Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Immaculate Conception?

[dcointin]

Yes you are very wrong in holding to such opinions.

The Church does not base her doctrine on patristic writings. She believes on what was handed down to her both written from scripture, the Oral and practiced Traditions of the apostles handed down by their apostolic successors.

Tradition from the liturgy which predates any patristic writings has always believed in Mary’s assumption into heaven. Patristic writings do not need to write what the Church has always believed. Patristic writings can support, protect, defend the assumption of Mary. But these ECF’s never had too, because the Assumption was already part of Sacred Tradition in practice from the liturgies, and never came under attack.

The Assumption of Mary is not new. It becomes doctrine, defined and defended by the apostolic successors when Man began to believe God does not intervene with man, when man makes himself a god.

If you base your faith from patristic writings you are living your faith all wrong. Because even these at times did not get it right. Beginning with Peter.

I was referring to the Immaculate Conception, not the Assumption, but thank you for your response. I’m interested in patristic support for demonstration that this belief was part of the faith “once handed down to the saints”, and not something that is new. Is there anything that can demonstrate this, apart from believing that magisterial teaching is infallible, etc.?

 

[Nine_Two]

1. The Doctrine of the Assumption of Mary into heaven body and soul, does not define how Mary, died, or if Mary died. The doctrine only reveals at the completion of her life on earth was “Completed”, there is nothing here about how Mary died or even if she did die. Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul period.

Actually it states several times within that she died.

Do a search of vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html for “death”.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually it states several times within that she died.

Do a search of vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html for “death”.

Nice one

Quotes from it:

#20
not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt

#21
It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death.

#22
As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.

#29
And he asserts that, just as Jesus Christ has risen from the death over which he triumphed and has ascended to the right hand of the Father,** so likewise the ark of his sanctification “has risen up**, since on this day the Virgin Mother has been taken up to her heavenly dwelling.”

#40
like her own Son, having overcome death

There may be more I missed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Before you continue with your false pretensions of me and my Catholic faith, let me clarify what you dont understand, and what this discussion is about.

1. The Doctrine of the Assumption of Mary into heaven body and soul, does not define how Mary, died, or if Mary died. The doctrine only reveals at the completion of her life on earth was “Completed”, there is nothing here about how Mary died or even if she did die. Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul period.

You mistakenly believe that the Doctrine of the assumption states Mary died. I argue the dotrine does not state Mary died.

1. Your faith small “t” tradition includes Mary died and was assumed into heaven body and soul. Great for you, I am happy for you
2. But don’t force any of your small “t” traditions upon our “T” sacred Traditions. Do you know the difference between small “t” traditions and capital “T” Traditions? Don’t force me to be Ukrain and I won’t force you to be Latin.

What you are arguing from comes from small “t” traditions, what I am emphatically declaring is Capital “T” traditions which is binding on all the faithful that Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul. The Capital “T” Tradition now doctrine does not deny nor confirm that Mary died.

1. Allow me to be clear here, The doctrine of the assumption alone does not dictate to me that Mary died is binding upon me. I am at liberty to believe Mary died, or Leave my faith suspended to the will of God.
2. I am not saying that because you believe Mary died and then assumed into heaven is wrong, nor do I contest your faith from your liturgical “traditions”. I simply corrected you that the doctrine of the Assumption does not state Mary ever died.
3. You make the false claim that my Catholic faith is not Roman Catholic? Yet you your self proclaim that you were once Roman Catholic?

It is you that has changed, I have not changed. This alone should rest our case. Besides I have not expressed my faith, only defended the faith from your misrepresentation of what you “thought” the Roman Catholic faith teaches in regards to the Assumption of Mary.

Peace be with you

A Great Feast and something prayed in our Liturgy is not a small “T” tradition as you would claim. You make a false claim that what we believe in is subject to opinion. It would not be a Great Feast and we would not be praying the Troparion and Kontakion stating Mary’s death and eventual resurrection and assumption if it was nothing more than a theological opinion. Again I ask, do you say that what we pray in our Liturgy is allowed to be a lie to most because they are free not to believe it?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Actually it states several times within that she died.

Do a search of vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html for “death”.

Lolllll now we have two trying to win arguments?

I challenge you, does the Popes letter conflict with what the CCC teaches?

CCC966 “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain or original sin, when the COURSE OF HER EARTHLY LIFE WAS FINISHED, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her son, the Lord of lords and the conquerer of sin and death,” The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians;

Follows the (Troparion) “In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O’ Mother of God, but were joined to the source of life”…

CCC 974 “The most blessed Virgin Mary, when the COURSE OF HER EARTHLY LIFE WAS COMPLETED, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven”…

Allow me to simplify the matter for you; What every letter a pope, patristic Father writes or wrote are used “at times” to support what is believed expressed from their faith carries with them weight to be weighed for sure, out side of infallibility of course. Is not binding on all believers.

What "ALL’ of the popes and magisterium world wide teach to the whole of Christendom is found simplified today written about the assumption of Mary from the CCC 966 and 974. These two paragraphs binds all the faithful together, that may or may not include “t” traditions to support the CCC teachings.

You are presenting an argument that has no basis here, when the Popes Letter never contradicts the Church’s teaching of the doctrine in the assumption of Mary. Even though a Pope, bishop, theologian by themselves are at liberty to expound, define, a doctrine from their writings. This is never discounting the Popes writings here. I am revealing a doctrine binding on all believers Mary is assumed into heaven body and soul, from “t” traditions and beautiful letters from Popes and Church Fathers which expound and define what is believed from their writings.

Question? Are all the Popes and Church Fathers letters “complete” contents found in every doctrine of the Church?

Peace be with you

 

[ConstantineTG]

Lolllll now we have two trying to win arguments?

I challenge you, does the Popes letter conflict with what the CCC teaches?

CCC966 “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain or original sin, when the COURSE OF HER EARTHLY LIFE WAS FINISHED, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her son, the Lord of lords and the conquerer of sin and death,” The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians;

Follows the (Troparion) “In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O’ Mother of God, but were joined to the source of life”…

CCC 974 “The most blessed Virgin Mary, when the COURSE OF HER EARTHLY LIFE WAS COMPLETED, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven”…

Allow me to simplify the matter for you; What every letter a pope, patristic Father writes or wrote are used “at times” to support what is believed expressed from their faith carries with them weight to be weighed for sure, out side of infallibility of course. Is not binding on all believers.

What "ALL’ of the popes and magisterium world wide teach to the whole of Christendom is found simplified today written about the assumption of Mary from the CCC 966 and 974. These two paragraphs binds all the faithful together, that may or may not include “t” traditions to support the CCC teachings.

You are presenting an argument that has no basis here, when the Popes Letter never contradicts the Church’s teaching of the doctrine in the assumption of Mary. Even though a Pope, bishop, theologian by themselves are at liberty to expound, define, a doctrine from their writings. This is never discounting the Popes writings here. I am revealing a doctrine binding on all believers Mary is assumed into heaven body and soul, from “t” traditions and beautiful letters from Popes and Church Fathers which expound and define what is believed from their writings.

Question? Are all the Popes and Church Fathers letters “complete” contents found in every doctrine of the Church?

Peace be with you

If you bother to read what Nine_Two posted, you will read that very statement at the bottom of that document. By the way, that document is what Dogmatized the Assumption. So are you saying that the CCC takes precedence over an Apostolic Constitution? Nevermind the fact that the CCC itself takes that information from the said document.

Swallow your pride brother and humility accept the correction you have been offered. There is no shame in it, we are all learning and growing in our faith and such discussions is a place for us to learn, not to subdue one another with our own bias.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

A Great Feast and something prayed in our Liturgy is not a small “T” tradition as you would claim. ** You make a false claim that what we believe in is subject to opinion. ** It would not be a Great Feast and we would not be praying the Troparion and Kontakion stating Mary’s death and eventual resurrection and assumption if it was nothing more than a theological opinion. Again I ask, do you say that what we pray in our Liturgy is allowed to be a lie to most because they are free not to believe it?

Let us be a little more mature in our commentaries here. If you are going to relate to immature tendencies such as lie-ing, and false assertions of opinions that were never made.

Apparently when you used to be a Roman Catholic you never learned the difference between small “t” traditions and capital “T” Traditions. If you did know and understand what these mean, you would not jump to false immature conclusions of “lie-ing” and “opinions”.

I would never belittle your small “t” traditions to an opinon. Let me give you an example of small “t” traditions. What you falsely assume, is that I am holding the language prayed in your liturgy as an opinion? Because “language” in the liturgy comes from small “t” traditions. I hope you can compare my example to expose that your “lies” and “opinions” that you falsely accuse me of do not exist, because "lies and “opinions” are never part of “t” traditions.

I was not going to respond to your immature post, but I see the need to clarify my position. There is much more to expound here in relation to small “t” traditions that are kept in our liturgies and faith. This does not mean our small “t” traditions are ever wrong. These small “t” traditions are kept intact from our languages, cultures, theologies, understandings, and revelations revealed and kept to ones own liturgy, practice and theology provided they do not hinder the apostolic faith.

Here is how I weigh this subject of Mary’s life completed on earth. Did God reveal this? Does God need to reveal Mary died a mortal death? Or did man write that Mary died? Does believing Mary died excommunicates me? Does leaving Mary’s departure from earth to the will of God excommunicate me?

You see if an excommunication is applied to either of my questions of whether Mary died, or by God’s will Mary’s life ended on earth before assumed into heaven body and soul. But neither one excommunicates. This is how one can weigh small “t” traditions and capital “T” traditions.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

If you bother to read what Nine_Two posted, you will read that very statement at the bottom of that document. By the way, that document is what Dogmatized the Assumption. So are you saying that the CCC takes precedence over an Apostolic Constitution? Nevermind the fact that the CCC itself takes that information from the said document.

Swallow your pride brother and humility accept the correction you have been offered. There is no shame in it, we are all learning and growing in our faith and such discussions is a place for us to learn, not to subdue one another with our own bias.

No thanks I am not interested in buying your apples, when I was purchasing oranges.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Let us be a little more mature in our commentaries here. If you are going to relate to immature tendencies such as lie-ing, and false assertions of opinions that were never made.

Apparently when you used to be a Roman Catholic you never learned the difference between small “t” traditions and capital “T” Traditions. If you did know and understand what these mean, you would not jump to false immature conclusions of “lie-ing” and “opinions”.

I would never belittle your small “t” traditions to an opinon. Let me give you an example of small “t” traditions. What you falsely assume, is that I am holding the language prayed in your liturgy as an opinion? Because “language” in the liturgy comes from small “t” traditions. I hope you can compare my example to expose that your “lies” and “opinions” that you falsely accuse me of do not exist, because "lies and “opinions” are never part of “t” traditions.

I was not going to respond to your immature post, but I see the need to clarify my position. There is much more to expound here in relation to small “t” traditions that are kept in our liturgies and faith. This does not mean our small “t” traditions are ever wrong. These small “t” traditions are kept intact from our languages, cultures, theologies, understandings, and revelations revealed and kept to ones own liturgy, practice and theology provided they do not hinder the apostolic faith.

Here is how I weigh this subject of Mary’s life completed on earth. Did God reveal this? Does God need to reveal Mary died a mortal death? Or did man write that Mary died? Does believing Mary died excommunicates me? Does leaving Mary’s departure from earth to the will of God excommunicate me?

You see if an excommunication is applied to either of my questions of whether Mary died, or by God’s will Mary’s life ended on earth before assumed into heaven body and soul. But neither one excommunicates. This is how one can weigh small “t” traditions and capital “T” traditions.

Peace be with you

Wow. You accuse me of making false claims on you, then proceed to do the same exact thing on me. Now that is very mature.

You do belittle our traditions by claiming a big T tradition to be small T. It seems you are the one lacking of understanding what big T traditions are, and what Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi means.

I will pray that you not be blinded by your pride wanting to win an internet debate and accept the truth that the Church teaches. With that, I’m out. Obviously you are not subjecting yourself to correction even if you’ve been obviously wrong. You would even deny an Apostolic Constitution document as a mere Papal letter just so you can defend your point. I don’t know whats the point in discussing this when you have shown that you will stick to your error no matter what is presented before you.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

ConstantineTG;8809953]Wow. You accuse me of making false claims on you, then proceed to do the same exact thing on me. Now that is very mature.

You do belittle our traditions by claiming a big T tradition to be small T. It seems you are the one lacking of understanding what big T traditions are, and what Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi means.

So your saying language traditions of peoples and culture traditions practiced from different peoples are rejected by you, because they don’t talk, look or live like you or practice their faith like you?

I work hard to keep from entering title documents, greek and latin text of faith so as to keep the thread simple to understand. I have no problem addressing documents both greek and latin here. But my pride as you accuse me of, keeps me from entering subjects that no-body hardly reads nor understands.

Our conversation never graduated to the Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. By you Interjecting these never justified nor impresses no one. Simplicity wins the day.

I will pray that you not be blinded by your pride wanting to win an internet debate and accept the truth that the Church teaches. With that, I’m out. Obviously you are not subjecting yourself to correction even if you’ve been obviously wrong. You would even deny an Apostolic Constitution document as a mere Papal letter just so you can defend your point. I don’t know whats the point in discussing this when you have shown that you will stick to your error no matter what is presented before you.

Thank you for your prayer. The Church does not "excommunicate " anyone who does not hold to Mary died a mortal death, nor if God willed at the completion of Mary’s life. In either case "all the faithful believe God assumed the blessed Virgin Mary into heaven body and soul after the completion of her life on earth. This is where you get your apples and oranges mixed up.

And I will end on that note that if I rejected my Catholic Church’s teachings, will make me liable to excommunication. This has not happened because I remain obedient to the teachings of Popes and the magisterium in the Catholic Church. Not like you who has left.

The CCC contains excerpts of the document what is binding on all believers. Re-read the document not everything contained in the document binds all believers. The pope by his authority alone beautifully unites your liturgy to ours. This is reason for rejoicing, not reject me because my liturgy language and culture differs from yours from my “t” traditions.

And I wish you peace in Christ always.

 

[GaryTaylor]

East Byzantine, Bishop ST Andrew state’s in 62-AD

“And therefore, because the first man was created of immaculate earth, it was necessary that of an immaculate Virgin should be born a perfect man, that the Son of God should restore that eternal life which men had lost.”

Pretty much through the centurys, the Immaculate earth of Adam relates to his creation sinless.

then…

West: Bishop St. Cyprian the Martyr of Carthage says [Homily on Psalm 77], “Nor did justice endure that that vessel of election should be open to common injuries; for being far exalted above others, she partook of their nature, not of their sin.”

Peace

 

[Hesychios]

East Byzantine, Bishop ST Andrew state’s in 62-AD

“And therefore, because the first man was created of immaculate earth, it was necessary that of an immaculate Virgin should be born a perfect man, that the Son of God should restore that eternal life which men had lost.”

Pretty much through the centurys, the Immaculate earth of Adam relates to his creation sinless.

then…

West: Bishop St. Cyprian the Martyr of Carthage says [Homily on Psalm 77], “Nor did justice endure that that vessel of election should be open to common injuries; for being far exalted above others, she partook of their nature, not of their sin.”

Peace

Interesting quotes, and quite Orthodox.

 

[Nine_Two]

Lolllll now we have two trying to win arguments?

I challenge you, does the Popes letter conflict with what the CCC teaches?

CCC966 “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain or original sin, when the COURSE OF HER EARTHLY LIFE WAS FINISHED, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her son, the Lord of lords and the conquerer of sin and death,” The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians;

Follows the (Troparion) “In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O’ Mother of God, but were joined to the source of life”…

CCC 974 “The most blessed Virgin Mary, when the COURSE OF HER EARTHLY LIFE WAS COMPLETED, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven”…

Allow me to simplify the matter for you; What every letter a pope, patristic Father writes or wrote are used “at times” to support what is believed expressed from their faith carries with them weight to be weighed for sure, out side of infallibility of course. Is not binding on all believers.

What "ALL’ of the popes and magisterium world wide teach to the whole of Christendom is found simplified today written about the assumption of Mary from the CCC 966 and 974. These two paragraphs binds all the faithful together, that may or may not include “t” traditions to support the CCC teachings.

You are presenting an argument that has no basis here, when the Popes Letter never contradicts the Church’s teaching of the doctrine in the assumption of Mary. Even though a Pope, bishop, theologian by themselves are at liberty to expound, define, a doctrine from their writings. This is never discounting the Popes writings here. I am revealing a doctrine binding on all believers Mary is assumed into heaven body and soul, from “t” traditions and beautiful letters from Popes and Church Fathers which expound and define what is believed from their writings.

Question? Are all the Popes and Church Fathers letters “complete” contents found in every doctrine of the Church?

Peace be with you

I personally don’t see any sonflict between what you posted, and what I posted, however if you feel that the Infallible declarations of the Church are at odds with what the Catechism of your Church teaches, that is not my issue.

I’m not trying to win any arguments here, I wish only to inform. I too claimed for some time that Catholics had no doctrine that Mary died, then a Catholic who knew more about it than I educated me on it.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I personally don’t see any sonflict between what you posted, and what I posted, however if you feel that the Infallible declarations of the Church are at odds with what the Catechism of your Church teaches, that is not my issue.

I’m not trying to win any arguments here, I wish only to inform. I too claimed for some time that Catholics had no doctrine that Mary died, then a Catholic who knew more about it than I educated me on it.

The CCC does not conflict with the Popes document. And no one introduced anything about infallibility. These type of quick false accusations is what starts all these misrepresentations of the Catholic faith.
Topics like “infallibility” get flung around here in discussions that have not even been introduced or are part of the discussion. But for some reason, when one feels his/her position begins to slip away, one is quick to interject insults, character slamming, or subject matter that never pertains to the subject without any introduction, which side steps the topic.

Try asking a Marian Priest, an oblate of SJ Priest or a Mother of the Eucharist if the blessed Virgin Mary died a mortal death and suffered corruption? And stay there and See the priest perform an exorcism on you, or an anointing of the sick be placed on you.

Trying to pit the Pope against the CCC is never gonna work here, sorry but good try.

Didn’t mean to include you in Constantines comments of winning arguments, when you jumped on his band wagon. Please don’t take offense of the displaced humor.

Peace be with you

 

[Nine_Two]

The CCC does not conflict with the Popes document. And no one introduced anything about infallibility. These type of quick false accusations is what starts all these misrepresentations of the Catholic faith. Topics get flung around here in discussions that have not even been introduced or are part of the discussion.

Try asking a Marian Priest, an oblate of SJ Priest or a Mother of the Eucharist if the blessed Virgin Mary died a mortal death and suffered corruption? And stay there and See the priest perform an exorcism on you, or an anointing of the sick be placed on you.

Trying to pit the Pope against the CCC is never gonna work here, sorry but good try.

Didn’t mean to include you in Constantines comments of winning arguments, when you jumped on his band wagon. Please don’t take offense of the displaced humor.

Peace be with you

You’re the only one who has even suggested there is a conflict, and the document I linked to is the proclimation of the Assumption. I was under the impression that it was one of the few documents that was universally agreed to have been issued Ex Cathedra, and is therefore infallible. If I am wrong I wouldn’t mind seeing something asserting it was not infallible.

Would you mind saying where the Catholic Faith has been misrepresented? Have you even looked at what I linked to?

Finally, speaking of misrepresentation, no one has argued that the Church teaches she suffered bodily corruption, and no one is trying to “pit the Pope against the CCC”. You’re simply reading too much into the CCC.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m not sure whats the argument with the Assumption? I’ve read it a few times through not the above posted link. Pretty apparent the Doctrine arrives through both East/West teaching which then move’s foward through time. St Bellarmine and the latter Saints really just dot the i’s and cross the t’s. To me its just another example of how Tradition becomes doctrine. However its based on all the early East/West Traditions and Teachings including England in the later years with Alfred the Great etc. Also as with the IC in England.

If fact the Dormition, Immaculate Conception and Assumption are gone through in the Constitution.

This teaching are of all the churchs when we speak East/West and England.

 

[Hesychios]

I’m not sure whats the argument with the Assumption?

The argument is that Pope Pius XII says that she died, was buried and was resurrected. He quotes fathers and doctors of the church, plus quoting ancient liturgy, in support of this position in his Papal Bull. This is in complete agreement with early Christian belief and contemporary Orthodox belief.

From what I can gather skimming over this Gabriel of 12 wants people to believe that she never died, a new concept. He insists that the BVM was not mortal. He appears to be a staunch advocate of a sort of development of doctrine where basic traditional and Apostolic facts can be discarded later if they are inconvenient.

I think the whole thing could be split off into another thread.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’m not sure whats the argument with the Assumption? I’ve read it a few times through not the above posted link. Pretty apparent the Doctrine arrives through both East/West teaching which then move’s foward through time. St Bellarmine and the latter Saints really just dot the i’s and cross the t’s. To me its just another example of how Tradition becomes doctrine. However its based on all the early East/West Traditions and Teachings including England in the later years with Alfred the Great etc. Also as with the IC in England.

If fact the Dormition, Immaculate Conception and Assumption are gone through in the Constitution.

This teaching are of all the churchs when we speak East/West and England.

I don’t find any argument other than misinterpretation of the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary, which one poster added to the doctrine that Mary died after 3 days and was resurrected. This was the difference being addressed. Sadly I have never posted my position but for clarity I will post it now.

The language of the Definition is very precise as to its object; “having finished the course of her life on earth,” Mary was “glorified in body and soul”. That is, Mary is already in the state that will be true of the elect after the resurrection of the dead." This implies a transition from the bodily state proper to life on earth to the state, mysterious but real, proper to eternal life.

In Mary’s case, how was this transition realized? was it by an immediate transformation without going through death, when death defines a separation of the soul from the body? Or was it by an anticipated resurrection, which presupposes that Mary was dead?

The Definition purposely does not take a position on this point. It remains a question that theologians may freely debate, which is the position that I have been revealing here.

Grant it that the opinion of Mary like her Son, passed through death in order to be raised up, immediately or after a short interval, has stronger support in “tradition”.

This in no way introduces any new revelation. Scripture has to support Tradition in order for it to be a revelation from God. Scripture only reveals by implicity that Mary is assumed into heaven body and soul. Scripture does not support Mary suffering a mortal death for 3 days and then resurrected, this death of Mary is silent from scripture, but practiced from “t” tradition in the Church.

My faith does not contest if Mary died, My faith reveals that at some time during the end of Mary’s earthly life, God assumed Mary into heaven body and soul. Because the doctrine contains scripture support and sacred Tradition. What the doctrine does not reveal is that Mary’s body was ever separated from her soul when her life ended on earth.

For clarity, those holding to a 3 day dead Mary resurrected cannot prove Mary’s body and soul were ever separated at death because that is what mortal death defines. Yet the doctrine reveals Mary was assumed into heaven “both body and soul”, leaving Mary’s departure in life in mystery as to how and when the body and soul of Mary departed this earth. The doctrine only reveals both body and soul were assumed.

For the record I do not discount anyone holding to Mary die-ing a mortal death and then assumed into heaven body and soul. All I have maintained is the doctrine of the assumption does not detail Mary’s death.

I am pleased from these discussions, because much has been revealed here in regards to the assumption, “t” traditions and “T” Traditions.

The Popes document has a large content, and would appear that is being taken out of context here, to introduce in this small arena will not do it justice. It should suffice this thread to be informed that the Pope’s document never conflicts with the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.

Peace be with you

 

[ConstantineTG]

Its like talking to a brick wall

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Nine_Two;8810960]You’re the only one who has even suggested there is a conflict, and the document I linked to is the proclimation of the Assumption

.

What is the “t” theological debate here is “death” of Mary. I hold to dormition because it reveals a type of sleep. Death reveals a separation of the body and the soul. Does the dotrine of the Assumption detail that Mary’s body ever separated from her body? Death reveals mortal corruption. Does the doctrine of the assumption ever detail that Mary body suffered corruption.

Can you define death from your interpretation from the doctrine of the assumption? What is your reality of death of the blessed Virgin Mary?

If Mary died for 3 days. Naturally after 3 days mortal decay corrupts the body, and we know nothing unclean goes before the Father.

If 3 days is referencing a theological concept spoken from the science of Gematria, then I can hold to a 3 day dormition, because 3 in this context reveals only that enough time in Mary’s dormition passed when God assumed her into heaven with “both” body and soul, which still holds to the mystery.

Finally, speaking of misrepresentation, no one has argued that the Church teaches she suffered bodily corruption,

I have introduced “bodily corruption suffered in death” early on, but no one objected to it, except you.

Please define the type of “death” Mary suffered or if she ever suffered in death,what it meant by Mary died for 3 days?

Can you can help the theologians today who contemplate the “death” Mary died?

This appears to be the misinterpretation of the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary into heaven “both”, body and soul.