Is there a Church Teaching that Mary Died?

[Blue_Horizon]

This stems from a side topic in the thread “What is the status of Catholics who reject Church teaching.”

Please browse the following linked documents first before casting your vote

(a) Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus (Pope Pious XII)
(b) General Audience 1997 of Pope JPII the Great.

Important quotes from these docs would seem to include:

(a) MD17 " …to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. …“Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.”

(b) MD17 “The holy Fathers and the great Doctors…presented it more clearly. 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…”

(c) JPII:The Council uses the terms of The Bull defining the dogma of the Assumption and states: “The Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over” (Lumen gentium, n. 59). With this formula, the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, following my Venerable Predecessor Pius XII, made no pronouncement on the question of Mary’s death. Nevertheless, Pius XII did not intend to deny the fact of her death, but merely did not judge it opportune to affirm solemnly the death of the Mother of God as a truth to be accepted by all believers.

(d) JPII: Some theologians have in fact maintained that the Blessed Virgin did not die and 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.

 

[mdgspencer]

This subject is an interesting question, actually. For this I like a piece by a leading Catholic apologist, Jimmy Akin, about whether she died and generally about the Virgin Mary’s assumption into heaven. He brings up the subject of whether she died or not in #4, in www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/the-assumption-of-mary-12-things-to-know-and-share

 

[thistle]

The Church has no doctrine (infallible or non-infallible) on Mary dying or not dying.
Catholics are free to believe either way. If there were such a doctrine we would be bound and we are not.

 

[edwest2]

See this article:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AOFMARY.HTM

Ed

 

[Joe_Kelley]

While there is no definitive teaching on this, and the Apostles were a bit slow to catch on to some things. I suggest that they were certain that she was dead when they placed her in the tomb.

 

[thistle]

While there is no definitive teaching on this, and the Apostles were a bit slow to catch on to some things. I suggest that they were certain that she was dead when they placed her in the tomb.

My personal view is that Mary did die first but the OP seems to be suggesting there is Church doctrine on this matter which must be believed.
Catholics are bound by Church doctrine, be it infallible or non-infallible, but we are not bound to believe Mary died. Catholics are free to believe either way.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Catholics are free to believe either way. If there were such a doctrine we would be bound and we are not.

That indeed is seminal…but are you correct?

The question was “is there a teaching…”
You are talking “doctrine” which sounds very much like “Dogma”…
Yet they are different surely?

Yes Catholics are free to believe either way.
Are non-dogmatic teachings able to tolerate opposing opinion up until the time they are defined as Dogma?

As Pope JPII, a leading theologian of the 20th C, stated:
the death of Mary is a common tradition in the Church since earliest times. Whereas the opinion that she did not die is but an opinion unknown until the 17th C.

Does a continuous tradition since ancient times, upheld by numerous Popes, deserve to be called “a teaching.”

All interesting questions are they not…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

… the OP seems to be suggesting there is Church doctrine on this matter which must be believed…

The OP is not suggesting there is or there isn’t a Church doctrine on this matter.

The OP is certain there is a Church tradition.
The OP believes this qualifies to be called a teaching (which allows opposing opinions and may not be certain).

The OP wonders how Catholics understand the difference between** tradition, teaching, doctrine and dogma** when it comes to such things as assent, certainty and toleration of opposing opinions.

Hence the Post and the Poll to explore these interesting assumptions we all have.

 

[thistle]

The OP is not suggesting there is or there isn’t a Church doctrine on this matter.

The OP is certain there is a Church tradition.
The OP believes this qualifies to be called a teaching (which allows opposing opinions and may not be certain).

The OP wonders how Catholics understand the difference between** tradition, teaching, doctrine and dogma** when it comes to such things as assent, certainty and toleration of opposing opinions.

Hence the Post and the Poll to explore these interesting assumptions we all have.

When it comes to tradition with a small “t” we don’t have to pay any attention to it. We may if we want to but its not anything we should be too concerned about. I certainly am not, whether its the death of Mary, the Veil of Veronica etc etc. The list goes on. None of these small “t” traditions are “teachings” of consequence and not are required for our faith or salvation.

I believe Mary died. However, whether Mary died first or not is irrelevant. It is her Assumption that is important. Her death or no death is not.

We are only BOUND by doctrine (infallible and non-infallible).
Small “t” tradition “teaching” is not doctrine and we can ignore it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

We are only BOUND by doctrine (infallible and non-infallible).
Small “t” tradition “teaching” is not doctrine and we can ignore it.

When a foremost theologian/Pope of the 29thC states that Mary’s death was not made a dogma along with the Assumption but cam close…:
“Pius XII did not intend to deny the fact of Mary’s death, but merely did not judge it opportune to affirm solemnly the death of the Mother of God as a truth to be accepted by all believers.” (JPII)

…sounds like quite a bit more than a tradition with a small t that can be ignored.
Sounds like Tradition to me.

Doctrines/Dogmas don’t fall out of a clear blue sky do they?
The wind direction is pretty obvious beforehand - just like the Immaculate Conception?

 

[Vico]

Pope “Benedict XIV (de fest. D.N.J.C., I, vii, 101) states that Mary followed St. John to Ephesus and died there.” – Catholic Encyclopedia. (Pope Benedict XIV died 1758.)

It was not defined dogmatically in the Assumption dogma (per St. Pope John Paul II):“2. On 1 November 1950, in defining the dogma of the Assumption, Pius XII avoided using the term “resurrection” and did not take a position on the question of the Blessed Virgin’s death as a truth of faith. The Bull * Munificentissimus Deus *limits itself to affirming the elevation of Mary’s body to heavenly glory, declaring this truth a “divinely revealed dogma”.”
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_02071997.html

 

[thistle]

When a foremost theologian/Pope of the 29thC states that Mary’s death was not made a dogma along with the Assumption but cam close…:
“Pius XII did not intend to deny the fact of Mary’s death, but merely did not judge it opportune to affirm solemnly the death of the Mother of God as a truth to be accepted by all believers.” (JPII)

…sounds like quite a bit more than a tradition with a small t that can be ignored.
Sounds like Tradition to me.

Doctrines/Dogmas don’t fall out of a clear blue sky do they?
The wind direction is pretty obvious beforehand - just like the Immaculate Conception?

It sounds like you are trying to make Mary’s death a requirement for our salvation which is frankly ridiculous. It is totally unimportant and of no relevance to our faith and salvation if Mary died or did not die before being assumed. It is not doctrine and it is not Tradition with a capital “T” and we are not required to believe one way or the other.
As we are not bound the Church is saying we are free to believe what we want but you seem bent on taking away this freedom.
I don’t understand your fanaticism on this which is seen in many threads. I’ll stick with what the Church teaches and not your opinion which you appear to want to force on us.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It sounds like you are trying to make Mary’s death a requirement for our salvation which is frankly ridiculous. It is totally unimportant and of no relevance to our faith and salvation if Mary died or did not die before being assumed. It is not doctrine and it is not Tradition with a capital “T” and we are not required to believe one way or the other.
As we are not bound the Church is saying we are free to believe what we want but you seem bent on taking away this freedom.
I don’t understand your fanaticism on this which is seen in many threads. I’ll stick with what the Church teaches and not your opinion which you appear to want to force on us.

Thankyou for your own personal views Thistle.
If you had Magisterial quotes to support them I am sure other viewers here would be interested.

Lets leave this thread open for others to air their views and provide quotes.
This topic opens many interesting questions - such as whether the Church has traditional teachings that may be acceptably debated by more recent opinions…

 

[Nelka]