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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Opinion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Opinion

Guest
I had some rather interesting feedback from someone who apparently had a lot of time:

My **emphases **and comments:
Carissime Pater Zuhlsdorf,

I continue to be astonished by the ignorance of so many Catholics regarding the Assumption of the Mother of God.

In your “Patristic Rosary Project,” you assert that “We do not know if Mary died and was assumed body and soul into heaven or if she was assumed without dying.” Not to be outdone, you continue: “There are not elaborate writings by the Fathers on the Assumption, because it was not a main point of reflection.” I must offer a response to these breathtakingly false claims.
  1. The Church of the Byzantine sui iuris celebrates the Feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God on the same day as the Romans celebrate the Solemnity of the Assumption. “Dormition”, as you know, means “falling-asleep,” a Christian euphemism for “death” still retained by the Eastern Christians when referring to the passing of this lie of one of the baptised. If we take the argument that legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, we must conclude that the falling-asleep of the Mother of God, commemorated at least since the fifth century, is to be found in the Deposit of Faith. Not only is it counted among the Twelve Great Feasts, it is also preceded by a Dormition Fast, thus highlighting its solemnity. Moreover, the fact that the Feast of the Dormition has never been suppressed by the Orthodox Christians in communion with the Successor of Peter speaks to the truth that the Mother of God fell asleep in the flesh. A cursory reading of the kontakia, troparia, and idiomelia of the Byzantine liturgy loudly attests the death of the Mother of God. And we have, also, the astonishing testimony of the ephiphatios of the Mother of God as well as the tradition of referring to this same celebration as her own Pascha, hence the custom in many Russian Catholic parishes to celebrate the Rite of the Burial of the Most Holy Theotokos analogous to the Burial Rite on Great and Holy Friday. And there has not been an ounce of concern from the Holy See to suppress such practises.
2. Most people pretend awareness of H. H. Pope +Pius XII’s apostolic constitution Munificentissiumus Deus by citing only the proclamation of the dogma of the Assumption (no. 44). Granted, the clause “at the end of her earthly life” is hermeneutically neutral with respect to the question of Mary’s death, but the context of the entire constitution speaks rather frequently of the death of the Mother of God. To cite a few examples: nos. 14, 18, 22, 26, 38, and 40. Curiously, in the constitution (no. 39), Pius XII cites 1 Cor 15:21-26, in which verse 22 and 23 have been carried over to the current Office of Second Vespers for the Solemnity. The context of this Scripture, found in the celebration of the Assumption, implies that she did in fact fall asleep in the Lord.

  1. Contrary to what you wrote, the Fathers do indeed have plenty to say about the Dormition of the Mother of God. Our Holy Father Among the Saints, John of Damascus, penned three homilies for the Feast. Pius XII cites not only him, but also Germanus of Constantinople. And of course we can add to their testimonies that of other Fathers, thanks to the research of Stephen J. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford University Press, 2003). As the “Last of the Fathers”, the testimony of St John of Damascus is not to be lightly ignored since he is the heir of the Patristic Era, and we are heirs of the Church of the Fathers only insofar as we have ears for their teachings. (The more I study the Fathers—and I penned my M.A. thesis on the theology of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils and especially the Cappadocians—Roman Catholics are guilty of what they accuse Protestants of doing—selectively quoting the Fathers. I find your “Patristic Rosary Project” a sad example of this.) [Golly.]
  2. As well, if we are to understand properly the theological enterprise, we must attend to the “monuments of tradition” (as Pere Yves Congar calls it), among which are the testimonies of Christian iconography. Even among the Latins, Fra Angelico’s Death and Assumption of the Virgin (1432) represents a very late continuation of the tradition. Even in Renaissance and Baroque paintings, images of the Assumption are not without the Mother of God being taken from her tomb; among the notable instances are Francesco Botticini’s Assumption of the Virgin (d. 1498); Mateo Cerezo’s Assumption of Mary (d. 1666); Peter Paul Rubens’s The Assumption of the Virgin (1612-17), and numerous others. Of course, those in the authentic tradition of iconography represent the more compelling witnesses. Images of the Mother of God being assumed into heaven but lacking the burial-motif are of relatively recent origin and therefore farther removed from the authentic Tradition of the Church.
  3. Any pilgrim to the Holy Land is aware of the “Tomb of Mary” found in the precents of Gethsemane. And of course there is the rival shrine in Ephesus in the possession of Catholics of anti-Byzantine sympathies. (The Ephesus “version” is highly unlikely because the Byzantine liturgy sings of the burail of the Mother of God at Gethsemane.)
  4. I must also add that there is an “interpretation” to the Solemnity which must be weighed against the Memorial of the Queenship of Mary on 22 August. Why two different feasts, of different ranks, so close to each other? Why even two? I would suggest that the Solemnity of 15 August it not so much “about” the Mother of God as it is “about” the destiny of those who die in the state of sanctifying grace. The fate of the Mother of God, although it was her singular privilege on account of her Immaculate Conception and the timing of her experience of the eschaton, is a mirror of the fate of all Christians. The Memorial of 22 August is the Mother of God’s alone. Just as we celebrate the Solemnity of the Ascension of our Lord to commemorate not only the ascending of Jesus to the Father, but more precisely to the Father’s right hand, that is, his reception of full Lordship as a result of His Paschal Mystery. In the case of the Mother of God, on the other hand, her Assumption, following the Dormition, reflects on her privilege as the perfect Christian; her Queenship is an instance of Christ’ purely gratuitious love for His Mother and thus not extended to her fellow-believers. In other words, what the Mother of God inherited from Christ was split into two mysteries—her assumption, which all Christians will eventually share thanks to the Paschal Mystery of Christ, and her coronation, which is reserved only to Mother of God. And this splitting has been carried over into popular piety as well, in the fourth and fifth glorious mysteries of the Rosary.
According to Tradition, an unbeliever by the name of Anthonios had the audcity to touch the funeral bier of the Mother of God while she was being carried to Gethsemane. An angel is said to have severed his hand for having touched it; most commentators interpret this episode as a “theologizing” about those who trivialize the mystery of the death of the Mother of God.

I find it immensely disturbing that a layman [and an apparently obnoxious one at that] is needed to correct seriously erroneous teachings issued by a presbyter, ****** who, according to Presbyterorum Ordinis 4 and the Code of Canon Law 528 is to have the ministry of preaching and teaching foremost among his tasks. I also worry about those who are preoccupied with the externals of worship (such as Latin as an ordinary liturgical language) to the detriment of the mystagogical import of various feasts. That having been said, it is my hope that you will make corrections to your blog. [Nope.] As a layman and on behalf of all of Christ’s lay faithful, I appeal to my canonical right to expect sound teaching from the Church’s pastors (cf. Code of Canon Law, 212, 213, 217).

Sincerely in Christ,
M. G. Hysell, M.A., M.Th. (Cand)
I respond saying:
That the Blessed Virgin Mary suffered death before she was bodily assumed into heaven is NOT an infallible, dogmatic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics are free to believe either that Mary died or that she did not die before her Assumption. That is the reason that Munificentissimus Deus uses the phrase “having completed the course of her earthly life”.

It follows that the teaching that Mary died before she was bodily assumed into heaven is NOT part of the deposit of faith.

Not every word uttered by a Father of the Church forms part of the Catholic Church’s official teaching. For example, the Church does not accept certain aspect of St. Augustine’s teachings on predestination.

St. John Damascene is recognized as a Father of the Church both by the Roman Catholic and by Eastern Orthodox Churches. However he is Byzantine and late. Just as the Eastern Fathers and the Eastern Christian Churches did not accept all aspects of Western patristic teaching, so too the Western Fathers and the Western Christian Church have not accepted all aspects of Eastern patristic teaching.

Not every word or idea that forms part of the ancient or medieval Christian liturgies exercises a normative dogmatic effect on officially defined Christian belief.

Full entry…
Click to expand...
 
Sorry, but even when I was Roman Catholic I would have agreed with the other person’s commentary. The Catholic dogma of the Assumption comes from the very tradition that also holds that the Theotokos died, as in plainly mentioned in the text of the dogmatic definition. How or why any Catholic pretends that doesn’t matter is beyond me. 🤷 The poster is unnecessarily rude, however.
 
**
That the Blessed Virgin Mary suffered death before she was bodily assumed into heaven is NOT an infallible, dogmatic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics are free to believe either that Mary died or that she did not die before her Assumption. That is the reason that Munificentissimus Deus uses the phrase “having completed the course of her earthly life”.**

The Roman office for the feast promulgated in 1950 when Pius XII dogmatized the Assumption, the fifth Matins lesson, quoting St. John of Damascus, says “But she yielded obedience to the law established by him to whom she had given birth, and, as the daughter of the old Adam, underwent the old sentence, which even her Son, who is the very Life Itself, had not refused. [that is, physical death]” Lex orandi, lex credendi. If it’s in the liturgical formularies of the Church, it’s the teaching of the church.
 
bpbasilphx said:
**
That the Blessed Virgin Mary suffered death before she was bodily assumed into heaven is NOT an infallible, dogmatic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics are free to believe either that Mary died or that she did not die before her Assumption. That is the reason that Munificentissimus Deus uses the phrase “having completed the course of her earthly life”.**

The Roman office for the feast promulgated in 1950 when Pius XII dogmatized the Assumption, the fifth Matins lesson, quoting St. John of Damascus, says “But she yielded obedience to the law established by him to whom she had given birth, and, as the daughter of the old Adam, underwent the old sentence, which even her Son, who is the very Life Itself, had not refused. [that is, physical death]” Lex orandi, lex credendi. If it’s in the liturgical formularies of the Church, it’s the teaching of the church.
Click to expand...
If the BVM was free of original sin, then would that not mean that, in the Latin tradition, she was free from death?
 
Ahimsa said:
If the BVM was free of original sin, then would that not mean that, in the Latin tradition, she was free from death?
Click to expand...
Yes, just as Jesus was free from death, but choose to die. Christ would not rob His Mother from any glory so, if He let her die, it was to futher her own glory.
 
bpbasilphx said:
The Roman office for the feast promulgated in 1950 when Pius XII dogmatized the Assumption, the fifth Matins lesson, quoting St. John of Damascus, says “But she yielded obedience to the law established by him to whom she had given birth, and, as the daughter of the old Adam, underwent the old sentence, which even her Son, who is the very Life Itself, had not refused. [that is, physical death]” Lex orandi, lex credendi. If it’s in the liturgical formularies of the Church, it’s the teaching of the church.
Click to expand...
But, your Grace, not all teachings are Dogmatic. Heck, not all are equal, either.

Not every troparion, kontakion, or prokimenon is Dogma. Many are merely Doctrine, which while part of the faith, are not unchangeable. Otherwise, we’d still all be chanting in nought but Latin, Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew…

and have no Sundays of the Fathers of Orthodoxy, no feast of St Basil, no feast of St. John Chrysostom, each with their assorted propers. They would be “just another matyr” or “just another doctor of the faith”…
 
**But, your Grace, not all teachings are Dogmatic. Heck, not all are equal, either. **

**If it’s the teaching of the Church, it’s the dogma of the Church.

Something doesn’t have to be defined in a papal or conciliar decree for it to be dogma.**
 
bpbasilphx said:
**But, your Grace, not all teachings are Dogmatic. Heck, not all are equal, either. **

**If it’s the teaching of the Church, it’s the dogma of the Church.

Something doesn’t have to be defined in a papal or conciliar decree for it to be dogma.**
Click to expand...
Then you understand the term poorly, from a Catholic perspective, your Grace.

Dogma is that which is required faith, in all crches in union.
Doctrine requires assent of will, and is specific to a particular Church Sui Iuris.
other teachings do not.

From the Catholic perspective, very little is actually dogmatic.
Essentially, the totality of the Nicene-Constantinoplean Creed (by definition, sans filioque), plus the assumption of the body of the Theotokos, that a place or state outside of heaven exists for purification of the soul after death (Purgatory), the Transubstantiation & real presence, the infallibility of Doctrinal decrees on Faith or Morals made ex-cathedra, the infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils in union with the Pope, and the extra-diocesan authority of head bishops (both immediate and ordinary in power, but extraordinary in use) of metropolitans, patriarchs, and the pope over the other bishops.

That Mary died before her assumption is doctrinal for the Byzantines; it is neither doctrine of the Catholic church, which has no defined doctrine on the matter, either way, leaving it a matter of specific Church Sui Iuris definition, nor Doctrine of the Roman Church (who’s Teaching is that she was assumed Alive).

It is a case where the Dogmatic declaration is that Mary’s body is in heaven, not whether it was inhabited by her soul at the time.
 
Munificentissimus Deus
  1. infallibly teaches the assumption of Mary
  2. non-infallibly teaches that she died (mentioned in seven different places in the document), and rose from the dead (mentioned in two places), prior to being assumed.
  3. Catholics are required to believe infallible teachings with the full assent of faith
  4. Catholics are required to give the submission of will and intellect to non-infallible teachings
  5. It is not an open question as to whether or not she died, since an Apostolic Constitution clearly, though non-infallibly, teaches that she died and rose prior to the Assumption
 
Aramis said:
It is a case where the Dogmatic declaration is that Mary’s body is in heaven, not whether it was inhabited by her soul at the time.
Click to expand...
The point of the Assumption is, whether the BVM died or not, she is now in Heaven body and soul. …Which doesn’t really go against anything you said here… But, Our Mother is now in Heaven, body and soul united, and sinless.
 
That Mary died before her assumption is doctrinal for the Byzantines; it is neither doctrine of the Catholic church, which has no defined doctrine on the matter, either way, leaving it a matter of specific Church Sui Iuris definition, nor Doctrine of the Roman Church (who’s Teaching is that she was assumed Alive).

**Can you show me in any official document of the Roman Church that says the Virgin was assumed alive?

I’ve already shown a liturgical text of the Roman rite that say she died.

And if in Mun. Deus, it says seven times that she died, I don’t see how any papal dogmatic decree can be clearer.**
 
Dear brother adstrinity,
adstrinity said:
The point of the Assumption is, whether the BVM died or not, she is now in Heaven body and soul. …Which doesn’t really go against anything you said here… But, Our Mother is now in Heaven, body and soul united, and sinless.
Click to expand...
I think brother Aramis’ phrase “not whether it was inhabited by her soul at the time” is a reference to whether Mary died or not, for death is the separation of the soul from the body. So either Mary died and then assumed bodily to heaven (at which point there would be a momentary separation of body and soul), or she never died and her body was assumed to heaven WITH her soul.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
I tend to agree with brother bpbasilphx that a teaching need not be formally defined by the Church (i.e., dogmatized) in order for the Church to accept it as a universal truth.

We need to remember that the infallibility of God is exhibited in the Church in four ways - 1) the teaching of a Pope ex cathedra, 2) the teaching of an Ecumenical Council, 3) the teaching of Sacred Tradition, 4) the unanimous teaching of the bishops,even while dispersed throughout the world, on a matter of faith and/or morals.

The first two exhibits itself in formal definitions, while the final two do not.

For instance, the Holy Father recently resorted NOT to an infallible decree ex cathedra, but only to the infallible authority of Sacred Tradition in his decree that women’s ordination is invalid. This was not a formal definition by the Holy Father, but the weight of Sacred Tradition on the matter was sufficient to settle the issue.

The same principle can very well be applied on this issue of whether Mary died or not, and IMHO, there is more evidence from Sacred Tradition that Mary died and then was assumed than for the opposite view. However, no anathema has been placed on the belief that Mary did not die. Thus, I think the certain Latins who do believe Mary did not die possess a legitimate Catholic theologoumenon.

It should be remembered that, as brother Aramis has pointed out, the essential point of a dogma (as distinct from a doctrine) is that it is to be believed by the ENTIRE Church. An anathema is not of the esse of a dogma. In fact, at the first Vatican Council, the Eastern/Oriental bishops often made a distinction between the dogma and the anathema attached to dogma. Their position (as well as a few bishops from the Majority Party) was that the Primacy of the Pope can be defined, but that no anathema should be attached to it.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Ron_Conte said:
Munificentissimus Deus
  1. infallibly teaches the assumption of Mary
  2. non-infallibly teaches that she died (mentioned in seven different places in the document), and rose from the dead (mentioned in two places), prior to being assumed.
  3. Catholics are required to believe infallible teachings with the full assent of faith
  4. Catholics are required to give the submission of will and intellect to non-infallible teachings
  5. It is not an open question as to whether or not she died, since an Apostolic Constitution clearly, though non-infallibly, teaches that she died and rose prior to the Assumption
Click to expand...
Dear Ron Conte:

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, especially with no. 2 above.

In my final response to Fr Zuhlsdorf, I invited a discussion as to whether it is possible to teach dogmatically or by way of the solemn magisterium that the Mother of God died; since it deals with questions related to the order of creation, namely her death, it would seem not. Since the Assumption is a direct result of the Resurrection of Christ, it was therefore a possible object of infallible teaching prior to Munificentissimus Deus.

I also agree with one of the posters that it is not an “option” to believe whether or not the Mother of God died; I seriously doubt that a non-infallible teaching can be optional, even as evidenced by the distinction between the religiosum obsequium and the “assent of faith.” For example, the fact that Jesus was baptized has been such an obvious article of faith since the beginning of the Church but never dogmatically defined does not mean that believing in it is optional. To a lesser extent, I think the same can be said of the Dormition of the Theotokos.

M. G. Hysell
 
Matthew_Hysell said:
I also agree with one of the posters that it is not an “option” to believe whether or not the Mother of God died; I seriously doubt that a non-infallible teaching can be optional, even as evidenced by the distinction between the religiosum obsequium and the “assent of faith.” For example, the fact that Jesus was baptized has been such an obvious article of faith since the beginning of the Church but never dogmatically defined does not mean that believing in it is optional. To a lesser extent, I think the same can be said of the Dormition of the Theotokos.

M. G. Hysell
Click to expand...
It is important to note that no Catholic person is permitted to choose on the doctrines; the doctrines of the Church Sui Iuris in which they are either practicing or enrolled are to be followed with submission of will; for 99.9%, those will be the same church.

Each Church Sui Iuris may have differing doctrines and lesser teachings. The Dormition is taught that Mary’s soul was carried to heaven apart from her body, at least by Icons and the pastor.

That her body was assumed into heaven, yes, dogma.

The Propers do not speak either way in the current Ruthenian version (Pew Book pp352-354):
Troparion:
O Theotokos, in giving birth you preserved virginity; and in your falling asleep you did not forsake the world. You are the Mother of Life and have been transferred to life, and through your prayers you delivered our souls from death

Kontakion:
The grave and death did not detain the Theotokos. She intercedes without rest and is our unfailing hope of protection; for he who dwelt in the womb of the ever-Virgin transferred to life the Mother of Life.

Prokeimenon
My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior
_ For he as looked with favor on the humility of his servant; from this day forward, all generations will call me blessed.

Magnification:
The angels were struck with amazement beholding the dormition of the Most Pure; seeing how the Virgin was taken up from earth to heaven.

Irmos:
The limits of nature are overcome in you, O pure Virgin, for birth-giving remains virginal, and death is the prelude to live: a virgin after childrbearing and alive after death! You ever save your inheritance, O Theotokos.

We know that her body and soul are reunited (from the Irmos); the Icon shows Christ carrying Mary’s soul apart from her body. The implication is thus that their reunification occurs during or after the assumption.
 
Agreed, Aramis.

My principal concern is that some people are unable to engage in theologia prima and therefore, as Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann said, liturgy “…is not an ‘authority’ or locus theologicus; it is the ontological condition of theology…” [underlined emphasis mine]. And, as Dom Aidan Kavanaugh said, theologia prima is in fact liturgical theology.

The mistake made by Roman theologians, I would suggest, is that the dogmatic definitions are in-and-of-themselves a locus theologicus. However, a careful reading of Munificentissimus Deus makes it abundantly clear that +Pius XII is not creating a point of departure, but rather a point of convergence; by recapitulating the Fathers, the liturgy, and history, his teaching charism simply pronounces a ‘heretofore’ as ‘infallible.’ A doctrine became dogma. It is a non-sequitur to say that prior to its definition, its profession was optional. By extension, the same should be said about the Dormition: regardless of its non-dogmatic character, the liturgy is clear that there was a Dormition. How this is “optional” and how we are “free” to either believe or disbelieve this is something I can’t wrap my mind around.

M. G. Hysell
 
It is rather bizarre that one would engage in a quest to preserve the Virgin Mary from her own humanity.

She died. That is a long tradition of the Church.

Before we debunk certain elements of the tradition of celebrating the Holy Dormition, we might want to actually study when this feast was introduced into the Church calendar. Expect not to find anything for the first four centuries of Christianity.
 
I believe it to be true that Mary’s death is infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium of the church. Since the magisterium has not formally defined the teaching as binding on Catholics they are free to come to a different conclusion than the one the Eastern Church universally holds today and teaches in its liturgy.

The Orthodox will require any ecumenical council that reunites the churches to define it dogmatically for the following reason. To them the Immaculate Conception implies that Mary did not die - which the church has always taught. They cannot accept any understanding of the dogma of the IC which carries that implication. This is discussed by Fr. Hopko in his writings on what it would take to reunite the churches.

I think this explains why Eastern Catholics are adamant regarding the truth of Mary’s death.

As far as Father Z is concerned, this issue is just not a burning question. He quickly categorizes it as a theologoumenon and wishes to move on.
 
Cantor_Basil said:
I believe it to be true that Mary’s death is infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium of the church. Since the magisterium has not formally defined the teaching as binding on Catholics they are free to come to a different conclusion than the one the Eastern Church universally holds today and teaches in its liturgy.

The Orthodox will require any ecumenical council that reunites the churches to define it dogmatically for the following reason. To them the Immaculate Conception implies that Mary did not die - which the church has always taught. They cannot accept any understanding of the dogma of the IC which carries that implication. This is discussed by Fr. Hopko in his writings on what it would take to reunite the churches.

I think this explains why Eastern Catholics are adamant regarding the truth of Mary’s death.

As far as Father Z is concerned, this issue is just not a burning question. He quickly categorizes it as a theologoumenon and wishes to move on.
Click to expand...
If there were no tradition concerning the death of the Theotokos there would be no tradition of her having been assumed- period. They are two parts of the same tradition. To deny that she died is completely illogical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top