You’re missing point. Granted, the
Dormition of the Mother of God is not
dogmatic but it is indeed
doctrinal. The difference between these two lies in the distinction between
extraordinary infallibility and
ordinary infallibility.
Everything within the Deposit of Faith is doctrinal and therefore infallible. The truth of the Mother of God’s assumption has always been an infallible belief of the Church, but the doctrine was raised to the dignity of
dogma. In other words, the infallibility of the belief that Mary died has always been believed, but by an act of the
ecclesia discens, the belief went from being an object of “ordinary” infallibility to that of “extraordinary” infallibility. For example, during the first three centuries of Christianity, the divinity of Christ was always believed, though not clearly, until the First Council of Nicaea (and subsequently the First Council of Constantinople in 381, the Council of Ephesus in 431, and finally the Council of Chalcedon in 451) raised the doctrine to the dignity fo
doma by way of the
homoousion clause. That Christ was divine was always believed, though imperfectly (e.g. Arius believed that Christ was “divine”); it took an act of the
ecclesia discens to clarify the doctrine, and thus the object “divinity of Christ” became dogma (e.g.
homoousion tO patri, “consubstantial with the Father”).
Similarly, the doctrine of the Assumption was raised to the dignity of dogma by a papal pronouncement (in consultation with the College of Bishops) to remove doubts and to clarify the doctrine already believed. The issue was not whether she died but whether she was raised from death. For this reason the object of Pius XII’s extraordinary magisterium was not to clarify that which was taken for granted, namely, the death of the Mother of God, but to clarify the issue of her Assumption. It is as Yves Congar wrote in
Tradition and Traditions, that many doctrines are “hinted at” and “implied,” but by the Holy Spirit, the bishops are able to close the gap that exists between two points of contention. Hence Cardinal Newman’s “illative sense” in his
A Grammar of Assent.
Simply because the doctrine of the Mother of God’s Dormition was not raised to the dignity of dogma does not mean that it can be freely espoused or relinquished. It is found in the Church’s liturgies, the testimony of the Fathers, and, most importantly, it is implied by St Paul’s famous text on humanity’s sentence of death in
Romans, chapter 5. Not only that, but Pope Pius XII makes frequent mention of the Mother of God’s death in
Munificentissiumus Deus, nos. 14, 18, 22, 26, 38, and 40. Though it is not dogmatic, it certainly is doctrinal, and therefore falls under the object of
ordinary magisterium.
I’m very much alarmed that even faithful Catholics do not have a basic grasp on the “mechanics” of the Church’s teaching office, the different ranks of teaching, the distinctions between
theologoumenon,
doctrine, and
dogma, between the different types of infallibility, and the inner workings of papal and counciliar authority. Worse yet, there seems to be a dichotomy between the sacred liturgy and the objects of faith or
obsequium religiosum.
I would also argue that an object of
theologoumenon can be only as such
if and only if it has been expressly pronounced by the magisterium. The question of a literal interpretation of the Creation-narrative, for instance, has been declared to be in the realm of
theologoumenon, and even on this point, Ludwig Ott concurs.
To recap:
- That Mary died is to be found in the consensus of the Fathers;
- That Mary died is the consistent witness of the Liturgy;
- That Mary died is an ordinary teaching of Munificentissumus Deus.
- That Mary died is not theologoumenon, but doctrine, and therefore is an object of the ordinary magisterium; and finally
- That Mary was assumed into heaven is an object of the extraordinary magisterium.
M. G. Hysell
