N
Nine_Two
Guest
It does. I posted a link to it, and gave the proper search term to find the sections of the document dealing with the issue. Constantine posted excerpts.
The end. Debate over.
Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Immaculate Conception?
- Status
The end. Debate over.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Thanks for the blessing; My Lord gave me a better name for this “Rock”.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
[BIBLEDRB]Mark 4:5[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 13:5[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Luke 8:6[/BIBLEDRB]
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
How can a debate be over, when you have introduced what is never in question and is non essential to the debate?
So far everyone agrees Mary was assumed into heaven both body and soul; We don’t need document support for this.
Defining Mary’s death into the document is a new argument you propose, which is not there.
The Popes document you introduced does not define Mary’s death. Constantine holds to Mary died 3 days. Ok, then define this death from the Popes document?
Or if you will define what does it mean that Mary died for 3 days? If Mary died for 3 days was her soul with her body? if Mary’s soul was with her body, then she never died. If her soul left her body after she died for 3 days, then how can the doctrine of the assumption falsely declare that Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul?
You haven’t even begun the debate, and walk away? Goes to show, flinging documents and other dogmas around unneccassarily when the content of the discussion was never met yet. Define your death of Mary according to the document? Is the challenge which will clear the air of the assumption of Mary into heaven body and soul.
I believe your difficulty is seeing what is expressed by Faith, when you are forcing faith to be a thing from what is written. The Writing only confirms what is believed, the writing never details the expression of faith. Which we have been addressing.
Your discussions have been enlightening and learning. Thank you
Peace be with you
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
V
Vico
Guest
Gabriel of 12,
You asked " If her soul left her body after she died for 3 days, then how can the doctrine of the assumption falsely declare that Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul?"
There is no dogma de fide regarding the precise time at which any soul leaves the body.
For the Theotokos, the belief is that her body was saved from corruption. There are dogmatic definitions regarding Christ’s death and resurrection (from Ott) which shows that is is possible to die, have the soul seperate, and subsequently resurrect and ascend body and soul into Heaven.
You asked " If her soul left her body after she died for 3 days, then how can the doctrine of the assumption falsely declare that Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul?"
There is no dogma de fide regarding the precise time at which any soul leaves the body.
For the Theotokos, the belief is that her body was saved from corruption. There are dogmatic definitions regarding Christ’s death and resurrection (from Ott) which shows that is is possible to die, have the soul seperate, and subsequently resurrect and ascend body and soul into Heaven.
- After His Death, Christ’s soul, which was separated from His Body, descended into the underworld. (De fide.)
The underworld is the place of detention for the souls of the just of the pre-Christian era, the so-called vestibule of hell (limbus Patrum). - On the third day after His Death Christ rose gloriously from the dead. (De fide.)
- Christ ascended Body and Soul into Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. (De fide.)
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Finally someone who addresses the substance of Mary’s completion of life to the assumption.
Let’s not go into the descension and resurrection of Jesus here, it may cause further confusion, the assumption and the resurection, ascension of Jesus are not the same.
The whole point to the discussion relates to the “Faith” of Mary’s assumption. I have answered all the questions addressed to me in regards to the assumption. My faith in the assumption apparently has offended others, who wish not to respond to my questions in regards to their tradition of the Assumption of Mary in regards to the claim of her death, 3 days in the tomb.
My faith believes Mary suffered no bodily corruption of death in the assumption.
Before we get into the doctrine, time limits of the soul and body at death. Please explain from your faith expression what exactly defined as Mary died, dead for 3 days is believed in regards to her dead body fallen to corruption or not, and if not where is the soul, during the 3 days the body of Mary is dead, and what has happened to the body in death?
What we have been addressing is the faith expressed from the doctrine of the assumption. One believes Mary died, was dead for 3 days and then assumed into heaven, body and soul. Explain the death, the body and soul dead for 3 days before the assumption. I never knew a soul could die for 3 days? These are the issues being addressed now for me.
My faith expression reveals that at the completion of Mary’s life on earth, (no time limit expressed here) God assumed Mary into heaven both body and soul. This is a reasonable faith expression in the Assumption, and it is revealed from Sacred Tradition.
What is not expressed from sacred Tradition is the time limit of Mary’s death, the soul ever leaving her body during her dead body for 3 days etc… plus the questions I have that have not been answered by my oponents.
Again what is being addressed is the faith expressed from the assumption. Once this is cleared the doctrine, the documents pertaining to the assumption becomes alot more clearer. So far the discussion entered muddy waters, because the issue of faith is not being addressed only what it is written. Letters on a page can never express faith.
I asked, "If Mary died for 3 days, where did her soul go when her body died? When the doctrine of the assumption declares “both” body and soul were assumed into heaven.
The time frame is debatable when the soul leaves the body. I am not asking for such doctrine, or definitive answer. I would like to know what is believed “expressed in faith” of Mary died for days dead and then assumed. Do they litterally believe Mary suffered mortal death that suffers to corruption?
How can anyone hold to a faith Mary died for 3 days and then assumed into heaven and cannot define this expression of faith, in how it is believed, before going to the documents?
My 93 year old grandmother believes in the assumption, but she cannot read or write. Yet she can defend her faith in the assumption of Mary and give a faith definition without any documents and never contradict nor conflict with any of the documented documents of the assumption of Mary. I fear not tell my grandmother that Mary suffered a bodily death to corruption for 3 days. But no one can tell me here how this faith in the 3 day death happens from their expression of faith, then support it with documents.
I feel short changed here, I have defended and answered my position from insults and subject to ridicule. Yet for my rebuttle exchange the battlefield scattered. I hate to admit, but I find this reoccurring incident too often among Orthodox, and Byzantines, who rant and rave and then cut out. Face me on both sides of the debates.
Peace be with you
V
Vico
Guest
First I say that every last detail is not part of the tradition, but we have that the faithful, body and soul unite, at the Parousia.
Second, as an analog, if two people are traveling together and then separate for a time, they could meet at a dwelling and be admitted together simultaneously.
As to the faith, the separation of body and soul is the condition of death and from ancient times bodily decay was held to begin on the fourth day after death. When Christ died his body and soul separated for three days, and then ascended, body and soul into Heaven. That is a traditional belief that also applies to the Theotokos.
Where are the bodies and souls till then? Depending upon the Church theology, this temporal existence between the physical world and Heaven have different names. St. John Damascene describes after death in an Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:“Now, when we say resurrection, we mean a resurrection of bodies. For resurrection is a raising up again of one who has fallen. But, since souls are immortal, how shall they rise again? Well, if death is defined as a separation of soul from body, the resurrection is the perfect rejoining of soul and body, and the raising up again of the dissolved and fallen living being. Therefore, the very body which is corrupted and dissolved will itself rise up incorruptible.”
(Also refer to CCC 624 and 627)
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
,
Thank you, I have addressed the subject matter that is not part of tradition. But have been falsely accused of not knowing my own Roman Catholic faith:shrug:
.
No disagreement here. Yet the topic in regards to the assumption of Mary is distinct from the Parousia in the resurrection.
.
This is very debatable on 3 fronts theologically, scientifically and from the expression of faith . Scientifically the body immediately begins the decaying process with rigormortis, theologically the body returns to dust and the soul returns to God. The third front deals with faith in God. God took Enoch and Elijah before death, God burried Moses, yet Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus at His Transfiguration. By faith It is never a great feat for God to assume the blessed Virgin Mary into heaven body and soul.
In other words, “Faith” does not require science to dictate what is believed in the assumption of Mary into heaven body and soul. This is my whole point in regards to Mary died, layed dead in the tomb for 3 days and then resurrected? Faith is required here, not time restraints and limiting God to a type of science in order to try and understand God for what God has revealed.
Scripture and Tradition reveal that Jesus descended to the dead during his 3 days in the tomb. Where was Mary while she lay dead for 3 days? The Sacred Tradition holds that at the completion of Mary’s life on earth, Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul. Small “t” tradition holds that Mary died layed dead for 3 days before being assumed into heaven body and soul.
Sacred Tradition does not reveal Mary descended to the dead as Jesus did in releasing the captives after 3 days in the tomb.
Theologically 3 days connotes enough time had passed for Jesus body dead in the tomb. Does this 3 days of Mary in the tomb connote the same time as Jesus, or is Mary’s 3 days in the tomb a litteral belief of 3 days? How is this faith being expressed here from Mary dead for 3 days?
.
What you state here, is what I have been trying to get across. Just because one person’s theology expresses Mary died for 3 days and then assumed into heaven body and soul, and another’s theology or faith expresses no definitive time elapsed after the completion of Mary’s life on earth, was assumed into heaven both body and soul. Neither one is incorrect from each faith being expressed here. What is revealed from both scripture and sacred Tradition is that Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul.
St. John Damascene is describing the resurrection, not the assumption of Mary. My Catholic faith has always maintained the bodily resurrection long before John Damascene begins to write about it.
I believe in Mary’s assumption, and that Mary suffered no bodily corruption at the completion of her life on earth from her assumption into heaven body and soul.
Does the 3 days of Mary body dead in the tomb suffer bodily corruption? This 3 days also expresses a resurrection of Mary, does this mean according to John of Damascene that Mary’s body fell into corruption in death, and then when she was assumed into heaven her body became uncorrupted? These are the questions I ask if this is what is believed by those who place Mary in the tomb after 3 days dead?
We differ from our faith being expressed from our theologies, but they never depart the sacred Tradition that Mary was assumed into heaven both body and soul.
V
Vico
Guest
Gabriel of 12,
You wrote: “Yet the topic in regards to the assumption of Mary is distinct from the Parousia in the resurrection.”
Distinct but not ignoring the general understanding of the soul and body being separate for a time after death, which is the point.
You wrote: “I believe in Mary’s assumption, and that Mary suffered no bodily corruption at the completion of her life on earth from her assumption into heaven body and soul.”
So do I.
You wrote: “Sacred Tradition does not reveal Mary descended to the dead as Jesus did in releasing the captives after 3 days in the tomb.”
Truly it is not detailed as a matter of dogma de fide.
You ask: “does the 3 days of Mary body dead in the tomb suffer bodily corruption?”
The belief from ancient times is that body did not decay until after 3 days, which is what I am saying is the context in which the scriptures of that era were written. Naturally, the faithful would build upon this their various traditions. St. John Damascene gives a definition of death as “a separation of soul from body” and of resurrection as “the perfect rejoining of soul and body, and the raising up again of the dissolved and fallen living being”. The we also know there is a third term assumption (which is of body and soul). CCC 627 mentions more than the sign but about bodily decay belief "… Jesus’ Resurrection “on the third day” was the sign of this, also because bodily decay was held to begin on the fourth day after death.474
474 Cf. 1 Cor 15:4; Lk 24:46; Mt 12:40; Jon 2:1; Hos 6:2; cf. Jn 11:39.
You ask if according to John of Damascene did Mary’s body fall into corruption in death, and then when assumed into heaven does her body became uncorrupted?"
St. John makes no statement in what I quoted from him, that requires corruption, rather he concludes that “… the very body which is corrupted and dissolved will itself rise up incorruptible”.
Since the Theotokos is currently assumed into heaven, body and soul, then resurrection of body and soul would not occur for her at the general resurrection.
You wrote: “Yet the topic in regards to the assumption of Mary is distinct from the Parousia in the resurrection.”
Distinct but not ignoring the general understanding of the soul and body being separate for a time after death, which is the point.
You wrote: “I believe in Mary’s assumption, and that Mary suffered no bodily corruption at the completion of her life on earth from her assumption into heaven body and soul.”
So do I.
You wrote: “Sacred Tradition does not reveal Mary descended to the dead as Jesus did in releasing the captives after 3 days in the tomb.”
Truly it is not detailed as a matter of dogma de fide.
You ask: “does the 3 days of Mary body dead in the tomb suffer bodily corruption?”
The belief from ancient times is that body did not decay until after 3 days, which is what I am saying is the context in which the scriptures of that era were written. Naturally, the faithful would build upon this their various traditions. St. John Damascene gives a definition of death as “a separation of soul from body” and of resurrection as “the perfect rejoining of soul and body, and the raising up again of the dissolved and fallen living being”. The we also know there is a third term assumption (which is of body and soul). CCC 627 mentions more than the sign but about bodily decay belief "… Jesus’ Resurrection “on the third day” was the sign of this, also because bodily decay was held to begin on the fourth day after death.474
474 Cf. 1 Cor 15:4; Lk 24:46; Mt 12:40; Jon 2:1; Hos 6:2; cf. Jn 11:39.
You ask if according to John of Damascene did Mary’s body fall into corruption in death, and then when assumed into heaven does her body became uncorrupted?"
St. John makes no statement in what I quoted from him, that requires corruption, rather he concludes that “… the very body which is corrupted and dissolved will itself rise up incorruptible”.
Since the Theotokos is currently assumed into heaven, body and soul, then resurrection of body and soul would not occur for her at the general resurrection.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
.
Agreed, but how is it believed in relation to the assumption of Mary? was her body and soul ever separated while she died for 3 days?
I am trying to understand the Orthodox/Byzantine (tradition) position in relation to this;
Do they believe Mary’s body and soul were ever separated from her death?
When the doctrine of the assumption teaches that body Mary’s soul and body were taken into heaven.
How do they justify Mary’s death in the tomb for 3 days and what has happened to Mary’s soul while her body laid dead for 3 days?
From what you related here, is that while Mary died, her soul never left her body? Because it was believed the soul remained in the body for 4 days?
Is that the consensus of Mary died for 3 days? The soul and the body lie in wait together in death while in the tomb until the assumption?
You do know there is scripture that contradicts this example?
Is that how it is justified that Mary died dead for 3 days with her soul? When and how is it justified that the soul of Mary died, when scripture reveals at death the soul returns to God? Do you have a document defining what happened to Mary’s soul after she died for 3 days?
How is it believed that Mary’s body dead for 3 days never suffered corruption? Now I ask for documents, writings to justify this belief.
.
Agreed and I have argued this point, the dogma does not hold to any definitive time that Mary died, only small “t” tradition holds to the 3 day death of Mary’s body, but does not relate to the soul during the 3 days, only that at the assumption both were taken up to heaven. Now does this mean Mary’s soul was taken up at a separate time other than her body? This has not been revealed here yet? Care to expound on this topic?
Agreed but John’s example of death separated the soul from the body to corruption to be rasied uncorrupted in the resurrection. In the assumption Mary suffered no bodily corruption, God assumed both body and soul of Mary into heaven.** It is not revealed from the doctrine if God assumed Mary’s soul first and then at a later time God assumed her body later after 3 days dead in the tomb.** The doctrine only reveals that God assumed both Mary’s soul and body into heaven.
According to the Orthodox/Byzantine God did this all after 3 days Mary died, assumed both her body and soul into heaven. So John Damascene’s resurrection does not define this view of the assumption of Mary. Because St. John has the dead body fall into corruption and then later to be resurrected joined with the soul. These two views appear to be in contradiction. I am not disagreeing with either position. I am revealing that the assumption is distinct from the general resurrection.
V
Vico
Guest
No, St. John Damascene does not state that the body falls into corruption at the first minute of death.
**BOOK III CHAPTER XXVIII
**** Concerning Corruption and Destruction. **
Code:
The word corruption (1) has two meanings (2). For it signifies all the human sufferings, such as hunger, thirst, weariness, the piercing with nails, death, that is, the separation of soul and body, and so forth. In this sense we say that our Lord's body was subject to corruption. For He voluntarily accepted all these things. But corruption means also the complete resolution of the body into its constituent elements, and its utter disappearance, which is spoken of by many preferably as destruction. The body of our Lord did not experience this form of corruption, as the prophet David says, For Thou will not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine holy one to see corruption (3).
Wherefore to say, with that foolish Julianus and Gaianus, that our Lord's body was incorruptible, in the first sense of the word, before His resurrection is impious. For if it were incorruptible it was not really, but only apparently, of the same essence as ours, and what the Gospel tells us happened, viz. the hunger, the thirst, the nails, the wound in His side, the death, did not actually occur. But if they only apparently happened, then the mystery of the dispensation is an imposture and a sham, and He became man only in appearance, and not in actual fact, and we are saved only in appearance, and not in actual fact. But God forbid, and may those who so say have no part in the salvation (4). But we have obtained and shall obtain the true salvation. But in the second meaning of the word "corruption," we confess that our Lord's body is incorruptible, that is, indestructible, for such is the tradition of the inspired Fathers. Indeed, after the resurrection of our Saviour from the dead, we say that our Lord's body is incorruptible even in the first sense of the word. For our Lord by His own body bestowed the gifts both of resurrection and of subsequent incorruption even on our own body, He Himself having become to us the first fruits both of resurrection and incorruption, and of passionlessness (5). For as the divine Apostle says, This corruptible must put on incorruption (6).The common belief I was referring to is that corruption of the body begins on the fourth day after the soul leaves the body.
As soon as the soul of the Theotokos leaves the body it is received by Christ.
But the exact instant of the* bodily* disappearance is not specified, rather tradition relates that the Mother of God died in Jerusalem, after a visit with all of Christ’s apostles. The apostles carried her coffin to the Garden of Gethsemane and placed it into a tomb. However Thomas came late and wanted to reverence her body but when the tomb was inspected it was found empty but for the winding sheet.
West
As you said, for the Assumption, the precise moment that the body is assumed and the precise moment that the soul is in Heaven, in not detailed in the dogmatic definition de fide.
" … we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
But there are other teachings on the particular judgement that would apply. From Ott:
The souls of the just which in the moment of death are free from all guilt of sin and punishment for sin, enter into Heaven. (De fide.)
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
.
Agreed St.John does not indicate any duration of time which p(name removed by moderator)oints the body corrupts at death. This is part of the mystery being addressed in regards to the time factor of the body at death falling into corruption. By today’s standards and science can prove and defeat the the “t” tradition of the 3 days of the body dead does not corrupt.
St.John’s commentary again is addressing Jesus and the resurrection, not Mary’s assumption. Although, St.John relates the body and the resurrection and the types of bodily corruption. But if 3 days or any time frame is not added to St.John’s commentary, (which he does not include from) his comments can relate to the assumption. But when you add a time element to the death process event, it corrupts St.John’s commentary.
**BOOK III CHAPTER XXVIII
Concerning Corruption and Destruction. **
When the time factor is silent, now all of St.John’s Damascenes writings come into play and become a reality and a subject of faith and Sacred Tradition. Which science cannot refute.
That said; faith in the assumption the general resurrection, bodily corruption, bodily incorruptible are all believed in “universally” by all the Christian faithful. What is not universally believed is the time factors of when these events took place and when they will take place. Faith is required here. Confining these events to specific time lines runs the risk of being labeled a myth and become subject to defeat and rejection “scientifically”.
Is there any commentary’s documents that confirm after 3 days, they saw Mary being assumed into heaven? Please provide any documents to this event.
West
Amen I believe this teaching, but no exact time limit is specified nor are these events limited to a time, only that it happens after death. Which confirms my faith in the assumption of Mary into heaven both body and soul.
I understand your point of the belief of 4 days. But this 4 day belief falls apart when measured up against today’s standards from a scientific fact that the body begins the process of corruption after the breath has left the body permanently. Again when a time factor of 3 days is added in to the assumption of Mary as “definitively”, scientifically speaking is not a reality that takes place and the 3 day death of Mary begins to fall apart, because the body falls into corruption.
When the time factor is silent, now all of St.John’s Damascenes writings come into play and become a reality and a subject of faith and Sacred Tradition. Which science cannot refute.
That said; faith in the assumption the general resurrection, bodily corruption, bodily incorruptible are all believed in “universally” by all the Christian faithful. What is not universally believed is the time factors of when these events took place and when they will take place. Faith is required here. Confining these events to specific time lines runs the risk of being labeled a myth and become subject to defeat and rejection “scientifically”.
I believe this also; but the Orthodox/Byzantine places a specific time factor to this event, taking place after 3 days Mary is dead in the tomb. I don’t confine God to a timeline, I believe this took place at the completion of Mary’s life on earth, that God assumed Mary into heaven “both” her body and soul. I don’t believe God recieved just Mary’s soul apart from her body, God assumed both. When this takes place between the soul leaving the body at death, I don’t limit God to a time frame, because I believe what the Angel Gabriel told Mary from the annunciation “for with God nothing will be impossible”.
This is all good indeed. But this never reveals that God may have assumed Mary’s body and soul into heaven just as soon as Mary’s body was set in the tomb. It only reveals after a time later “could be 3 days later”? that Thomas came later and when the tomb was inspected Mary’s body was already gone. No one here has yet confirmed that Mary was assumed after 3 days dead? Only that after 3 days? Mary’s tomb was inspected after a time, was found empty.
Is there any commentary’s documents that confirm after 3 days, they saw Mary being assumed into heaven? Please provide any documents to this event.
West
]
Amen I believe this teaching, but no exact time limit is specified nor are these events limited to a time, only that it happens after death. Which confirms my faith in the assumption of Mary into heaven both body and soul.
A
andrewstx
Guest
What it all comes down to is that Orthodoxy and western Latin Christianity have different concepts of original sin.
The east does not beleive in inherited sin.
And with no inherited sin there is no need for immaculate conception.
The east does not beleive in inherited sin.
And with no inherited sin there is no need for immaculate conception.
L
LayingHands
Guest
Mary’s mother Anne, was a pious woman, who was well known for her beliefs and marriage in GOD. Her heritage included a very pious family line too…so Mary was special. in her inheritance of family. GOD chose her because of her goodness and piousness, as raised by her saintly mother.Funny because, my own view is that the Orthodox denial of Mary’s special preparation does just what you accuse the Catholics of- make her something more than a woman!
I’ve asked this question a few times before and never even once gotten an answer: Mary was born and lived in a situation of no sacraments- until she was at-least around fifty, when the church was formed. She was not baptized as a baby. Yet the Orthodox say she was perfectly sinless. This leaves me asking: How? What kind of human being can (without special help/preparation) remain perfectly sinless, beat all the effects of the fallen World? What? Either this is no ordinary human being we are talking about, or we have to fall into pelagianism and say that there are some (like the Theotokos) who are actually NOT absolutely dependent on divine grace for holiness.
The Catholic belief acknowledges unflinchingly that Our Lady, (like every single one of us) would have to have grace to be Holy. The immaculate Conception is this granting of the Grace to her and this Grace is the ONLY reason she could remain perfectly Holy throughout her entire life. Her obedience through her free will is the reason she did remain perfectly Holy.
V
Vico
Guest
I think the obvious is being overlooked here for all the details. Since death is the separation of the soul from the body, and Mary’s body died prior to it being placed into the tomb, the soul had already departed, then sometime later before they inspected the tomb, the body was reunited with the soul (already in heaven).
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Then I would conclude what I have stated from the beginning. So long as the faith in the resurrection according to the body and the soul relates to the assumption of Mary, although the specific time line is not part of the doctrine of the assumption. But the time line that one holds to as far as the 3 day is concerned so long as it is holding to “tradition” and the faith of the resurrection according to the body and soul, this 3 day small “t” tradition" does not conflict with the doctrine of the assumption of Mary which details that at the completion of Mary’s life, God assumed Mary into heaven body and soul into heaven.
Peace be with you
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
I think you should read the whole thread before commenting, i dont know what u mean by ‘inherited sin’. But the thread so far shows that both east and west believes we inherited the stain/sickness of sin from adam so we are born sick. The IC says she was born without this sickness/stain. So in both cases there is need for the IC.
Ubenedictus
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
The saintliness of her family cannot make her sinless. I’m sorry but a sainly family cant ensure sinlesness.
Ubenedictus
U
Ubenedictus
Guest
agreed. Peace
- Status