Mary before she died

[thistle]

So does the Church officially teach that she did indeed die before she was assumed into Heaven?

The Church infallibly teaches that Mary was assumed into Heaven. (papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MUNIF.HTM)

The Church has no teaching as to whether Mary died first or not before being assumed.
Catholics are free to believe she did die first or did not die first before being assumed.
Personally I believe Mary did die first.

 

[1ke]

So does the Church officially teach that she did indeed die before she was assumed into Heaven?

No. The Church does not say one way or another. What the Church does say:

“Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.”

 

[Hesychios]

So does the Church officially teach that she did indeed die before she was assumed into Heaven?

The church fathers all believed that she died, then was assumed into heaven.

The entire tradition the Roman Catholic church has of her assumption comes directly out of the early tradition that she died, was buried and was assumed into heaven. There is no other source for the information.

In MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS her death is mentioned probably as many as seven times, in conjunction with this early tradition of the church. The document quotes many early church Fathers who believed she died, and preached or wrote on the subject.

The Eastern Catholic churches all (that means all of them) celebrate the Dormition of Mary, which reflects the early tradition.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQ46rr62PQYQxsRequZeC8RRYdELa6RP5Pf4Fte4J2qxY8c5xPlw

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7T9CiZUkB8j_ul5ytTdO-KqpKSRUNVrqBK2gRk1ZpBO8QVo1s

It can be said therefore, that her death, burial and assumption is part of the ordinary, traditional and living Magisterium of the church, while the assumption can be said to also be part of the extraordinary Magisterium, having apparently been the specific part of the tradition which was most doubted in the last century, and which the Pope addressed spicifically in the ‘special paragraph’ in pronouncing a dogma.

Catholics do not have the automatic right to disbelieve any part of the Ordinary Magisterium. If we admit that this is possible, 99% of the teaching of the church would be dismissable because no Pope has infallibly defined it.

The death of the BVM is very much a teaching of the Catholic church from the earliest centuries up into modern times, although some modern Roman Catholics would like to pretend it is not.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Mary never died

So what is this for then? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_the_Virgin_Mary

And also read this: ercf.blogspot.ca/2012/01/immaculate-misconception.html

like Jesus during Penticost, she was brought into heaven and achieved everlasting life while retaining a body.

Pentecost was the descent of the Holy Spirit on the 120.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No. The Church does not say one way or another. What the Church does say:

If you read the entire Apostolic Constitution on the Assumption, and not just that one line at the end, you will see that it is conclusive that Mary did die.

 

[zab]

If you read the entire Apostolic Constitution on the Assumption, and not just that one line at the end, you will see that it is conclusive that Mary did die.

It only makes sense. Even Jesus died on the cross before ascending into heaven.

 

[thistle]

The church fathers all believed that she died, then was assumed into heaven.

The entire tradition the Roman Catholic church has of her assumption comes directly out of the early tradition that she died, was buried and was assumed into heaven. There is no other source for the information.

In MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS her death is mentioned probably as many as seven times, in conjunction with this early tradition of the church. The document quotes many early church Fathers who believed she died, and preached or wrote on the subject.

The Eastern Catholic churches all (that means all of them) celebrate the Dormition of Mary, which reflects the early tradition.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQ46rr62PQYQxsRequZeC8RRYdELa6RP5Pf4Fte4J2qxY8c5xPlw

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7T9CiZUkB8j_ul5ytTdO-KqpKSRUNVrqBK2gRk1ZpBO8QVo1s

It can be said therefore, that her death, burial and assumption is part of the ordinary, traditional and living Magisterium of the church, while the assumption can be said to also be part of the extraordinary Magisterium, having apparently been the specific part of the tradition which was most doubted in the last century, and which the Pope addressed spicifically in the ‘special paragraph’ in pronouncing a dogma.

Catholics do not have the automatic right to disbelieve any part of the Ordinary Magisterium. If we admit that this is possible, 99% of the teaching of the church would be dismissable because no Pope has infallibly defined it.

The death of the BVM is very much a teaching of the Catholic church from the earliest centuries up into modern times, although some modern Roman Catholics would like to pretend it is not.

While I personally believe Mary died first before being assumed Catholics are NOT obliged to believe that. The Church does NOT teach that and we are free to believe either way. If a Catholic chooses to believe Mary was assumed without dying first nobody can say they are wrong (even though my personal belief is that she died).

 

[Hesychios]

While I personally believe Mary died first before being assumed Catholics are NOT obliged to believe that. The Church does NOT teach that and we are free to believe either way. If a Catholic chooses to believe Mary was assumed without dying first nobody can say they are wrong (even though my personal belief is that she died).

The very idea that the BVM was assumed rests entirely on the fact that she died.

Without the death, there was no burial.

Without the burial, there was no opening of the tomb.

Without the opening of the tomb, there was no belief in her rising, assumed into heaven.

These are the circumstances of the coming to the belief. The belief did not arise in a vacuum, there were witnesses and this is the received tradition.

To try to say that she did not die before her arising is to deny the very tradition Pope Pius uses to base his own argument on.

To deny it is like saying “I know you drove to work today, the Pope told me, but I don’t have to believe your car has wheels because the Pope did not mention them.”

If one persists in maintaining that the car has no wheels it undercuts the Popes declared statement that you drove to work.

And yes, this is a traditional teaching of the church. She died, was buried and was assumed to heaven. These three together are the teaching of the church, although many modern Roman Catholics don’t seem to learn it anymore.

Perhaps this new think is what is called ‘Development of Doctrine’.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well…I’d say getting pregnant by a holy spirit as a virgin sure transcended the limitations of our current earthly existence!!!

Wasn’t Paul the one who wrote that women shouldn’t even talk in church?
If so, I’m not surprised if he didn’t mention Mary–the only human being to ever give birth to God/God’s only child and the savior of all humankind–in his letters.

Being a woman, perhaps he thought she wasn’t due any mentioning.

Do you know WHY St Paul wrote that --to a particular church, in which certain women were disrupting the service? That they were treating the Mass not as a sacred liturgy, but as though it was a performance where they could chat, do improvisation with the presiders, heckle, etc?

If St Paul was so anti-woman, how come he specifically greeted several women by name in his letters, and praised them for their work for Christ?

To be against a person by reason of gender is pretty sad. But to imply that a person is against others by reason of gender, without offering proof, would be, IMO, sadder.

 

[thistle]

The very idea that the BVM was assumed rests entirely on the fact that she died.

Without the death, there was no burial.

Without the burial, there was no opening of the tomb.

Without the opening of the tomb, there was no belief in her rising, assumed into heaven.

These are the circumstances of the coming to the belief. The belief did not arise in a vacuum, there were witnesses and this is the received tradition.

To try to say that she did not die before her arising is to deny the very tradition Pope Pius uses to base his own argument on.

To deny it is like saying “I know you drove to work today, the Pope told me, but I don’t have to believe your car has wheels because the Pope did not mention them.”

If one persists in maintaining that the car has no wheels it undercuts the Popes declared statement that you drove to work.

And yes, this is a traditional teaching of the church. She died, was buried and was assumed to heaven. These three together are the teaching of the church, although many modern Roman Catholics don’t seem to learn it anymore.

Perhaps this new think is what is called ‘Development of Doctrine’.

The Church does NOT teach that Mary died. If that were the case we would be bound by that and obliged to believe it. We are not bound. We are free to believe either way.

 

[Hesychios]

The Church does NOT teach that Mary died. If that were the case we would be bound by that and obliged to believe it. We are not bound. We are free to believe either way.

Well, that’s a switch.

 

[thistle]

Well, that’s a switch.

What’s a switch? I have been consistent in stating that the Church does NOT teach that Mary died first so what are you referring to?

 

[TrueLight]

The very idea that the BVM was assumed rests entirely on the fact that she died.

Without the death, there was no burial.

Without the burial, there was no opening of the tomb.

Without the opening of the tomb, there was no belief in her rising, assumed into heaven.

These are the circumstances of the coming to the belief. The belief did not arise in a vacuum, there were witnesses and this is the received tradition.

To try to say that she did not die before her arising is to deny the very tradition Pope Pius uses to base his own argument on.

To deny it is like saying “I know you drove to work today, the Pope told me, but I don’t have to believe your car has wheels because the Pope did not mention them.”

If one persists in maintaining that the car has no wheels it undercuts the Popes declared statement that you drove to work.

And yes, this is a traditional teaching of the church. She died, was buried and was assumed to heaven. These three together are the teaching of the church, although many modern Roman Catholics don’t seem to learn it anymore.

Perhaps this new think is what is called ‘Development of Doctrine’.

I agree that Mary died, but two things I want to point out.

First, doesn’t dormition mean “falling asleep”? Why couldn’t it be called the dying of Mary? Maybe dormition sounds better? So the confusion starts there.

Second, Thistle is right in that the Church really doesn’t say either way. The CCC is kind of vague on this:

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

So does finishing the course of her life mean that she died, or that after she had reached 50-60 years, God took her? The Church doesn’t say specifically.

I know it may seem like common sense, but the Church doesn’t go into that.

 

[Hesychios]

What’s a switch? I have been consistent …

It would be your church which made the switch, if you are correct.

I agree that Mary died, but two things I want to point out.

First, doesn’t dormition mean “falling asleep”? Why couldn’t it be called the dying of Mary? Maybe dormition sounds better? So the confusion starts there.

Early Christians always used the metaphor ‘sleep’ for death.

This is why we say “rest in peace”. Falling asleep in the Lord is indeed death, and earlier generations of Roman Catholics certainly knew that.

The early church most certainly had an annual commemoration of her death, burial and resurrection. It began in the east, and was carried westward. This is why there are so many icons of saint Mary of Nazereth on a bier, surrounded by the Apostles.

goarch.org/special/listen_learn_share/dormition/resolveUid/ab076280b88253e1e0242ebd52c0f448

https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/i...tc8XoAn5au7-FeOlVvcdRAH0N-cTs4WBuDAO9al9pRMr4

Note:

Jesus Christ stands back in the eternal space (denoted by the background) holding the soul of Mary. The soul is wrapped in what suggests both a winding sheet (for death) and a baby bunting (for a new birth).

The Feast of the Dormition began in the Jerusalem church, celebrated on August 15. It was borrowed into the western church in the eight century on the same day. This is no accident, the tradition was imported to Rome in it’s entirety by a Pope Sergius I, and it was actually called the Dormition Feast in the west for many years!

As evidence that the tradition was extant in the west, one should not that there was an an abundance of artwork (usually commissioned for churches, sometimes above altars) entitled “Death of the Virgin”. This genre persisted for centuries, but the idea is now out of favor.

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/i...y2WrAwIA9XCTJYbjoqTMoEd3xF7Pg_uIElCN0N_1lAYTw
Caravaggio

https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/i...kSZgEh0uNSLb2-kDoyHZnv0nKUEuaLt6Fmc5J3CEK09yY
**Cathedral of Strasbourg

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/i...tx6yzLhSsHHzKkqXxerZGCYZRsIOW6WII3byivdLLir**
Notre Dame cathedral, Paris

In the above Strasbourg sculpture, one can see Jesus holding her soul! In the Paris sculpture, one can see two angels about to lift her limp body up off the bier. The death, burial and assumption are one fact, the details make a set. There is no other tradition, there are no other tales, the Pope couldn’t find any.

This is how the belief in the Assumption of Mary was held in the western (Roman) Catholic church. Some people like to think “well, that’s Orthodox, and we Catholics have a different tradition”.

When in fact there is no other tradition, there is only fidelity to it, or abandonment of it.

Second, Thistle is right in that the Church really doesn’t say either way. The CCC is kind of vague on this:

So does finishing the course of her life mean that she died, or that after she had reached 50-60 years, God took her? The Church doesn’t say specifically.

Do you think this vaguery is intentional?

Or are modern Roman Catholics reading too much into the vagueness? Is it wishful thinking at work here?

Inquiring minds want to know.
edit:
This is what EWTN has to say on the subject, I just found it, not expecting to see anything that agrees with me.

 

[thistle]

It would be your church which made the switch, if you are correct.
Early Christians always used the metaphor ‘sleep’ for death.

This is why we say “rest in peace”. Falling asleep in the Lord is indeed death, and earlier generations of Roman Catholics certainly knew that.

The early church most certainly had an annual commemoration of her death, burial and resurrection. It began in the east, and was carried westward. This is why there are so many icons of saint Mary of Nazereth on a bier, surrounded by the Apostles.

goarch.org/special/listen_learn_share/dormition/resolveUid/ab076280b88253e1e0242ebd52c0f448

https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/i...tc8XoAn5au7-FeOlVvcdRAH0N-cTs4WBuDAO9al9pRMr4

Note:

Jesus Christ stands back in the eternal space (denoted by the background) holding the soul of Mary. The soul is wrapped in what suggests both a winding sheet (for death) and a baby bunting (for a new birth).

The Feast of the Dormition began in the Jerusalem church, celebrated on August 15. It was borrowed into the western church in the eight century on the same day. This is no accident, the tradition was imported to Rome in it’s entirety by a Pope Sergius I, and it was actually called the Dormition Feast in the west for many years!

As evidence that the tradition was extant in the west, one should not that there was an an abundance of artwork (usually commissioned for churches, sometimes above altars) entitled “Death of the Virgin”. This genre persisted for centuries, but the idea is now out of favor.

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/i...y2WrAwIA9XCTJYbjoqTMoEd3xF7Pg_uIElCN0N_1lAYTw
Caravaggio

https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/i...kSZgEh0uNSLb2-kDoyHZnv0nKUEuaLt6Fmc5J3CEK09yY
**Cathedral of Strasbourg

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/i...tx6yzLhSsHHzKkqXxerZGCYZRsIOW6WII3byivdLLir**
Notre Dame cathedral, Paris

In the above Strasbourg sculpture, one can see Jesus holding her soul! In the Paris sculpture, one can see two angels about to lift her limp body up off the bier. The death, burial and assumption are one fact, the details make a set. There is no other tradition, there are no other tales, the Pope couldn’t find any.

This is how the belief in the Assumption of Mary was held in the western (Roman) Catholic church. Some people like to think “well, that’s Orthodox, and we Catholics have a different tradition”.

When in fact there is no other tradition, there is only fidelity to it, or abandonment of it.
Do you think this vaguery is intentional?

Or are modern Roman Catholics reading too much into the vagueness? Is it wishful thinking at work here?

Inquiring minds want to know.
edit:
This is what EWTN has to say on the subject, I just found it, not expecting to see anything that agrees with me.

You seem to be missing the point. It has NEVER been Church doctrine that Mary died first. Catholics are BOUND by doctrine but we are FREE to believe that Mary died or did not die. Therefore it is not/has not been doctrine. Doctrine CANNOT change.

As I said earlier I personally believe that Mary died before she was assumed but that it not what the Church teaches. If another Catholic believes Mary did not die first then I cannot tell that person they are wrong. Both views are a matter of opinion and the Church allows that.

 

[TrueLight]

Do you think this vaguery is intentional?

Probably everyone knows by now that I think a lot of things are too vague.

Or are modern Roman Catholics reading too much into the vagueness? Is it wishful thinking at work here?

I don’t think it is wishful thinking. I think people just don’t know what to believe.

By the way, thanks for this post. Great history lessons and I love the graphics.

 

[TrueLight]

From New Advent…

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.

 

[Hesychios]

Probably everyone knows by now that I think a lot of things are too vague.

I don’t think it is wishful thinking. I think people just don’t know what to believe.

Following the Latin understanding of original sin, some people are of the opinion that the BVM, immaculately conceived according to the Latin understanding, is not subject to death. This belief has become more and more common since 1854AD.

The traditional belief in the Death of the Virgin that she had died conflicts with this newer belief. This is why it is important to them to think that the church has not definitively spoken on the subject. This probably is why the Bull Munificentissimus Deus is not quoted in full, and except for one paragraph almost never read. But even here, the wording is couched in such terms as to not (so far as may be possible) alienate one or another faction in the church. It is political.

Without the IC no one would care, with the IC the early tradition (from which the very idea of her assumption comes) is very inconvenient. The demise of the BVM raises difficult questions about the IC and the Latin Catholic understanding of Original Sin.

 

[thistle]

Following the Latin understanding of original sin, some people are of the opinion that the BVM, immaculately conceived according to the Latin understanding, is not subject to death. This belief has become more and more common since 1854AD.

The traditional belief in the Death of the Virgin that she had died conflicts with this newer belief. This is why it is important to them to think that the church has not definitively spoken on the subject. This probably is why the Bull Munificentissimus Deus is not quoted in full, and except for one paragraph almost never read. But even here, the wording is couched in such terms as to not (so far as may be possible) alienate one or another faction in the church. It is political.

Without the IC no one would care, with the IC the early tradition (from which the very idea of her assumption comes) is very inconvenient. The demise of the BVM raises difficult questions about the IC and the Latin Catholic understanding of Original Sin.

There has NEVER been Church doctrine that Mary died first before being assumed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There has NEVER been Church doctrine that Mary died first before being assumed.

Have you read the Apostolic Constitution?

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

1. In the liturgical books which deal with the feast either of the dormition or of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin there are expressions that agree in testifying that, when the Virgin Mother of God passed from this earthly exile to heaven, what happened to her sacred body was, by the decree of divine Providence, in keeping with the dignity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate, and with the other privileges she had been accorded. Thus, 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. These words are found in this volume: “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.”
2. 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. 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.
3. Thus St. John Damascene, an outstanding herald of this traditional truth, spoke out with powerful eloquence when he compared the bodily Assumption of the loving Mother of God with her other prerogatives and privileges. “It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in the act of giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father. It was fitting that God’s Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God.”
4. These words of St. John Damascene agree perfectly with what others have taught on this same subject. Statements no less clear and accurate are to be found in sermons delivered by Fathers of an earlier time or of the same period, particularly on the occasion of this feast. And so, to cite some other examples, St. Germanus of Constantinople considered the fact that the body of Mary, the virgin Mother of God, was incorrupt and had been taken up into heaven to be in keeping, not only with her divine motherhood, but also with the special holiness of her virginal body. “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.” And another very ancient writer asserts: “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.”
5. Among the holy writers who at that time employed statements and various images and analogies of Sacred Scripture to Illustrate and to confirm the doctrine of the Assumption, which was piously believed, the Evangelical Doctor, St. Anthony of Padua, holds a special place. On the feast day of the Assumption, while explaining the prophet’s words: “I will glorify the place of my feet,”(27) he stated it as certain that the divine Redeemer had bedecked with supreme glory his most beloved Mother from whom he had received human flesh. He asserts that “you have here a clear statement that the Blessed Virgin has been assumed in her body, where was the place of the Lord’s feet. Hence it is that the holy Psalmist writes: 'Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark which you have sanctified.”’ And he asserts that, just as Jesus Christ has risen from the death over which he triumphed and has ascended to the right hand of the Father, so likewise** the ark of his sanctification “has risen up**, since on this day the Virgin Mother has been taken up to her heavenly dwelling.”
6. In like manner St. Francis de Sales, after asserting that it is wrong to doubt that Jesus Christ has himself observed, in the most perfect way, the divine commandment by which children are ordered to honor their parents, asks this question: “What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise after her death if he could?” And St. Alphonsus writes that “Jesus did not wish to have the body of Mary corrupted after death, since it would have redounded to his own dishonor to have her virginal flesh, from which he himself had assumed flesh, reduced to dust.”
7. Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.