E
EricF
Guest
I guess this all makes for lively healthy debate, often a rareity on CAF, but to me, I would like opinions on what tangible difference to our faith it would make either way.
- Status
T
thistle
Guest
The only dogmatic statement in MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS is that of Mary’s Assumption. The Church does not have a teaching on whether Mary died first or not before being assumed. Catholics must believe Mary’s Assumption but are free to believe she died or did not die first!
C
ColorMomma
Guest
Even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, we know through tradition. I’m sure someone else can more expertly describe what that tradition is. I do know that there is no record of a burial place for Mary. We know where Jesus was crucified, we know where He was born. Surely, if Mary was buried in a tomb, there would be rumor or record of such a place. There is none to my knowledge.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Folks of CAF: When someone asks, ‘[D]id Mary die or not?’, it is not correct to say ‘we don’t know’/‘no’. It is a fact that she died. It does not matter if you need to believe it or not, the OP solely asked if she died or did not die, and the simple answer is YES, she did in fact die. This has been expounded by Apostolic Tradition, private revelation, and alluded to in the Munificentissimus Deus! This should not be an argument. If you want to personally and individually believe that she did not die, then that is your affair, but do not teach to others that she did not die, pretty please with sugar on top.
Last edited:
C
ColorMomma
Guest
U
Usagi
Guest
I’m afraid the earliest written attestation to the Assumption is quite late, and also happens to be in a work otherwise deemed heretical. We don’t even have the “a few decades later, by a guy who may at least have known people who saw it happen” sort of documentation that Acts provides of Jesus’ Ascension, and of course our sources aren’t inspired.
The best we can do is look for evidence of early belief in the Assumption, and for that the lack of any relics of Mary’s body is actually pretty compelling (if indirect) evidence. As you may know, keeping track of the bones or at least the tombs of the saints was a custom that developed during the era of persecutions, and in later times the craze for saintly relics was such that a great many fakes were passed off as the real thing.
So, not only does it seem likely that early Christians would have kept the actual remains of the most beloved saint in Christendom if there were any to keep, but there was every incentive to produce false relics of the Virgin if anyone would have fallen for them. But neither occurred, which is a strong indicator that everyone knew there weren’t any relics of her actual body to be preserved, the same way no one would dare claim to have any part of Jesus’ body (well, except for the one left behind after His circumcision, which several places claim to have — again, it was a thing once upon a time).
The best we can do is look for evidence of early belief in the Assumption, and for that the lack of any relics of Mary’s body is actually pretty compelling (if indirect) evidence. As you may know, keeping track of the bones or at least the tombs of the saints was a custom that developed during the era of persecutions, and in later times the craze for saintly relics was such that a great many fakes were passed off as the real thing.
So, not only does it seem likely that early Christians would have kept the actual remains of the most beloved saint in Christendom if there were any to keep, but there was every incentive to produce false relics of the Virgin if anyone would have fallen for them. But neither occurred, which is a strong indicator that everyone knew there weren’t any relics of her actual body to be preserved, the same way no one would dare claim to have any part of Jesus’ body (well, except for the one left behind after His circumcision, which several places claim to have — again, it was a thing once upon a time).
U
Usagi
Guest
I believe we do have a place identified as her tomb or intended tomb in Jerusalem. What we don’t have is any relics of her actual body.
Whether she was buried there (either brought back from Ephesus or living there again at the end of her life) and then assumed from that tomb, or whether she had that set aside for her as a tomb but never occupied it, I do not know.
Whether she was buried there (either brought back from Ephesus or living there again at the end of her life) and then assumed from that tomb, or whether she had that set aside for her as a tomb but never occupied it, I do not know.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
I do not know where you get that from. And, what do you mean by ‘reports’? Something transmitted in writing, something carried along orally, etc.?
Perhaps those theologians have forgotten that Our Blessed Lord was spared from original sin and died; it is possible for physical death to come to both Our Blessed Lord and Our Blessed Mother.
Right, expounded by Apostolic Tradition. The Dogma of the Assumption (Mary’s being assumed into Heaven, body and soul) has been interpreted, expounded, explained (whatever word you like) by the Dogma itself as Mary having died in Christ, rose with Christ, and was assumed into Heaven with Christ (body and soul); those are the details of the Dogma. However, I believe the assent that one must have is to believe what paragraph 44 states in the Munificentissimus Deus, as I believe you mentioned earlier. However, that does not mean one should state she did not die.
Perhaps those theologians have forgotten that Our Blessed Lord was spared from original sin and died; it is possible for physical death to come to both Our Blessed Lord and Our Blessed Mother.
Right, expounded by Apostolic Tradition. The Dogma of the Assumption (Mary’s being assumed into Heaven, body and soul) has been interpreted, expounded, explained (whatever word you like) by the Dogma itself as Mary having died in Christ, rose with Christ, and was assumed into Heaven with Christ (body and soul); those are the details of the Dogma. However, I believe the assent that one must have is to believe what paragraph 44 states in the Munificentissimus Deus, as I believe you mentioned earlier. However, that does not mean one should state she did not die.
Last edited:
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I’m going to have to back Deacon Jeff on this. In college, I took a grad level class on Mary taught by a notable mariologist, and he said exactly the same things that Deacon Jeff has been saying. Pius XII was deliberately ambiguous. Why else would he phrase the articulation of the dogma in such a way?
Whether or not Mary died has no bearing on the fact that she was assumed body and soul into heaven. Whether or not she died is not part of revelation.
Whether or not Mary died has no bearing on the fact that she was assumed body and soul into heaven. Whether or not she died is not part of revelation.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
I think I might have worded that poorly, I am sorry. I believe all Core Dogmas that the Church has to assent to have been Revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ, transmitted by Tradition and Scripture, and properly interpreted and safeguarded by the Magisterium of the Church. The assent that you and I must give to the Dogma of the Assumption is in paragraph 44! However, the details of this Dogma have been explained by Apostolic Tradition, Sacred Scripture (implicitly), and even in private revelation. One of those details is that she did in fact die. Is our salvation incumbent on believing in her dying? No! But, that does not mean that she did not die! Does that make sense?
I do not have a problem with that. I am intent on it because I believe it to be a fact and part of revelation.
I do not have a problem with that. I am intent on it because I believe it to be a fact and part of revelation.
Last edited:
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Here is where the rub is. We can believe it to be a fact (or not), but we cannot go so far as to say it is part of revelation. Pius XII didn’t go that far. If someone wants to argue that Mary did not die, they can do so without being seen as a heretic.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Right, hence why I said ‘I believe it to be a fact’, ‘I’, not we.
There are details of Dogmas that have been revealed, publicly and privately. Did you not read the private revelation of Saint Bridget posted on this thread concerning the death of Mary?
J
Joe_5859
Guest
When I speak of “revelation”, I am speaking of public revelation, which is what the magisterium is concerned with.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Sure. But, just because the Magisterium is silent and/or ambiguous on a detail of public revelation, does not mean it did not occur, e.g. Mary’s physical death.
For example, the Magisterium is silent of some of the details of the Passion of Our Lord. The Paschal Mystery is Core Dogma and we must assent to it. However, there are details that have been revealed and carried along by Tradition and Scripture, e.g. Christ was crucified naked. Do you have to believe that detail? Absolutely not! But, being given the liberty to choose whether to believe in that detail or not, does not debunk the fact that this was a detail of His Passion. This detail has been a part of Tradition, Scripture, and private revelation.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
I did not say that. You are putting words into my mouth and reading into my comments. I said:
You are free to believe in private revelation or to ignore it. But, just because you choose to ignore it does not mean that it did not happen.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Sure. Obviously, Mary either died or she did not die before she was assumed. It cannot—in reality—be both. What I believe Deacon Jeff has been saying and what I have been trying to say is that the magisterium has intentionally left the question open. Good Catholics can disagree about whether or not Mary died and still be good Catholics.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Agreed!!!
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Yes, some details have been revealed publicly, some have been revealed privately. Of which some details have been revealed privately, i.e. Saint Bridget.
Sure they have! I would argue most all of private revelation is simply just that, details of Dogmas.
Sure they have! I would argue most all of private revelation is simply just that, details of Dogmas.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Ah, but I am not choosing to believe it for the sake of attempting to appease my conscience. It has been revealed that Mary had a physical death, therefore I choose to believe it happened.
- Status