Feedback on my “breathlessly false claims” about Mary’s “Dormition” [Fr. Z]

[Taboric_Light]

pnewton,

Regarding your question about the vehemence with which some of us oppose the position of Fr. Z and many other good, orthodox, knowledgable Catholics, I can only speak for myself. Earlier I stated that I do not believe someone is a heretic if they deny the Dormition of the Holy Theotokos, but that they could be in a heretical spirit if the evidence for her Dormition has been adequately presented to them. This heretical spirit comes from their opposition to Sacred Tradition and that is why I, personally, speak strongly about this particular issue.

I found what our late holy father, John Paul II, had to say in one of his Wednesday audiences on Mary to be very interesting: ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm53.htm.

"Some theologians have in fact maintained that the Blessed Virgin did not die and was immediately raised from earthly life to heavenly glory. However, this opinion was unknown until the 17th century, whereas a common tradition actually exists which sees Mary’s death as her entry into heavenly glory.

1. Could Mary of Nazareth have experienced the drama of death in her own flesh? Reflecting on Mary’s destiny and her relationship with her divine Son, it seems legitimate to answer in the affirmative: since Christ died, it would be difficult to maintain the contrary for his Mother."

Considering what our late holy father said I have a question for all those who deny the Dormition of the Holy Theotokos: Why in the face of the massive amount of evidence from Sacred Tradition do you hold to a view that was “unkown until the 17th century” and which has never been the common tradition of the Church?

Finally, I and my fingers are very glad that you appreciate the earlier posts. Next time I will copy and paste. God bless you.

In Christ through Mary

 

[pnewton]

pFinally, I and my fingers are very glad that you appreciate the earlier posts. Next time I will copy and paste. God bless you.

In Christ through Mary

LOL. And I am glad you do not consider me or the good father heretics.

 

[tdgesq]

Considering what our late holy father said I have a question for all those who deny the Dormition of the Holy Theotokos: Why in the face of the massive amount of evidence from Sacred Tradition do you hold to a view that was “unkown until the 17th century” and which has never been the common tradition of the Church?

Here is the historical argument. The massive amount of evidence of which you speak is all fourth and fifth century testimony. The death of Mary was questioned by the one of the earliest, if not the earliest, fourth century writer, St. Epiphanius of Salamis:

The holy virgin may have died and been buried - her falling asleep was with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death – as the scripture says, “And a sword shall pierce through her soul” – her fame is among the martyrs and her holy body, by which light rose on the world, [rests] amid blessings. Or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. No one knows her end.

Ludwig Ott identifies another 6th to 8th century writer who designates himself Timotheus of Jerusalem and writes, “the virgin is up to now immortal (that is, did not die), as He who (in her) lived, translated her into the place of reception (that is, into the Heavenly Paradise).”

The point here is that there is a 300 year gap between Mary’s alleged death and the earliest testimony we have, and some of that states her end was unknown or that she did not die.

The theological argument is that we know Mary was conceived without original sin. Since death is solely a consequence of original sin (unless one voluntarily chose death), Mary did not die. Even in those writings where Mary’s death is affirmed, it is usually accompanied by the claim that her body was incorruptible.

As for JPII’s Wednesday address, I suppose it depends upon how broadly you define the term “theologian,” because there are accounts long before the 17th century. At page 16 of his book, The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption, Stephen J. Shoemaker states:

Germanus of Constantinople (715-30), for instance, reasoned that as the ‘Mother of Life’, it was indeed impossible that Mary should die: ‘death will not boast of you, because you have borne Life in your womb’. Likewise, Germanus argued this point from Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, maintaining that because her body had been transformed by this ‘into the highest life of incorruptibility . . . it was impossible that this body be subdued by the murderous confinement of the tomb.’

I have a question for Eastern Catholics. I have seen posts in the past claiming that Mary’s Dormition refers to sleep, not necessarily to temporal death. Is that considered an unorthodox position amongst EC’s?

 

[jimmy]

According to Augustine Original Sin is the result of death, not the other way around.

 

[tdgesq]

According to Augustine Original Sin is the result of death, not the other way around.

Hi Jimmy,

I don’t want to get sidetracked here, but I think Augustine’s position is a little bit different than what you’ve stated.

Augustine did teach that our first parents were mortal even before the Fall - that is - capable of death. He states just as adamantly though that it was because of Adam’s sin that he became subject to death:

Still, although it was by reason of his body that he was dust, and although he bare about the natural body in which he was created, he would, if he had not sinned, have been changed into a spiritual body, and would have passed into the incorruptible state, which is promised to the faithful and the saints, without the peril of death.

. . .

Therefore, if Adam had not sinned, he would not have been divested of his body, but would have been clothed upon with immortality and incorruption, that mortality might have been swallowed up of life; that is, that he might have passed from the natural body into the spiritual body.
On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants (Book I), Chapter 2.

Since you are a Maronite Catholic, you are in as good a position as any to give me some insight into the question of the meaning of Mary’s Dormition. Is it your understanding that the Dormition refers definitively to the Blessed Virgin’s death, or may it be accepted as a state of sleep with no further inquiry required?

 

[jimmy]

Since you are a Maronite Catholic, you are in as good a position as any to give me some insight into the question of the meaning of Mary’s Dormition. Is it your understanding that the Dormition refers definitively to the Blessed Virgin’s death, or may it be accepted as a state of sleep with no further inquiry required?

I have never heard the idea that it was literally sleep. I have only heard the dormition associated with the death of Mary. What comes to mind is the story in which Mary had died and the apostles gathered to prepare her for burial and she was miraculously taken.

Regarding what I said regarding OS in Augustine. What I said is from his work, On Free Choice of The Will. I can’t recall the exact quote but I will try to find it.

 

[jimmy]

Regarding the Augustine quote that I mentioned, here is what I got it from.Nonetheless, even some acts committed out of ignorance are condemned and judged to be worthy of correction, as we read in Scripture. St. Paul says, "I obtained your mercy, since I acted in ignorance. " The Psalmist says, “Remember not the sins of my youth and of my ignorance.” Even things done by necessity are to be condemned, as when someone wants to act rightly by cannot. That is what the following passages mean: “I do not do the good that I will; but the evil that I hate, that I do.” “To willThe good is present to me, but I find no way to do it.” “The flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh; for they war against each other, so that you do not do what you will.”

All of these troubles have come upon human beings from the sentence of death, for if they were the result of our nature and not of our penalty, they would not be sins. If we were hade to act this way naturally, so that we could be no better, we would merely be acting as we ought. If human beings were good, they would be otherwise. But as it is, they are not good, and it is not in their power to be good, either because they do not see how they ought to be, or because they lack the power to be what they see they ought to be.[Augustine, *On Free Choice of The Will. Translated by Thomas Williams. Hackett Publishing Company. Indianapolis/Cambridge. 1993, p105-106]Yes, Adam’s sin caused his death but the weakness within us (ignorance and weak will) that is the result of that sin is the result of death.

Does this have an association with whether Mary died and then was assumed? I think it does but I can’t explain it fully right now.

Regarding me as a Maronite and the Dormition; my liturgical books actually call it the assumption. Is that a false translation of the Syriac or Arabic? I do not know. But here is what they say in the prayers. From safro on the feast of the Assumption it says in the Sedro(Part of the Hoosoyo),O Christ, the Good Son and the new Adam, in whom there was life, you became man and died as a man to restore life to us by your resurrection.You desired that your Mother, the Virgin, be the second Eve and the cause of the salvation of the human race.You did not refuse to taste death for us.Your pure and immaculate Mother also tasted it, but like you, her body did not suffer corruption.You seated her as Queen of angels and men.In her the symbols of the prophets and the sayings of the prophets were verified,This is from the Qolo in the Liturgy on the feast of the Assumption,Your holy and pure body, O blessed Virgin, daugter of David, has borne the One who sustains creation and its borders. Today we have seen this body as it tasted death and departed from this world. In company with the choirs of fire and spirit, the awesome seraphim and angels, it journeyed to the new age. They all exult in your memory and they offer you hymns of praise and glory.

And from the Mazmooro,Cong: The apostles carried the body of Mary from the Upper Room. With praises and hymns, they escorted it to Gethsemane.

Cel: The fearsome cherubim and seraphim left the heavens with the angels. With great honor they escorted Mary to the dwellings of light.

Cong: Today the words of king David have been fulfilled: open the eternal gates and let the Mother of the King enter.

 

[pnewton]

While I do not think this brings about the issue to the point of dogma, or changes in any way the correctness of the good Father’s post, I found an interesting quote from the Office of Reading on the Feast of the Assumption

…what is commemorated in this feast is not simply the total absence of corruption from the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary but also her triumph over death and glorification into heaven.

 

[Taboric_Light]

Here is the historical argument. The massive amount of evidence of which you speak is all fourth and fifth century testimony.

I said that the massive amount of evidence is from Sacred Tradition. Is Sacred Tradition limited to the writings of the Fathers of the Patristic Age? Sacred Tradition includes many things besides the writings of saints and doctors. Liturgy is the most important testimony of Sacred Tradition and their is much evidence in both the Eastern and Western liturgies of the Dormtion right up to our own day. I suggest looking at my earlier post again for examples in contemporary Western liturgy. Another testimony to Sacred Tradition is iconography. The Dormition of the Holy Theotokos is today and has been for hundreds of years a common subject for iconography. Yet another, is Western sacred art, some of which has already been pointed out by other people on this thread. Finally, the written evidence is not confined to the 4th and 5th century. Many saints throughout the history of the Church have testified to the death of our Mother. Since you said all of the evidence is fourth and fifth century testimony giving one example will suffice: St. Germanus of Constantinople (look at my earlier post).

The death of Mary was questioned by the one of the earliest, if not the earliest, fourth century writer, St. Epiphanius of Salamis

When are late holy father said that the death of Mary wasn’t questioned until the 17th century he was refering to a group of theologians who explicitly denied that our Mother died. St. Epiphanius never denies her death.

Ludwig Ott identifies another 6th to 8th century writer who designates himself Timotheus of Jerusalem and writes, “the virgin is up to now immortal (that is, did not die), as He who (in her) lived, translated her into the place of reception (that is, into the Heavenly Paradise).”

Our late holy father also said that a “common tradition actually exists” holding that she died. There has never been a common tradition of the Church that she didn’t die. The reference that Ludwig Ott gives is rather obscure. 6th to 8th century? That’s a span of 200 years. Timotheus of Jerusalem? Notice that “St.” is missing. This is an obscure person in Church history who clearly stands (on this issue anyway) outside the “common tradition” of the Church.

The theological argument is that we know Mary was conceived without original sin. Since death is solely a consequence of original sin (unless one voluntarily chose death), Mary did not die.

Our holy father also said in his audience on the Dormition, which I linked to in an earlier post, that Mary not dying does not necessarily follow from being conceived without original sin. Concerning voluntarily choosing death, not all writings on the Dormition have agreed on this. This actually is an open question, but they do all agree that she did, in fact, die.

Even in those writings where Mary’s death is affirmed, it is usually accompanied by the claim that her body was incorruptible.

To my knowledge, none of the fathers and saints who have written about the Dormition ever said that her body corrupted in the tomb. The point of the Dormition is that her body didn’t corrupt. The incorruptibility of our Mother’s body has never been in question.

At page 16 of his book, The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption, Stephen J. Shoemaker states:

Germanus of Constantinople (715-30), for instance, reasoned that as the ‘Mother of Life’, it was indeed impossible that Mary should die: ‘death will not boast of you, because you have borne Life in your womb’. Likewise, Germanus argued this point from Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, maintaining that because her body had been transformed by this ‘into the highest life of incorruptibility . . . it was impossible that this body be subdued by the murderous confinement of the tomb.’

In an earlier post I gave a somewhat lengthy quote from one of St. Germanus of Constantinople’s homilies on the Dormtion. In it he was quite explicit about the Holy Theotokos dying. If you do not trust what I put in the post you can find it in the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary second reading of the Saturday vespers. Concerning the quotes from Shoemaker’s book:

1. “death will not boast of you” - Jesus Christ truly died but death did not boast of Him; saying that “death will not boast of you” does not necessarily negate one’s dying.
2. “it was impossible that this body be subdued by the murderous confinement of the tomb” - Do we say that Christ was “subdued by the murderous confinement of the tomb?” No, the tomb received His body, but His body did not remain there; likewise, we can say the same of the Holy Theotokos.
   The interpretation of these two quotes is much more consistent with St. Germanus’s homily on the Dormition than the interpretation that she did not die.

I have a question for Eastern Catholics. I have seen posts in the past claiming that Mary’s Dormition refers to sleep, not necessarily to temporal death. Is that considered an unorthodox position amongst EC’s?

Dormition means “falling asleep” which we get from St. Paul (I forget which letter exactly). Just like with St. Paul’s usage the term refers to dying, temporal death. Sleeping refers to the fact that we are in heaven and awaiting the resurrection of the body. And, yes, to consider the Dormition as a mere sleep and not death is unorthodox.

In Christ through Mary

 

[Nickkname]

I believe that Mary was assumed into heaven, but I don’t know if she died. However, it would make sense if she did die, especially in light of the Paschal Mysteries, which she had a share in as the Mother of God.

 

[Bill_Cherry]

We do seem sometimes to enjoy straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

I agree.
Matthew 22:32 may be refering to a different issue;nevertheless,SHE LIVES!
Besides,if you read THE BOOK,it ain’t so far fetched.What about Moses,and Enoch,and Melchezidec, and Elijah,…and the King of Kings Hisself!?
Gee,wiz…
Oh ye of little faith…

 

[tdgesq]

Taboric, thank you for the thoughtful response.

I said that the massive amount of evidence is from Sacred Tradition. Is Sacred Tradition limited to the writings of the Fathers of the Patristic Age?

Certainly it is not limited to that, but Sacred Tradition usually denotes the apostolic faith handed down through the successors. I suppose that is what is being questioned when the earliest accounts come from the fourth century; the late fifth century according to some.

Sacred Tradition includes many things besides the writings of saints and doctors. Liturgy is the most important testimony of Sacred Tradition and their is much evidence in both the Eastern and Western liturgies of the Dormtion right up to our own day.

I am not suggesting the value of lex orandi, lex credendi be diminished. Pope Benedict has recently spoken about its importance. Yet even Pope Pius XII in MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS recognizes:

1. However, since the liturgy of the Church does not engender the Catholic faith, but rather springs from it, in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree, it follows that the holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ’s faithful. They presented it more clearly.

Pope Pius does go on to explain:

They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.

What are those who believe that Mary’s death is open to debate supposed to think of that final explanation? I have some thoughts on that later.

Since you said all of the evidence is fourth and fifth century testimony giving one example will suffice: St. Germanus of Constantinople (look at my earlier post).

What I meant is that the earliest testimony comes from that era. I think you are correct in your analysis of St. Germanus. After reviewing again that portion of Shoemaker’s book, it appears that his point is that later theologians began using passages from Germanus to support their theory that Mary did not die. I don’t think that is a fair assessment in light of his homily concerning the Dormition. Portions of Shoemaker’s book are online if you do a search. For some reason I can’t link to it.

When are late holy father said that the death of Mary wasn’t questioned until the 17th century he was refering to a group of theologians who explicitly denied that our Mother died. St. Epiphanius never denies her death.

Correct, but I didn’t cite St. Epiphanius in answer to that question. In response to the “massive amount of evidence from Sacred Tradition,” I stated that he is one of the earliest known writers on the subject and that he didn’t know whether Mary died or not. As Shoemaker explains:

"[T]here is no evidence of any tradition concerning Mary’s Dormition and Assumption from before the fifth century. The only exception to this is Epiphanius’ unsuccessful attempt to uncover a tradition of the end of Mary’s life towards the end of the fourth century, and his failure confirms the otherwise deafening silence. The fifth century itself also has very little to offer, until the very end, when the first fragments of a Dormition narrative appear . . . .” p. 26.

And as stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Epiphanius is one of the chief authorities of the fourth century for the devotion to the Blessed Virgin. He expresses himself on the subject in connection with two heresies, of which one diminished, while the other exaggerated, this devotion (Haer.” lxxviii, lxxix)." home.newadvent.org/cathen/13393b.htm

Timotheus of Jerusalem? Notice that “St.” is missing. This is an obscure person in Church history who clearly stands (on this issue anyway) outside the “common tradition” of the Church.

He is not a saint. I have no doubt he was outside of the common tradition. As I mentioned early in the thread, even Ott admits that the Dormition is common teaching. It does show that there was someone from sixth to eighth century denying the Dormition of enough stature to influence Ott.

Our holy father also said in his audience on the Dormition, which I linked to in an earlier post, that Mary not dying does not necessarily follow from being conceived without original sin.

I agree that it does not necessarily follow. The very fact that Christ died voluntarily proves as much. I also agree with the Holy Father that she could not have been resurrected unless she died. However, a person can be assumed without resurrection, such as Enoch and Elijah.

Sleeping refers to the fact that we are in heaven and awaiting the resurrection of the body. And, yes, to consider the Dormition as a mere sleep and not death is unorthodox.

I am convinced you are correct on this. I will write off the few miscellaneous posts I’ve seen asserting otherwise as ill-founded.

 

[tdgesq]

. . . continued

Now. Here is what I’ve been trying to explore. Why is it that Ludwig Ott and Fr. Z declare that the Dormition is open to debate? And it isn’t just them. The Marian Library/International Marian Research Institute also leaves it an open question: campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/faq/faq24.html

I don’t believe it is because they don’t understand the authoritative force of the ordinary teaching magisterium. Ott early on affirms that ordinary assent is required in that circumstance, quite in line with Lumen Gentium 25. What I think it comes down to is that Pope Pius in MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS refused to infallibly define the Dormition. And more importantly, the reasons stated why he refused to do so.

Concerning Mary’s death the dogma is non-committal. It only says: “when the course of her earthly life was completed.” This somewhat evasive formulation points to two things: (1) At the time of the discussions and subsequent definition there was no unanimity regarding the end of Mary’s life. Due largely to M. Jugie’s expertise and influence, the question of Mary’s death was therefore removed from the scope of the dogma. The dogma does not say that she died, and Vatican II adopted the same position (LG 59). ] Timothy of Jerusalem (ca. 5th-8th centuries), on the other hand, was explicit: “…the virgin is immortal…he who dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption” (PG 86, 245C). campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/faq/faq24.html

Shoemaker agrees at p. 15:

Martin Jugie, for instance, after decades of researching the matter on the Vatican’s behalf, emerged as a modern champion of Mary’s immortality, a view which laboured to promote in his publications as the earliest (and thus, true) view regarding the end of Mary’s life. It was surely no coincidence that this was more or less the direction taken by the Vatican in its decision to pronounce the Assumption dogma. In view of the striking absence of early historical evidence, the Vatican proceeded to establish the Assumption dogma primarily on a dogmatic rather than a historical basis.

Who does Jugie cite as the earliest view: Timothy of Jerusalem, which he dates from the late 4th to early 5th century. Other theologians disagree, and even Shoemaker doesn’t seem convinced, but they all agree this is why Pope Pius reserved judgment on the question. Is it enough to take the Dormition outside of the teaching of the ordinary magisterium and the special assent to be given to the Holy Father even in his non-infallible teachings? A number of qualified theologians think so.

 

[Allyson]

The Dormition of the Holy Theotokos is not to be compared to angels dancing on pins or deficating.

 

[Allyson]

I have a question for Eastern Catholics. I have seen posts in the past claiming that Mary’s Dormition refers to sleep, not necessarily to temporal death. Is that considered an unorthodox position amongst EC’s?

As I understand it, sleep is a euphemism for death.

God Bless,
R.