G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Amen, Amen, Amen, and Amen, 
Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Immaculate Conception?
- Status
V
Vico
Guest
In the dogmatic definition of the Assumption there are various categories of teachings. It does include the tradition of the bodily death of the Theotokos but not de fide. As Ott wrote in his book âMary suffered a temporal death. (Sent. communior.)â Which he comments on: Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.
catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/councils/summary.htm
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Actually I donât see this. IMHO when Pope Pius XII promugated the Dogma of âMunificentissimus Deusâ there is not a definate position arrived at by the Church.
âby our own authority, 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 gloryâ
If we are to agree that the Blessed Virgin Mother was free from the original Stain of Sin, then too she would have been have been free from the result of that law which is âdeathâ.
Was Jesus Christ subject to death? Of course not, in fact he chose to accept it by His Free-Will, love of mankind, thus the redemption of mankind. The Blessed Mothers situation would be no different in this regard as to death of the flesh IMHO in regards to Adam and Eve. In fact the church teaching in this regard is very old as Eve/Mary.
I kinda follow the Dormition [must more in dated history than its actual theology, I admit] however, isnât the Eastern Church terminology that She Fell Asleep? How could we immediately jump from sleep to death?
H
Hesychios
Guest
This is derivative logic, which has no place in the document or in traditional belief. Tradition is very clear: she died. It doesnât matter what we want to believe, we have to conform ourselves and our understanding to this very ancient and very real Christian fact.
The theory that she âcould not have died, because âŚâ may make sense to some people, from their vantage point in the 21st century making certain assumptions that early Christians did not make. It is ânew-thinkâ, novelty, about the same kind of theology as the âNew Lightâ of the Jehovah Witnesses.
Just as we do not assume that Pope John Paul II did not die, because we saw what happened to him, the early Christians did not assume that the BVM did not die because they saw what happened to her.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuM4fqYiKROxECHaHIqBKGChXRlBrmVK4KTAaMBye0_8tQLbFs
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQeXLsVhxYFCgK6Nh0Gu9ask-BK0qZqXuCTggacIJAt5ORlgSkV4w
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0MXlyyjjhojhNaQ_7MVsMiCqu3a6QFgr1PoxGM29HZZK7pC3dZA
It is the euphemism for bodily death, which is still used today.
The reason for the euphemism is that many non-Christians (and even some Jews as Sadducees) did not believe in a life after death. The euhemism has always been universally applied to all who passed on through bodily death.
J
jam070406
Guest
I heard a theologian on Catholic radio say that even before the fall humans were not created to live forever. So her death would be natural for a finite creature and not really related to sin.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
To me its not question of âdidâ she in fact pass on. What comes to question in my mind did She in fact have to. For I would assume IMHO that She would have thought human death the most fitting in light of what she witnessed in Her life. Aside from the fact evidence seems to indicate this. Yet I see a large gap in historical evidence their.
St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.
This we know was stated, for sure, however, noting its not stated till the 4th century. The Bible leaves us with an open end also.
Would Maryâs Assumption have been impossible without Jesusâ Resurrection? Death is the result of the Fall. If Mary is the New Eve, who shares in the New Adamâs victory over sin, then she should also share in His victory over death and physical decay.
How would any theologian know this from Scripture or Tradition? All we are left with from this period is Genesis. as to man in the Garden not created to live forever? All we know is that âafterâ the disobedience, death entered the world, that for sure is Biblical. How someone can conclude otherwise I do not see?
The Assumption is early, but not that early from anything Iâve seen. In fact I would think as relating to the below quotes which are valid. that had this actual proof been in existence? Then why leave an open end to the Dogma? Though I agree she passed on, it all just doesnât exactly add up to me.
âIf therefore it might come to pass before the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death does reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your mother and take her with you, rejoicing into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: 'Be it done according to your willâ (Pseudo-Melito The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17; 300 AD).
âTherefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumptionâ (Timothy of Jerusalem Homily on Simeon and Anna; 400 AD).
âAnd from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradiseâ (John the Theologian, The Falling Asleep of Mary; 400 AD)
âThe Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoinedd to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lordâs chosen onesâŚâ (Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4; 575-593 A.D.)
âAs 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.â (Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306, before A.D. 634)
âIt was fittingâŚthat the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinized, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full gloryâŚshould be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.â (Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption; before 650 A.D.)
Just Sayin, what I believe is she passed away and would have wanted it no other way. However I get where the logic comes from. Maryâs life ended, and the Church has never declared whether she died and was raised up, or without ever dying. So Catholics are free to believe either one.
As I believe and $2.00 will get you a coffee at DDs.
St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.
This we know was stated, for sure, however, noting its not stated till the 4th century. The Bible leaves us with an open end also.
Would Maryâs Assumption have been impossible without Jesusâ Resurrection? Death is the result of the Fall. If Mary is the New Eve, who shares in the New Adamâs victory over sin, then she should also share in His victory over death and physical decay.
How would any theologian know this from Scripture or Tradition? All we are left with from this period is Genesis. as to man in the Garden not created to live forever? All we know is that âafterâ the disobedience, death entered the world, that for sure is Biblical. How someone can conclude otherwise I do not see?
The Assumption is early, but not that early from anything Iâve seen. In fact I would think as relating to the below quotes which are valid. that had this actual proof been in existence? Then why leave an open end to the Dogma? Though I agree she passed on, it all just doesnât exactly add up to me.
âIf therefore it might come to pass before the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death does reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your mother and take her with you, rejoicing into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: 'Be it done according to your willâ (Pseudo-Melito The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17; 300 AD).
âTherefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumptionâ (Timothy of Jerusalem Homily on Simeon and Anna; 400 AD).
âAnd from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradiseâ (John the Theologian, The Falling Asleep of Mary; 400 AD)
âThe Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoinedd to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lordâs chosen onesâŚâ (Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4; 575-593 A.D.)
âAs 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.â (Modestus of Jerusalem, Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae (PG 86-II,3306, before A.D. 634)
âIt was fittingâŚthat the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinized, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full gloryâŚshould be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God.â (Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption; before 650 A.D.)
Just Sayin, what I believe is she passed away and would have wanted it no other way. However I get where the logic comes from. Maryâs life ended, and the Church has never declared whether she died and was raised up, or without ever dying. So Catholics are free to believe either one.
As I believe and $2.00 will get you a coffee at DDs.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Scripture does not reveal Mary died implicitly nor explicitly. This âdiedâ never reaches Sacred Apostolic Tradition supported by apostolic writings (scripture). Mary âdiedâ is revealed from âtâ tradition. Sacred Tradition which is supported by Sacred Scripture becomes binding on all believers.
This is not to discount those who hold to Mary died from their âtâ traditions, but it is not apostolic Tradition that is supported by scripture.
Isnât dieing in the natural sense an Oxymoron to the assumption? If your definition of âdiedâ pertains to the biblical context of the resurrection, Mary died does not contradict the assumption. If your definition of âdiedâ pertains to the biblical context of the resurrection to the assumption then both sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are revealed.
If your âdiedâ defines a natural death of mortal decay, then âtâ tradition and the apostolic teachings contradict your âdiedâ definition.
Defining your âdeathâ in the biblical context of the body and soul resurrection does not contradict the doctrine of the assumption, anyone is free to believe this, but it is not binding on all the faithful that Mary died and after 3 days resurrected. Only at the completion of Maryâs life on earth God assumed Mary into heaven both body and soul.
H
Hesychios
Guest
No.
She died.
She was resurrected as among the first fruits of the coming resurrection. This is why she was assumed, as part of the resurrection.
Thatâs it.
H
Hesychios
Guest
This is where the imagineering begins. Roman Catholics are looking for loopholes to make new myths, and you accept that.
It is saddening and disappointing.
We see this and it becomes very clear why there is little to no hope of healing the schism, it is further proof that the church has become ontologically different. This tendency to make up things really has got to stop, or the Roman Catholic church will never be allowed to share communion with the rest of Apostolic Christianity. It will always be on the outside looking in.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Let us pray that is not the case, and letâs try to avoid having the misconceptions of some (willful or innocent, or perhaps misinterpreted) be deemed as a defining reflection of the enlightenment and well-intentioned efforts of many, many others who honesty endeavor to promote mutual understanding and progress toward reconciliation.
Faithful often need catechesis to properly understand exactly what their Church teaches. It may also help to approach such subjects with humility, recognizing that we may not fully understand all that is required to explain such subject matter concisely yet adequately, nor have the God-given ability to do so effectively (especially in this type of setting - an online forum).
I have largely avoided this thread, as this is an impossible topic to handle via exchange on an online forum IMHO. Even a well constructed response can omit a detail or two that would end up being a source of critical retort.
As an Eastern Christian and Catholic, having been blessed with schooling based on Eastern thought and tradition, I simply canât relate to the seemingly perpetual fascination with this subject. To us, it is somehow innately understood that the relationship between Mary, her Divine Son and the Almighty God are unique beyond expression and understanding. The details are a mystery, yet somehow not as important as the major theme. Besides, it does not seem of late that anyone involved in ongoing ecumenical dialogue is seriously raising the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as an impediment to further progress on reconciliation. It seems as if those who should know and care do understand that we are all basically in the same boat on this one (just perhaps on different decks).
The unavoidable fact is Catholics far outnumber the faithful of all other Apostolic Churches combined. Yet we do see genuine interest for true reconciliation coming from that Catholic side. History can tell all on each respective side that we should be cautious (and perhaps not so trusting), but let us pray that we can be âcautiously optimisticâ instead as ecumenical dialogue continues.
Who knows - maybe someday an Orthodox Christian and a Catholic can sit down for coffee after Mass or Divine Liturgy, and laugh at how âit was funny that you Catholics simply needed to put everything down in writing all the timeâ. The Catholic may then retort âBut you Orthodox always took everything on Faith alone âŚâ. And then Orthodox friend can then say, smiling, âWell, isnât that the point?â.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
.
Sure it is; You donât have an assumption of anything dead, thus dead is an oxymoron to assumption.
She was assumed into heaven body and soul at the completion of her life on earth. She died and was assumed into heaven body and soul. What happened to the 3 days dead in the tomb?
Which one is it resurrection or assumption? One cannot keep guessing at what Orthodox believe when combining two distinct events to be the same?
To say thatâs it? doesnât come across very well, without defending your position. But as you say this type of communication is why Orthodoxy remains stagnant, and the Roman Catholic grows in faith and understanding.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
It is not that very difficult here as the Orthodox make it out to be.
Very simple; define your death of Mary and your resurrection being an assumption.
If your definition does not conflict with apostolic writings and Traditions, there can never be any opposition from Catholics.
To simply say Mary died? leads one to mistakenly believe Mary suffered Mortal corruption.
To simply say Mary resurrected? leads one to mistakenly believe that the resurrection has occurred and Mary recieved a new body apart from the assumption.
Your right the Orthodox can help the confusion you relate here without any catechesis.
Thus that is why we are here
Peace be with you
D
dvdjs
Guest
What a strange fascination. The feast of the dormition in the Byzantine Slavic tradition does not incorporate the pious legends from here and there, but proclaims a great truth. Death is vanquished. We celebrate the exceptional translation of Mary to heaven. We celebrate a âdeathless dormitionâ. That is what we do. The fixation on her physical death is modern American imagineering.
This is amazing. For those who claim not like extraneous dogma: what is the point of adding to lex orandi of the Eastern Church with teachings about how long (less than or equal to three days) the separation of the soul and body of the Theotokos endured. It would also be good to read about the pious myth-making over the centuries regarding the dormition (amazon.com/Ancient-Traditions-Dormition-Assumption-Christian/dp/0199210748). And such myth-making has not stopped: who have so recently have glorified Peter the ostensible Aleut? Or cling to Soviet propaganda about Synods of Lâviv or Uzhgorod?
If there is an ontological difference between Catholic and Orthodox churches, it is most surely not about myth-making.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Perhaps not, but an ontological difference sure does seem to exist, or else His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew would not have given his honest opinion that this was so.
V
Vico
Guest
There are many categories of dogma. Munificentissimus Deus includes the dogma de fide in the definition, I suppose that is what you are referring to as definite, and that is exactly what I posted also. The portion of Munificentissimus Deus outside of that is free opinion, but my point was that it is generally believed to be so. In earlier posts I gave the number of places where the death of the Theotokos is mentioned.
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/p12munif.htm
Merriam-Webster:
dor¡mi¡tion
noun \doĚrËmishÉn* -s***
: death resembling falling asleep
MF, fr. LL dormition-, dormitio, fr. L, act of sleeping, fr. dormitus (past part. of dormire to sleep) + -ion-, -io -ion â more at dormant
D
dvdjs
Guest
I am curious of your assessment of Patriarch Bartholomewâs remark. Iâve asked other EOs who seem happy to make reference to it, but can never explain what that difference really is.
Itâs too bad that Patriarch Bartholomew never finished the argument in his speech. He claimed an ontological difference, then talked about the mentality of the Orthodox - or at least some Orthodox - he surely was not talking about those who squabble about the death of the Theotokos, let alone derivative logic. But the ostensible differentiation from Catholics was not addressed. I suppose that he was implicitly claiming that this mentality was unique to Orthodox. But that opinion was not supported, and is not supportable.
In any case, I am glad that we perhaps agree that whatever meant to say, it was not about myth-making.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I donât know if he meant a mentality so much as a manner of being. There seems to be a true difference, but it is hard to describe. I suppose itâs like trying to discern what makes Peter different from Paul not in what they are, but who they are. We could sit down and list differences between ecclesiastical structure, liturgy, theology and whatnot, but even with an exhaustive list thereâs still some intangible thing which makes each Church different. Still, perhaps increased interaction will close this gap made by centuries of falling out of contact. Only time will tell. I think Patriarch Bartholomewâs statement, while unpopular with some for its pessimism, does not preclude the possibility of a mutual growing together. It just seems to say that we are not there right now.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Yes I agree he excluded âecclesiastical structure, liturgy, theology and whatnotâ, and he talked about this way of being. But he talked only about how he sees Orthodoxy and not how that is different from the Catholic church. As Greek Catholic, who has spent a great deal of time with EO - converts and cradles - and in EO parishes, I am very skeptical about this putative difference. Especially when it is so ineffable. I am not particularly optimistic about gaps closing, but that lack of optimism is rooted not in this alleged ontological difference, but in the fact that it is so often proclaimed, even with some relish, but never with cogent detail of what it all means.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I think it will take a lot of time. Just look at the relationship between the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonian Churches. Statements have been made that Chalcedonian Christology is compatible with miaphysite Christology, and yet there are no signs of any impending union. Who knows how long a Catholic-Eastern Orthodox reconciliation would take, if a schism 1500 years in the making has yet to be solved, despite very positive signs of agreement.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Ah, OK I see now.
- Status