Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I apologize if I set up a straw man and tore it down. (P.S. as a second thought from an Eastern Orthodox point of view, does the Patristic era go up to Photius?) What do you make of the the Assumption of Mary then? To my understanding this is not a point of contention (excepting that some Orthodox object to the dogmatization of this belief in the Catholic Church).

Thanks,

Nick
No I wouldn’t say the Assumption is a point of contention as long as it’s made explicit that Mary did in fact die. That Mary was assumed into heaven is certainly a patristic teaching. As to when the patristic era ended I really don’t have an answer. Maybe Symeon the New Theologian. Of course there are many great saints after him.
 
No I wouldn’t say the Assumption is a point of contention as long as it’s made explicit that Mary did in fact die. That Mary was assumed into heaven is certainly a patristic teaching. As to when the patristic era ended I really don’t have an answer. Maybe Symeon the New Theologian. Of course there are many great saints after him.
I was under the impression that the Assumption had little Patristic support, especially when compared to other Catholic dogmas. Where do you find it, if I may ask? (Not to go too far off topic, but insomuch as it is related to Patristic support for the connection between Isaiah 22 and St. Matthew 16:18-19.) As you probably know, the question of whether or not the Blessed Virgin died or not was not defined in the Catholic dogma, both options being acceptable theologoumena for a Catholic.
 
I was under the impression that the Assumption had little Patristic support, especially when compared to other Catholic dogmas. Where do you find it, if I may ask? (Not to go too far off topic, but insomuch as it is related to Patristic support for the connection between Isaiah 22 and St. Matthew 16:18-19.) As you probably know, the question of whether or not the Blessed Virgin died or not was not defined in the Catholic dogma, both options being acceptable theologoumena for a Catholic.
THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: A BELIEF SINCE APOSTOLIC TIMES
Father Clifford Stevens
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AOFMARY.HTM

The Assumption is the oldest feast day of Our Lady, but we don’t know how it first came to be celebrated.

Its origin is lost in those days when Jerusalem was restored as a sacred city, at the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine (c. 285-337). By then it had been a pagan city for two centuries, ever since Emperor Hadrian (76-138) had leveled it around the year 135 and rebuilt it as in honor of Jupiter.

For 200 years, every memory of Jesus was obliterated from the city, and the sites made holy by His life, death and Resurrection became pagan temples.

After the building of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 336, the sacred sites began to be restored and memories of the life of Our Lord began to be celebrated by the people of Jerusalem. One of the memories about his mother centered around the “Tomb of Mary,” close to Mount Zion, where the early Christian community had lived.
On the hill itself was the “Place of Dormition,” the spot of Mary’s “falling asleep,” where she had died. The “Tomb of Mary” was where she was buried.

At this time, the “Memory of Mary” was being celebrated. Later it was to become our feast of the Assumption.

For a time, the “Memory of Mary” was marked only in Palestine, but then it was extended by the emperor to all the churches of the East. In the seventh century, it began to be celebrated in Rome under the title of the “Falling Asleep” (“Dormitio”) of the Mother of God.

Soon the name was changed to the “Assumption of Mary,” since there was more to the feast than her dying. It also proclaimed that she had been taken up, body and soul, into heaven.

That belief was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves. What was clear from the beginning was that there were no relics of Mary to be venerated, and that an empty tomb stood on the edge of Jerusalem near the site of her death. That location also soon became a place of pilgrimage. (Today, the Benedictine Abbey of the Dormition of Mary stands on the spot.)

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven.”

In the eighth century, St. John Damascene was known for giving sermons at the holy places in Jerusalem. At the Tomb of Mary, he expressed the belief of the Church on the meaning of the feast: “Although the body was duly buried, it did not remain in the state of death, neither was it dissolved by decay. . . . You were transferred to your heavenly home, O Lady, Queen and Mother of God in truth.”

All the feast days of Mary mark the great mysteries of her life and her part in the work of redemption. The central mystery of her life and person is her divine motherhood, celebrated both at Christmas and a week later (Jan. 1) on the feast of the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. The Immaculate Conception (Dec. 8) marks the preparation for that motherhood, so that she had the fullness of grace from the first moment of her existence, completely untouched by sin. Her whole being throbbed with divine life from the very beginning, readying her for the exalted role of mother of the Savior.

The Assumption completes God’s work in her since it was not fitting that the flesh that had given life to God himself should ever undergo corruption. The Assumption is God’s crowning of His work as Mary ends her earthly life and enters eternity.

The feast turns our eyes in that direction, where we will follow when our earthly life is over.

The feast days of the Church are not just the commemoration of historical events; they do not look only to the past. They look to the present and to the future and give us an insight into our own relationship with God. The Assumption looks to eternity and gives us hope that we, too, will follow Our Lady when our life is ended.

The prayer for the feast reads: “All-powerful and ever-living God: You raised the sinless Virgin Mary, mother of your Son, body and soul, to the glory of heaven. May we see heaven as our final goal and come to share her glory.”

In 1950, in the Apostolic Constitution , Pope Pius XII proclaimed the Assumption of Mary a dogma of the Catholic Church in these words: “The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heaven.”

With that, an ancient belief became Catholic doctrine and the Assumption was declared a truth revealed by God.
 
Early Church Fathers on the Assumption of Mary

Pseudo-Melito

If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: “Be it done according to your will” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300]).

Epiphanius (d.403)

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world.” (Panarion,78:23(A.D. 377),in PG 42:737)

Timothy of Jerusalem

Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

John the Theologian

The Lord said to his Mother, “Let your heart rejoice and be glad. For every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens”. . . And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise (The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).

The Pseudo-Augustine (c. 500)

This venerable day has dawned, the day that surpasses all the festivals of the saints, this most exalted and solemn day on which the Blessed Virgin was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. On this day the queenly Virgin was exalted to the very throne of God the Father, and elevated to such a height that the angelic spirits are in admiration.

Gregory of Tours (c.538-593)

[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones. . . (Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 [A.D. 575]).

Theoteknos of Livias

It was fitting … that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory … should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God (Homily on the Assumption [ca. A.D. 600]).

Modestus of Jerusalem

As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him (Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae [ante A.D. 634]).

Germanus I, Patriarch of Constantinople (d.733)

You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life (Sermon I [A.D. 683]).

John Damascene (676-749)

The body of her, whose virginity remained unspotted in child-birth, was preserved in its incorruption, and was taken to a better, diviner place, where death is not, but eternal life. (First Homily on the Dormition of Mary)

And just as the all holy body of God’s Son, which was taken from her, rose from the dead on the third day, it followed that she should be snatched from the tomb, that the mother should be united to her Son; and as He had come down to her, so she should be raised up to Him, into the more perfect dwelling-place, heaven itself. (Second Homily on the Dormition of Mary [A.D. 697])

Struck by the wonder of the mystery they could only think that He who had been pleased to become Incarnate from her in His own person and to become man and to be born in the flesh, God the Word, the Lord of Glory, who preserved her virginity intact after her parturition,—He was pleased even after her departure from life to honor her immaculate and undefiled body with incorruption and with translation prior to the common and universal resurrection. (Second Homily on the Dormition of Mary, 10,18 [A.D. 697])

Gregorian Sacramentary

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 Thy Son our Lord incarnate from herself (Gregorian Sacramentary, Veneranda [ante A.D. 795]).
 
I was under the impression that the Assumption had little Patristic support, especially when compared to other Catholic dogmas. Where do you find it, if I may ask? (Not to go too far off topic, but insomuch as it is related to Patristic support for the connection between Isaiah 22 and St. Matthew 16:18-19.) As you probably know, the question of whether or not the Blessed Virgin died or not was not defined in the Catholic dogma, both options being acceptable theologoumena for a Catholic.
I see Randy took care of the patristic support. The Feast of the Dormition was officially added in the 6th century and the hymns for the feast make it clear she was assumed. That would be plenty of support in my mind by itself.
 
This is one area where so called “development of doctrine” goes south. According to Catholics, the beliefs of the Church are made more clear, yet regarding the Assumption of Mary, Catholics have gone from having a clear understanding that Mary died and was buried and within three days was bodily assumed into heaven, to a vague “she may have died or she might not have died” before her Assumption. It has taken what was handed down and declared that it is now optional.
 
Thanks for that other citation, I hadn’t seen it before!
You are welcome … I am sure there are more - we just need to look for them … I think we Catholic Christians don’t take as much notice of things like this being a major connection because the parallels are already made for us - it only becomes necessary to search out when the connection is challenged.

That is part and parcel to our understanding of the whole of the scriptures and how they work together … our Jewish roots and New Testament Church … what was prefigured in the Old Testament being fulfilled in the New …

You and Randy are great resources 👍… You both possess a wonderful scholarly approach - much more so then then I do. I really enjoy your intellect and ability to discuss the topics with such detail and knowledge. While I was working on my Master’s - one of my Professor’s said to me - “I always look forward to reading your papers - they are so ‘folksy’” 😊 - … no matter how many foot notes and citations my papers possessed - I was pretty sure that was not high praise :rolleyes: …but as a small business owner working full time and with employees - it was a minor miracle that I even got my papers written at all 😃 . and many times I knew that miracle was merely by the grace of God.:yup:
 
This is one area where so called “development of doctrine” goes south. According to Catholics, the beliefs of the Church are made more clear, yet regarding the Assumption of Mary, Catholics have gone from having a clear understanding that Mary died and was buried and within three days was bodily assumed into heaven, to a vague “she may have died or she might not have died” before her Assumption. It has taken what was handed down and declared that it is now optional.
Whether or not she first died is not addressed in the doctrine of the Assumption so this is not the example you want to use to prove that “development of doctrine” has gone south.

The Church makes no declaration where it is not absolutely certain, but it also does not declare that the Eastern Church is wrong. I have always been taught that Mary died. What I don’t understand is why it makes a difference one way or the other. We all agree that her body never suffered corruption and the she was assumed, body and soul, into heaven. Just as you see no need to define what happens during the consecration, and we accept that, why do you think we have to define whether or not Mary first died, or whether she “fell asleep”, as many describe it, before she was assumed into heaven? Why make this a point of separation when, in the end, we believe the same thing?
 
This is one area where so called “development of doctrine” goes south. According to Catholics, the beliefs of the Church are made more clear, yet regarding the Assumption of Mary, Catholics have gone from having a clear understanding that Mary died and was buried and within three days was bodily assumed into heaven, to a vague “she may have died or she might not have died” before her Assumption. It has taken what was handed down and declared that it is now optional.
This is false.

Have you actually *read *Munificentissimus Deus?

It is clear that Mary died.
 
Originally Posted by prodromos
This is one area where so called “development of doctrine” goes south. According to Catholics, the beliefs of the Church are made more clear, yet regarding the Assumption of Mary, Catholics have gone from having a clear understanding that Mary died and was buried and within three days was bodily assumed into heaven, to a vague “she may have died or she might not have died” before her Assumption. It has taken what was handed down and declared that it is now optional.
This is false.

Have you actually *read *Munificentissimus Deus?

It is clear that Mary died.
Thanks for this, Randy. I had never actually read this, sorry to say. But what it does say is this:

"In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only begotten Son, had actually passed from this life. But this in no way prevented them from believing and from professing openly that her sacred body had never been subject to the corruption of the tomb, and that the august tabernacle of the Divine Word had never been reduced to dust and ashes.

If this is an example of “development of doctrine” heading south its a pretty sad example. We believe that Mary “passed from this life”, did not suffer corruption, and was assumed, body and soul, into heaven. And yet this is held up as just one more reason to remain separated. 🤷
 
This is false.

Have you actually *read *Munificentissimus Deus?

It is clear that Mary died.
Tell that to your fellow Catholics.
In Pius XII’s dogmatic statement, the phrase “having completed the course of her earthly life,” leaves open the question of whether the Virgin Mary died before her assumption or whether she was assumed before death; both possibilities are allowed.
 
Tell that to your fellow Catholics.
Yes, thats the deathless death, A tradition with no body, no witness, no bones, no anything in a word, and interpolation arrives around 500-years later. And to boot we are talking a deathless death and of a soul with no sin. 🤷 Far by me to suggest what happened to Mary in those transitional moments.

Point being, I’ve yet to hear this death of Mary proven from a theological perspective. Its probable why the Pope left the question open.

However, the further point is either is acceptable. Why did the East make a dogmatic declaration that it MUST be their way only? I was under the impression those dogmatic declarations are an issue?🙂
 
Not to distract with the Assumption, but its also clear as we talk tradition, this continued to be defined.:eek: And the East helped carry that torch all the way to the third leg of the race then handed it off to the West to cross the finish line. Thats a conversation that makes luminosity appear as childs play…The Blessed Virgin Mother, the Incarnate word of God and the most Holy Family and Grace.

For anyone following this conversation “please” read St Maximus the Confessor [Life of the Virgin]. I implore you to read this eastern Saints words on the most Holy Virgin. His words still ring in my mind.
 
Well, the former thinking of what had to have happened narrows the range of the transitional reality in the final moments which might be explained further by God as to His ultimate reasoning. Imho the later leaves the contemplation open to further understanding through revelation by the Lord and with respect to all of us. To me its not a matter of which way is right, its a matter of the unknown revealed.
 
Did Pope Pius XII Teach that the Virgin Mary Died? Yes He Did.
By Taylor Marshall, PhD.
taylormarshall.com/2012/08/did-pope-pius-xiii-teach-that-virgin.html

Excerpt:

If you read Munificentissimus Deus, it becomes manifest that the Holy Father taught that our Immaculate Lady died an earthly death before being assumed bodily into Heaven. This belief is stated repeatedly in the text of Munificentissimus Deus. Here are some examples from Munificentissimus Deus:

Citing Pope Adrian I (ca. AD 700 - 795), His Holiness Pope Pius XII records:

“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.”

Citing the Byzantine liturgy:

“As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.”

Citing Saint Modestus (d. AD 630), the Holy Father writes:

“As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him.”

The citations employed Pope Pius XII reveal that he believed and intended to show that the Immaculate Virgin Mary did in fact undergo death prior to her glorious Assumption.

It should be stated that Mary did not die because of sin, but rather in her desire to be conformed to Christ in all things – to be the speculum justitiae, mirror of justice. Her death gave her dominion over Purgatory as prophesied in Ecclesiasticus 24 and gave her more meritorious prayers for those in the hour of death.

If you would like a detailed defense of the death of the Immaculate Virgin, see the Glories of Mary by Saint Alphonsus Ligouri, a doctor of the Church.
 
Not so fast… The NCR and the deathless death:
  1. Does the dogma require us to believe that Mary died?
It is the common teaching that Mary did die. In his work, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott lists this teaching as sententia communior (Latin, “the more common opinion”).
Although it is the common understanding of that Mary did die, and although her death is referred to in some of the sources Pius XII cited in Munificentissimus Deus,** he deliberately refrained from defining this as a truth of the faith.**
John Paul II noted:
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.”

ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/the-assumption-of-mary-12-things-to-know-and-share1#ixzz3JiZDifpV
 
I just did.

And another petty, vacuous Orthodox argument goes down in flames.
It’s hardly petty considering you guys don’t even know yourselves. And just for the record the Catholic Church celebrated her Dormition for many centuries before making another change and beginning to celebrate the Assumption. In fact in churches all over Italy and Europe you find images of the Dormition in classic iconographic style.

http://s13.postimg.org/gurjkpeiv/Pier_Maria_Pennacchi_Dormition_of_the_Virgin.jpg

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And here is the icon.

http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server1...Theotokos__45621.1409482411.1000.1200.JPG?c=2

It wasn’t until much later that the iconography changed. Instead of the reposed Mary, surrounded by the Apostles with Christ holding her soul, you wind up with images depicting her ascending into heaven just like Christ.

http://s30.postimg.org/6b8kuouxd/show_Image.jpg
 
, it becomes manifest that the Holy Father taught that our Immaculate Lady died an earthly death before being assumed bodily into Heaven. .
Thats true and I have read this before, and thats Taylor Marshalls take but infallibly defined becomes reduced to one point.
By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Assumed body and soul into heavenly glory becomes understood through mortal-immortal=deathless death. It doesn’t define death, or a separation of body and soul which no doubt would indicate death for sure and a similarity to what we see with Saints. A transition of body and soul is what is stated, and in this case together. I would venture to say is simultaneous. In which case death is explained how? In other words the soul in question never separated from the body. They both journeyed together. Its a mystery is deep. I think also that what Taylor Marshall states and has been stated by others…
It should be stated that Mary did not die because of sin, but rather in her desire to be conformed to Christ in all things
While this sounds wonderful and certainly correct in regards to sin which leads to assumption of both body and soul, the theory that she would want to for example remain in the grave for three days and die a similar death as the Lord, is a beautiful defense and theory but not a fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top