again hoping it will be remembered that we allow both as possible, I think that would actually foil the essence of the Tradition itself that is universally agreed on; that Mary went into a deep restful sleep (very much well desearved, wouldn’t it be?) while she was still spiritually cognitive and receptive to God. Her being although she was in deep, domition, remained whole and intact; alive, but of course no one can ever explain it adequately with words alone but no one can say for sure that she was dead.

 

[brumano]

Sleep as in the euphemism for death that I have already explained? How long did they wait to gather around her again? In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, she dies, people gather around three days later and she resurrects.

Uh, no, “sleep” as St. Paul explains in Heb.c4,vs 8-11; here reprinted are vss.9 and 10, which I think gets exactly to the heart of it.“Therefore a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God. And he who enters into that rest, rests from his own works as God did from His.” Just think of it; they rest as God rested but God is of course the Ever Living God. The Sabbath is called to mind in these verses which is the remembrance of the 7th. day of creation when He rested but did not die.
So from the scriptures we see that this is possible as are all things to those who are pleasing to God, even that someone could be preserved from death itself is possible and for that we can go next to Heb.c11,v5; “Enoch was taken up so he would not see death. He was seen no more because God took him. Scripture testifies that before he was taken up he was pleasing to God.” How pleasing is Mary to God?
Try to break the news to N.T. Wright and the others gently though, would you?

 

[newenglandsun]

Uh, no, “sleep” as St. Paul explains in Heb.c4,vs 8-11; here reprinted are vss.9 and 10, which I think gets exactly to the heart of it.“Therefore a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God. And he who enters into that rest, rests from his own works as God did from His.” Just think of it; they rest as God rested but God is of course the Ever Living God. The Sabbath is called to mind in these verses which is the remembrance of the 7th. day of creation when He rested but did not die.
So from the scriptures we see that this is possible as are all things to those who are pleasing to God, even that someone could be preserved from death itself is possible and for that we can go next to Heb.c11,v5; “Enoch was taken up so he would not see death. He was seen no more because God took him. Scripture testifies that before he was taken up he was pleasing to God.” How pleasing is Mary to God?
Try to break the news to N.T. Wright and the others gently though, would you?

A) Hebrews was not written by St. Paul.
B) Rest is not the same as sleep. (1 Thess. 4:13-16)

 

[prodromos]

Uh, no, “sleep” as St. Paul explains in Heb.c4,vs 8-11; here reprinted are vss.9 and 10, which I think gets exactly to the heart of it.“Therefore a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God. And he who enters into that rest, rests from his own works as God did from His.” Just think of it; they rest as God rested but God is of course the Ever Living God. The Sabbath is called to mind in these verses which is the remembrance of the 7th. day of creation when He rested but did not die.
So from the scriptures we see that this is possible as are all things to those who are pleasing to God, even that someone could be preserved from death itself is possible and for that we can go next to Heb.c11,v5; “Enoch was taken up so he would not see death. He was seen no more because God took him. Scripture testifies that before he was taken up he was pleasing to God.” How pleasing is Mary to God?
Try to break the news to N.T. Wright and the others gently though, would you?

Perhaps you should consider the origin of the word “cemetery”, which comes from the Greek word “κοιμητήριο” meaning “graveyard”, but literally “place of those fallen asleep”.
Root word is “κοιμάμαι”, meaning “sleep” or figuratively, “die”.

Hebrews 4:8-11 does not mention “sleep” at all, the word there is "κατέπαυσεν"

 

[newenglandsun]

Perhaps you should consider the origin of the word “cemetery”, which comes from the Greek word “κοιμητήριο” meaning “graveyard”, but literally “place of those fallen asleep”.
Root word is “κοιμάμαι”, meaning “sleep” or figuratively, “die”.

Hebrews 4:8-11 does not mention “sleep” at all, the word there is "κατέπαυσεν"

Good coverage of that subject. Hopefully, Brunamo will get it.

 

[brumano]

Perhaps you should consider the origin of the word “cemetery”, which comes from the Greek word “κοιμητήριο” meaning “graveyard”, but literally “place of those fallen asleep”.
Root word is “κοιμάμαι”, meaning “sleep” or figuratively, “die”.

Hebrews 4:8-11 does not mention “sleep” at all, the word there is "κατέπαυσεν"

This proves only that there are words in Greek as well as in English and others I’m sure for rest, sleep and death. So what does this prove, that the origin of the word cemetery could mean place of those fallen asleep, and those who have died, we’re talking about the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, you know, she conceived the Son of the living God and gave birth to Him in flesh, and was kept from any and all stain of sin; that’s who we’re talking about.

I’m doubting if that word translates to death because it would make those verses totally unitelligible and even ridiculous, but the way they read in English is marvellous and awe inspiring, and there’s no disagreement that comes up with the rest of scripture and doctrine in it’s entire context. Life is the first condition, not death, death was brought in and brought on; that’s the context I’m referring to.

 

[brumano]

Perhaps you should consider the origin of the word “cemetery”, which comes from the Greek word “κοιμητήριο” meaning “graveyard”, but literally “place of those fallen asleep”.
Root word is “κοιμάμαι”, meaning “sleep” or figuratively, “die”.

Hebrews 4:8-11 does not mention “sleep” at all, the word there is "κατέπαυσεν"

This proves only that there are words in Greek as well as in English and others I’m sure for rest, sleep and death. So what does this prove, that the origin of the word cemetery could mean place of those fallen asleep, and those who have died, we’re talking about the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, you know, she conceived the Son of the living God and gave birth to Him in flesh, and was kept from any and all stain of sin; that’s who we’re talking about.

I’m doubting if that word translates to death because it would make those verses totally unitelligible and even ridiculous, but the way they read in English is marvellous and awe inspiring, and there’s no disagreement that comes up with the rest of scripture and doctrine in it’s entire context. Life is the first condition, not death, death was brought in and brought on; that’s the context I’m referring to.

 

[brumano]

A) Hebrews was not written by St. Paul

.
B) Rest is not the same as sleep. (1 Thess. 4:13-16)

We can’t say that Hebrews was or was not written by St.Paul himself since none of us were there looking over whoever wrote it’s shoulder, it doesn’t change anything that’s written in Hebrews if he did not; it’s cannonized, authentic scripture. You can’t negate c8, and c11 by any means, anymore than anyone could any other scripture; and certainly not because it confounds the doctrine that you believe of the death of Mary.
We just come to another issue of agreeing to disagree; I strongly believe St Paul wrote the letter to the Hebrews, I strongly believe Mary was taken up into heavenly glory after she rested in a state of rest that was, fully living, let me put it that way, but I can’t go to Thess. 4:13-16 and deal with it just by saying Aw, St. Paul didn’t write that. No, Rest is not exactly the same as sleep. That is true.

 

[newenglandsun]

We can’t say that Hebrews was or was not written by St.Paul himself since none of us were there looking over whoever wrote it’s shoulder, it doesn’t change anything that’s written in Hebrews if he did not; it’s cannonized, authentic scripture. You can’t negate c8, and c11 by any means, anymore than anyone could any other scripture; and certainly not because it confounds the doctrine that you believe of the death of Mary.
We just come to another issue of agreeing to disagree; I strongly believe St Paul wrote the letter to the Hebrews, I strongly believe Mary was taken up into heavenly glory after she rested in a state of rest that was, fully living, let me put it that way, but I can’t go to Thess. 4:13-16 and deal with it just by saying Aw, St. Paul didn’t write that. No, Rest is not exactly the same as sleep. That is true.

At the Byzantine Catholic Parish I attend, there is an iconoclast of the “falling asleep of Mary”. Jesus is holding her departed soul in his arms. Are you saying Catholics in full communion with Rome are embracing erroneous teaching about Mary?

Again, that’s fine to believe she only “rested” but it’s quite wrong to insist based on a text that “rest” equals the same thing as sleep as we have already pointed out.

 

[prodromos]

we’re talking about the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, you know, she conceived the Son of the living God and gave birth to Him in flesh, and was kept from any and all stain of sin; that’s who we’re talking about.

You do realise you are responding to an Orthodox Christian, don’t you? When it comes to the love, honour and veneration of Panagia (one of many titles we give her), the Orthodox are second to none.

Now regarding the bold part of your comment, I would like to quote some comments from St John Maximovitch on The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of GodThis teaching, which seemingly has the aim of exalting the Mother of God, in reality completely denies all Her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of Her mother, when She could not even desire anything either good or evil, was preserved by God’s grace from every impurity, and then by that grace was preserved from sin even after Her birth, then in what does Her merit consist? If She could have been placed in the state of being unable to sin, and did not sin, then for what did God glorify Her? if She, without any effort, and without having any kind of impulses to sin, remained pure, then why is She crowned more than everyone else? There is no victory without an adversary.

The righteousness and sanctity of the Virgin Mary were manifested in the fact that She, being “human with passions like us,” so loved God and gave Her*self over to Him, that by Her purity She was exalted high above the rest of the human race. For this, having been foreknown and forechosen, She was vouchsafed to be purified by the Holy Spirit Who came upon Her, and to conceive of Him the very Saviour of the world. The teaching of the grace-given sinlessness of the Virgin Mary denies Her victory over temptations; from a victor who is worthy to be crowned with crowns of glory, this makes Her a blind instrument of God’s Providence.

I’m doubting if that word translates to death because it would make those verses totally unitelligible and even ridiculous,

I’m sorry, but as I read them they are completely intelligible and not even slightly ridiculous. Perhaps you could elaberate on why you find them otherwise.

 

[pablope]

I think I would definitely have to agree with you. Although I am beginning to see where N.T. Wright is gathering his confusion on as to how he sees it as “attempts” to reconcile the dormition and assumption. It’s not that the two are radically different, it’s that he’s never accessed deep enough explanations of the doctrine on Mariology. Yeah, I think St. John Maximovitch, Jaroslav Pelikan, Pope Pius XII, Rowan Williams, and J.G.H. Barry will greatly help my friend out as well as that text in Revelation and John 20:30-31 is utterly devastating to Evangelical Biblicism.

Share this article by JPII:

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm53.htm

MARY AND THE HUMAN DRAMA OF DEATH
Pope John Paul II

Having been closely associated with Christ’s redemptive work, it was fitting for Mary to share the experience of death before partaking of the Resurrection
“The experience of death personally enriched the Blessed Virgin: by undergoing mankind’s common destiny, she can more effectively exercise her spiritual motherhood towards those approaching the last moment of their life”, the Holy Father said at the General Audience of Wednesday, 25 June, as he reflected on the dormition of the Mother of God. Here is a translation of the Pope’s catechesis, which was the 53rd in the series on the Blessed Mother and was given in Italian.

1. Concerning the end of Mary’s earthly life, the Council uses the terms of the Bull defining the dogma of the Assumption and states: “The Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over” (Lumen gentium, n. 59). With this formula, the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, following my Venerable Predecessor Pius XII, made no pronouncement on the question of Mary’s death. Nevertheless, Pius XII did not intend to deny the fact of her death, but merely did not judge it opportune to affirm solemnly the death of the Mother of God as a truth to be accepted by all believers.

 

[pablope]

Don’t ask me. He would say that he reads a

**guy but then double-checks as to whether what the guy says matches up with what the Bible says.
**

I could never understand Evangelicalism and how one could hold to sola scriptura but have nothing really solid to defend their faith with. That’s why I gave up Protestantism.

I will make a slight correction here…when he says what the Bible says…it is not that the Bible speaks…but it is his interpretation of what he thinks the Bible says…so the question I would ask him…is why he believes his interpretation is correct?

You may want to read and share this article:

Ecclesial Deism

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

 

[brumano]

At the Byzantine Catholic Parish I attend, there is an iconoclast of the “falling asleep of Mary”. Jesus is holding her departed soul in his arms. Are you saying Catholics in full communion with Rome are embracing erroneous teaching about Mary?

That’s a very beautiful and respected tradition, i for one understand it and what else can anyone say about someone else’s heartfelt, honest belief, while still stopping short of abandoning their own? I think that, the doctrine has to be accepted as it is written without specification about the event of Mary’s completion of the course of her earthly life. So, erroneous teaching would only come in if anyone would teach one of the two possibilites as absolute which would be adding to the doctrine, something that is not given from it.

Again, that’s fine to believe she only “rested” but it’s quite wrong to insist based on a text that “rest” equals the same thing as sleep as we have already pointed out.

 

[newenglandsun]

That’s a very beautiful and respected tradition, i for one understand it and what else can anyone say about someone else’s heartfelt, honest belief, while still stopping short of abandoning their own? I think that, the doctrine has to be accepted as it is written without specification about the event of Mary’s completion of the course of her earthly life. So, erroneous teaching would only come in if anyone would teach one of the two possibilites as absolute which would be adding to the doctrine, something that is not given from it.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

This is why you should always treat someone writing on what other religions believe with a grain of salt.

While the emphasis between the two teachings is different - Orthodox on her death, Catholics on her rising into heaven, the official teachings of both Churches are the same. There are Orthodox who deny she was assumed into heaven, and there are Catholics who deny she died, but both these groups hold beliefs contrary to the teachings of their Church.

It isn’t Dogma, but it certainly isn’t an open question. It is something which the church teachings are quite clear on.

Heh. I sound like a broken record this morning, but well said, Nine_Two. Well said.

Except nothing, it presents both traditions and states only that the course of her earthly life was completed.

Munificentissimus Deus, in which Pope Pius XII dogmatically defined the Assumption, explicitly references our Blessed Mother’s death. I encourage you to check it out and see for yourself. Paragraph 17 explicitly mentions her death in a quotation that Pope Pius XII uses favorably.

Then how was my post not true, read it all again if need be in the widest context allowable and you will find both, as i said, both traditions represented. What you find in para 44 is what Pope Pius XII clearly teaches. Just a quick note about one of the earlier traditions and the iconography, the only way that the iconographers could effectively convey the concept of the assumption, which is what they were vitally concerned with, was to use the tomb, or Mary in repose, as a graphic representation in order to depict her assumption into heaven; this is an artistic conception used to illustrate the assumption not to make a hard fast statement that she had died. This is not the same as a work of art that shows, say, The Resurrection, where we have plenty of scriptural accounts to go by.

There is no tradition that teaches that she didn’t die. None whatsoever.

We know that she died before her resurrection and assumption, in parallel with and in conformity to her Divine Son. It may not be dogma, but it doesn’t have to be. Not everything in divine revelation has been dogmatized, or needs to be.

I had always felt the Blessed Mother did not die, for one if she died it pulls into question her being kept from sin as the wage of sin is death. This cannot be compared to Jesus as he willingly accepted the sin of the world and suffered the consequence of that sin which is death. Secondly it could be said it was necessary for her to be assumed into heaven as she wasn’t going to die, if you look at some of the saints around the world whose bodies have not decayed for hundreds of years, you can see the relation between sin and death. Thirdly the statement about her completing the course of her earthly life could very well refer to her mission on earth was complete.

I encourage you to look further into this matter. You will find that Tradition unanimously attests to the fact that she did die before her Assumption.

To state that her Immaculate Conception and her sinlessness precludes mortality for her is to misunderstand the Immaculate Conception and her sinlessness.

The Theotokos is free from “the stain of original sin” in its spiritual effects (privation of sanctifying grace), but not in its physical effects. She was as mortal as anyone else.

I don’t have sources right now, but you’ll find, if you research it, that popes themselves have taken this exact clarified position through the centuries leading up to the dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception.