Dormition vs. Assumption of Mary

[GaryTaylor]

I am aware the tradition says that Mary had died, however what I am concluding is that Mary could not have suffered from death unless she chose to, she was free from the consequences of sin, so she could not have suffered those consequences without consenting to them, as Our Lord had done. I believe this approach conforms with tradition, because to say she died without consent would cause severe problems with other revelations on the Blessed Mother.

She was free from death as Her Son defeated death on the cross. It was most fitting that the BVM chose to, She did not “have to” die. There resides the debate.

1. Tradition/tradition here is consistent history, for example check out the Church of the Dormition and read the history

2] Its true “assumed body and soul in heaven” was all that was dogmatically defined.

1. I believe those who believe She didn’t die and chose not to die should present their debate, it may well be plausible, I’ve heard it but some time ago.
2. I think those who believe the BVM “had to die” for whatever reason ought to also present their argument in context/content which leads from Genesis to the General Judgment since whatever argument it is, it needs to conform. The BVM accepting death does conform “having to die” I can’t see where.

 

[Zooey]

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.

To say she died I believe is a hard position to defend and doesn’t quite fit with what we know to be true, but however I think it is also important to compare her to Adam and Eve, would they have died if they had not fallen? I am of the opinion that natural death was not apart of God’s plan and so it came into the world as a consequence of the fall, and seeing as the Blessed Mother was free from original sin and also ever-virgin it is almost repugnant to me that she died. However, unless she asked God to suffer death in union with her Son for the salvation of souls, I am open to believe she had died only in the context of her freely choosing it also.

Just to stir the pot a bit more, your Friendly Neighborhood Methodist believes that Mary was assumed into Heaven without dying.
This is based on my study of Scripture. There is (at least to my mind) clear evidence that somebody in the New Testament did not die. Jesus Christ said that there was one among his followers who would not die “before the Son of Man returns in His Glory, His angels with Him”.
Now if somebody could find another of those persons present who did not die…But there is no such person. The only person about whom such a tradition exists is Our Lord’s own beloved mother. Logically then, she did not die; she was taken up, living, into Heaven.

If you think that Catholics & Orthodox get into it over this subject, come follow me around while I uch:mention this in the presence of my fellow Methodists, never mind the faces of, say, a room full of :bigyikes: Baptists.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled thread…:coffeeread:

 

[newenglandsun]

Just to stir the pot a bit more, your Friendly Neighborhood Methodist believes that Mary was assumed into Heaven without dying.
This is based on my study of Scripture. There is (at least to my mind) clear evidence that somebody in the New Testament did not die. Jesus Christ said that there was one among his followers who would not die “before the Son of Man returns in His Glory, His angels with Him”.
Now if somebody could find another of those persons present who did not die…But there is no such person. The only person about whom such a tradition exists is Our Lord’s own beloved mother. Logically then, she did not die; she was taken up, living, into Heaven.

If you think that Catholics & Orthodox get into it over this subject, come follow me around while I uch:mention this in the presence of my fellow Methodists, never mind the faces of, say, a room full of :bigyikes: Baptists.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled thread…:coffeeread:

As a partial preterist, I would contend that reading is in fact forced on the text. It depends on two things to maintain it a) that Jesus did not come back in some sense of the word in the first century C.E. b) that “this generation” does not refer to that generation that sees those things.

*Note: This is Jesus’s coming in judgment on Jerusalem I think he’s talking about here. I do not think this is to be read in accompaniment with Revelation though some may disagree with me.

 

[brumano]

Just to stir the pot a bit more, your Friendly Neighborhood Methodist believes that Mary was assumed into Heaven without dying.
This is based on my study of Scripture. There is (at least to my mind) clear evidence that somebody in the New Testament did not die. Jesus Christ said that there was one among his followers who would not die “before the Son of Man returns in His Glory, His angels with Him”.
Now if somebody could find another of those persons present who did not die…But there is no such person. The only person about whom such a tradition exists is Our Lord’s own beloved mother. Logically then, she did not die; she was taken up, living, into Heaven.

If you think that Catholics & Orthodox get into it over this subject, come follow me around while I uch:mention this in the presence of my fellow Methodists, never mind the faces of, say, a room full of :bigyikes: Baptists.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled thread…:coffeeread:

Welcome to Roman Catholic Orthodoxy, amazing that you can accept this so naturally as a possibility while so many cradle catholics keep wrestling with it as though it’s some kind of heresy to believe it. The passage as I recall says," there be some standing here who shall not taste of death until all shall be fulfilled." He is clearly speaking of the end of all things, we do not know that Mary was standing there when this was spoken, we do not know that she was not. But, we have to agree with you that it is definitely another scriptural support for the possibility of preservation from death. Christ does not say things just to create intrigue, so it has to mean some person, or persons who in some way which remains mostly mysterious to our minds; do not die. Personally, I have to also agree with you, that if there is such a person, the first one to come to mind would be of course, Mary.

I wonder if your fellow Methodists have ever considered the use of the word “until” in the above passage; mine is that the person(s) spoken of do not die, or taste of death, even when all things have been fulfilled. It might lead to some interesting discussion about whether in the scriptures, until can mean something remains unchanged after something else relative to it, has changed.

 

[newenglandsun]

Welcome to Roman Catholic Orthodoxy, amazing that you can accept this so naturally as a possibility while so many cradle catholics keep wrestling with it as though it’s some kind of heresy to believe it. The passage as I recall says," there be some standing here who shall not taste of death until all shall be fulfilled." He is clearly speaking of the end of all things, we do not know that Mary was standing there when this was spoken, we do not know that she was not. But, we have to agree with you that it is definitely another scriptural support for the possibility of preservation from death. Christ does not say things just to create intrigue, so it has to mean some person, or persons who in some way which remains mostly mysterious to our minds; do not die. Personally, I have to also agree with you, that if there is such a person, the first one to come to mind would be of course, Mary.

I wonder if your fellow Methodists have ever considered the use of the word “until” in the above passage; mine is that the person(s) spoken of do not die, or taste of death, even when all things have been fulfilled. It might lead to some interesting discussion about whether in the scriptures, until can mean something remains unchanged after something else relative to it, has changed.

Matthew 16:28 - Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.’ (NRSVACE)

I’ve always taken this verse to be referring to his ascension. Consider though this verse:

Luke 17:21 - nor will they say, “Look, here it is!” or “There it is!” For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you.’ (NRSVACE)

 

[Zooey]

Welcome to Roman Catholic Orthodoxy, amazing that you can accept this so naturally as a possibility while so many cradle catholics keep wrestling with it as though it’s some kind of heresy to believe it. The passage as I recall says," there be some standing here who shall not taste of death until all shall be fulfilled." He is clearly speaking of the end of all things, we do not know that Mary was standing there when this was spoken, we do not know that she was not. But, we have to agree with you that it is definitely another scriptural support for the possibility of preservation from death. Christ does not say things just to create intrigue, so it has to mean some person, or persons who in some way which remains mostly mysterious to our minds; do not die. Personally, I have to also agree with you, that if there is such a person, the first one to come to mind would be of course, Mary.

:tiphat: Aha! You see exactly what I saw, that this is the obvious interpretation of the passage.

I wonder if your fellow Methodists have ever considered the use of the word “until” in the above passage; mine is that the person(s) spoken of do not die, or taste of death, even when all things have been fulfilled. It might lead to some interesting discussion about whether in the scriptures, until can mean something remains unchanged after something else relative to it, has changed.

 

[brumano]

Matthew 16:28 - Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.’ (NRSVACE)

I’ve always taken this verse to be referring to his ascension. Consider though this verse:

Luke 17:21 - nor will they say, “Look, here it is!” or “There it is!” For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you.’ (NRSVACE)

No real difference in the take on Mt.16:28 as far as the Assumption of Mary.

I don’t see how this verse tells of the Ascension, but maybe that’s just my own limitation, Lk.17:21, makes perfect sense when aligned with Mk.13:6 - “For many shall come in my name saying ‘I am he’ and shall deceive many.” All of c13 and Lk.17:20 thru to the beginning of c18 have to do with what is commonly discussed as, the 2nd. coming of Christ that takes place at some time in the future, accordingly with Acts,1v6, and 7. The Apostles asked specifically about this time, and the answer they receive is in conformity with Mt.c24,v36…"But of that hour no man knows nor the angels in heaven not even the Son but the Father alone.’ So, going back to Mt.16:28 it probably foretells a distant future time and we could tie that in with the life of Mary; as the book you mentioned is titled, “…through the ages.”

 

[brumano]

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 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.

I don’t embolden parts of my posts, I’m still looking for the italics key on this crazy typewriter.

St. Maximovitch seems to be airing certain difficulties with the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, not that of the Assumption. But, before we go any further, why doesn’t St. Basil the Great, is he Eastern enough for you, seem to have any of these problems conceiving in his thoughts; “the holy sinless Virgin Mary, Mother of God.”? That from his confession of the Coptic Liturgy wherein he easily professes that the Living Bread, that is, the Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, was taken from (darn,where’s that italics key) Our Lady, Mary. That, simply put, dissolves these several would be disclaimers postulated by St.M, for the Doctrine of the IC of Mary as it is defined, by way of, the IC of Jesus. At the same time, any roadblocks to the unbroken life of Mary are just as easily removed.
Anyway, we can see that there are evidently at least two approaches to this one Dogma that are both Orthodox; the one from St.M goes at the doctrine by asking how, the other from St.B simply attests that, it is so.

St. M asks, if Mary is preserved by grace from her conception how does she attain merit? This question can be solved in many ways, but no matter, it forgets one of the planks of the doctrine, that Mary’s life of virtue was seen by God before the creation of the first man, and woman and “found favor with God” thereby she meritted to be chosen and conceived in the fullness of grace, also as the doctrine states the merits of Jesus are vouchsafed to her in advance of the rest of Mankind.

 

[newenglandsun]

I don’t embolden parts of my posts, I’m still looking for the italics key on this crazy typewriter.

St. Maximovitch seems to be airing certain difficulties with the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, not that of the Assumption. But, before we go any further, why doesn’t St. Basil the Great, is he Eastern enough for you, seem to have any of these problems conceiving in his thoughts; “the holy sinless Virgin Mary, Mother of God.”? That from his confession of the Coptic Liturgy wherein he easily professes that the Living Bread, that is, the Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, was taken from (darn,where’s that italics key) Our Lady, Mary. That, simply put, dissolves these several would be disclaimers postulated by St.M, for the Doctrine of the IC of Mary as it is defined, by way of, the IC of Jesus. At the same time, any roadblocks to the unbroken life of Mary are just as easily removed.
Anyway, we can see that there are evidently at least two approaches to this one Dogma that are both Orthodox; the one from St.M goes at the doctrine by asking how, the other from St.B simply attests that, it is so.

St. M asks, if Mary is preserved by grace from her conception how does she attain merit? This question can be solved in many ways, but no matter, it forgets one of the planks of the doctrine, that Mary’s life of virtue was seen by God before the creation of the first man, and woman and “found favor with God” thereby she meritted to be chosen and conceived in the fullness of grace, also as the doctrine states the merits of Jesus are vouchsafed to her in advance of the rest of Mankind.

I would link you to Sergius Bulgakov’s work.

The Eastern Orthodox most certainly do maintain that Mary is the sinless theotokos and the only imperfection about her is that she is and was a human. Because of their understanding of the Original Sin, they hold it unnecessary to believe in the immaculate conception in order to maintain the sinlessness of the Ever-Virgin.

They argue that the Catholics got it wrong in embracing this idea as an official doctrine. By the way, St. Thomas Aquinas was also wrong on the immaculate conception but he’s still a Catholic Saint!

 

[newenglandsun]

No real difference in the take on Mt.16:28 as far as the Assumption of Mary.

I don’t see how this verse tells of the Ascension, but maybe that’s just my own limitation, Lk.17:21, makes perfect sense when aligned with Mk.13:6 - “For many shall come in my name saying ‘I am he’ and shall deceive many.” All of c13 and Lk.17:20 thru to the beginning of c18 have to do with what is commonly discussed as, the 2nd. coming of Christ that takes place at some time in the future, accordingly with Acts,1v6, and 7. The Apostles asked specifically about this time, and the answer they receive is in conformity with Mt.c24,v36…"But of that hour no man knows nor the angels in heaven not even the Son but the Father alone.’ So, going back to Mt.16:28 it probably foretells a distant future time and we could tie that in with the life of Mary; as the book you mentioned is titled, “…through the ages.”

Actually, quite a difference. If it refers to his ascension, then it is fulfilled in the first chapter of Acts in which most of the disciples (excluding Judas) saw it.

“He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;” (Nicene Creed)

In my own partial preterist theology, Jesus comes in judgment on Rome in the first century C.E. and this is what is referred to in things like Matthew leading all the way up to Revelation 20.

Thus, Satan’s power is greatly weakened right now. But then his power grows and a deceptive force rises leading to the antichrist system (all the forces opposed to God and His Church).

Then the second coming which is referred to in Acts 1:6-7. My eschatology is very influenced by St. Augustine.

 

[prodromos]

I don’t embolden parts of my posts, I’m still looking for the italics key on this crazy typewriter.

I ‘emboldened’ the text in the quote from your post, specifically “the Blessed Virgin Mary…was kept from any and all stain of sin”. This strongly suggests that Panagia didn’t have any choice in the matter.

St. Maximovitch seems to be airing certain difficulties with the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, not that of the Assumption. But, before we go any further, why doesn’t St. Basil the Great, is he Eastern enough for you, seem to have any of these problems conceiving in his thoughts; “the holy sinless Virgin Mary, Mother of God.”? That from his confession of the Coptic Liturgy wherein he easily professes that the Living Bread, that is, the Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, was taken from (darn,where’s that italics key) Our Lady, Mary. That, simply put, dissolves these several would be disclaimers postulated by St.M, for the Doctrine of the IC of Mary as it is defined, by way of, the IC of Jesus. At the same time, any roadblocks to the unbroken life of Mary are just as easily removed.

Since the dogma of the Immaculate Conception had not been heard of in the time of St Basil, I wonder why you attempt to put him in opposition to St John Maximovitch. Nothing of what St John Maximovitch stated is dissolved by that which is stated by St Basil who is not even speaking of Panagias conception or birth.

Anyway, we can see that there are evidently at least two approaches to this one Dogma that are both Orthodox; the one from St.M goes at the doctrine by asking how, the other from St.B simply attests that, it is so.

I don’t think you understand either of them properly. St Basil says nothing about her conception in your quotes and St John Maximovitch simply takes the Latin dogma to its logical conclusion.

St. M asks, if Mary is preserved by grace from her conception how does she attain merit? This question can be solved in many ways, but no matter, it forgets one of the planks of the doctrine, that Mary’s life of virtue was seen by God before the creation of the first man, and woman and “found favor with God” thereby she meritted to be chosen and conceived in the fullness of grace, also as the doctrine states the merits of Jesus are vouchsafed to her in advance of the rest of Mankind.

In programming this would be an infinite recursion error

 

[brumano]

Actually, quite a difference. If it refers to his ascension, then it is fulfilled in the first chapter of Acts

in which most of the disciples (excluding Judas) saw it.

Again, I don’t see how, but again maybe that’s just me.

“He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;” (Nicene Creed)

Very good and true; nice lead in by the way, “and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead, His Kingdom will have no end, we believe in…”

In my own partial preterist theology, Jesus comes in judgment on Rome in the first century C.E. and this is what is referred to in things like Matthew leading all the way up to Revelation 20

referred to in Acts 1:6-7. My eschatology is very influenced by St. Augustine.

If i follow up until now, which I’m not sure I do wouldn’t that make it the 3rd. coming?
[/QUOTE]

 

[brumano]

I ‘emboldened’ the text in the quote from your post, specifically “the Blessed Virgin Mary…was kept from any and all stain of sin”. This strongly suggests that Panagia didn’t have any choice in the matter.

Since the dogma of the Immaculate Conception had not been heard of in the time of St Basil, I wonder why you attempt to put him in opposition to St John Maximovitch. Nothing of what St John Maximovitch stated is dissolved by that which is stated by St Basil who is not even speaking of Panagias conception or birth.
I don’t think you understand either of them properly. St Basil says nothing about her conception in your quotes and St John Maximovitch simply takes the Latin dogma to its logical conclusion.

The Immaculate Conception is prefigured extensively in the Old Testament. It was contemplated, not dogmatized, by the earliest Christians but you’re saying St.Basil had no concept of it?

No it’s the correction for the infinite recursion problem of sin and death.

 

[GaryTaylor]

specifically “the Blessed Virgin Mary…was kept from any and all stain of sin”. This strongly suggests that Panagia didn’t have any choice in the matter.

You mean like Adam and Eve who had no choice?

 

[aidanbradypop]

This can become a heated debate among Episcopalians.

You have the Anglo-Catholics. Many tend to believe in the Assumption of Mary.

You have the high Church Episcopalian often agrees with the Dormition.

Then there is the low church Episcopalian that does not believe in either.

So you can see how these three groups can differ. lol

 

[newenglandsun]

Then you have the Anglicans in general who are confused about Catholic and Orthodox doctrine that think the two doctrines are somehow radically different and haven’t read the previous 74 posts on a forum dedicated to this subject.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Then you have the Anglicans in general who are confused about Catholic and Orthodox doctrine that think the two doctrines are somehow radically different and haven’t read the previous 74 posts on a forum dedicated to this subject.

Nice way of covering up what you really wanted to say with a generalized comment.

If I really cared about the previous 74 post about who is right and who is wrong, then I would have read them all.

The topic is Dormition vs Assumption…I gave the Episcopalian view. So sorry to stay on topic…once again

Have a good day.

 

[newenglandsun]

If i follow up until now, which I’m not sure I do wouldn’t that make it the 3rd. coming?

Eschatology is on a list of things that are considered described as in dubiis libertas so you have freedom to disagree as long as you are within bounds of what the Catechism says. I would say that there may be multiple spiritual comings of Christ depending on what you mean by “coming” but what most people talk about when they talk about “second coming” is not a “coming in judgment” but an actual physical returning. Hence, it’s a second coming. The second coming.

Well if that’s the conviction of your beliefs, you’re entitled to them however do you not sense just a little reservation about whether all of these cataclysmic, universal events could have already have taken place, seemingly in a vacuum with only very slight notice?

Unless you think that such things as a beast with ten horns and seven heads coming out of the water are supposed to be literal. If you are talking about the Olivet Discourse, much of it is actually unraveling in the Bible.

just think, another year there’s no Christmas Day coming for millions of the unborn.

True, but fewer and fewer people are stating that abortion is a good idea which means the Church has limited Satan’s power.

The Immaculate Conception is prefigured extensively in the Old Testament. It was contemplated, not dogmatized, by the earliest Christians but you’re saying St.Basil had no concept of it?

From the way I understand the history, the Immaculate Conception doesn’t come into prominence until the Medieval Era. What do you mean by pre-figured extensively in the Old Testament? I would actually highly recommend the book prodromos is referring to. St. John Maximovitch extensively covers the immaculate conception and the interpretation of the Eastern Fathers on this issue.

I personally though am more convinced by the immaculate conception than the non-immaculate conception.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Eschatology is on a list of things that are considered described as in dubiis libertas so you have freedom to disagree as long as you are within bounds of what the Catechism says. I would say that there may be multiple spiritual comings of Christ depending on what you mean by “coming” but what most people talk about when they talk about “second coming” is not a “coming in judgment” but an actual physical returning. Hence, it’s a second coming. The second coming.

Unless you think that such things as a beast with ten horns and seven heads coming out of the water are supposed to be literal. If you are talking about the Olivet Discourse, much of it is actually unraveling in the Bible.

True, but fewer and fewer people are stating that abortion is a good idea which means the Church has limited Satan’s power.

From the way I understand the history, the Immaculate Conception doesn’t come into prominence until the Medieval Era. What do you mean by pre-figured extensively in the Old Testament? I would actually highly recommend the book prodromos is referring to. St. John Maximovitch extensively covers the immaculate conception and the interpretation of the Eastern Fathers on this issue.

I personally though am more convinced by the immaculate conception than the non-immaculate conception.

St. John is good to read about St Mary not so much on the Immaculate Conception though, he concluded it meant Her IC made sin impossible for Her. that’s not true. Perhaps that’s why comments like “she had no choice” appear now and again.

Better to read…

absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/duns-scotus/

Maximus the Confessor also, oh wait he’s from the East.

 

[newenglandsun]

Nice way of covering up what you really wanted to say with a generalized comment.

If I really cared about the previous 74 post about who is right and who is wrong, then I would have read them all.

The topic is Dormition vs Assumption…I gave the Episcopalian view. So sorry to stay on topic…once again

Have a good day.

Well considering the forum started based on N.T. Wright’s (an Anglican mind you) quote on an alleged “Dormition vs. Assumption”, the forum was created to answer whether he was correct on his assessment.

If the Episcopalian view is the same as other Anglicans such as N.T. Wright, then the Episcopalian view was covered, addressed, and refuted aions ago.