Mary before she died

[thistle]

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.

What you referring to is part of the preamble citing some early Church Fathers who believed that Mary died first. That is not part of the teaching. This document is a dogmatic teaching on the Assumption of Mary ONLY. Nothing else in the document is a teaching.
The Church does not know if Mary died or not. That is why Catholics are free to believe either way and why the Pope carefully worded " having completed the course of her earthly life" which leaves it open to interpretation.
Catholics are bound by the dogma of the Assumption.
Catholics are NOT bound to believe Mary died or did not die.

The teaching in MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS is confined to the part in paragraph 44 which I have undelined:

1. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; 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.

 

[ConstantineTG]

What you referring to is part of the preamble citing some early Church Fathers who believed that Mary died first. That is not part of the teaching. This document is a dogmatic teaching on the Assumption of Mary ONLY. Nothing else in the document is a teaching.
The Church does not know if Mary died or not. That is why Catholics are free to believe either way and why the Pope carefully worded " having completed the course of her earthly life" which leaves it open to interpretation.
Catholics are bound by the dogma of the Assumption.
Catholics are NOT bound to believe Mary died or did not die.

The teaching in MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS is confined to the part in paragraph 44 which I have undelined:

1. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; 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.

What? So everything else is just a waste of time by the bishops who put that together?

The entire document is part of the teaching. Otherwise they would not put it there. To deny any part of it is to deny the whole.

 

[thistle]

What? So everything else is just a waste of time by the bishops who put that together?

The entire document is part of the teaching. Otherwise they would not put it there. To deny any part of it is to deny the whole.

Of course its not a waste of time. Do you really expect any Church document, especially a Dogmatic document to consist of only one sentence. All documents have preamble. Mary dying is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a Church doctrine.

I don’t understand what you don’t get. Catholics are BOUND by doctrine. We are NOT BOUND to believe Mary died (albeit I do). It therefore cannot be a doctrine because we are FREE to believe either way.

**APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF
POPE PIUS XII

MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS

DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION

November 1, 1950**

Do you see?? Dogma of the Assumption. It is not Dogma of the Death and Assumption!!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Of course its not a waste of time. Do you really expect any Church document, especially a Dogmatic document to consist of only one sentence. All documents have preamble. Mary dying is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a Church doctrine.

I don’t understand what you don’t get. Catholics are BOUND by doctrine. We are NOT BOUND to believe Mary died (albeit I do). It therefore cannot be a doctrine because we are FREE to believe either way.

**APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF
POPE PIUS XII

MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS

DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION

November 1, 1950**

Do you see?? Dogma of the Assumption. It is not Dogma of the Death and Assumption!!

That is a rather legalistic way of looking at the faith Bound to believe? It is important to appreciate the significance of the falling asleep of the Theotokos to know why we must believe events as it happened as it is. It’s not just because we’re told to believe or not which answers the question whether we should believe or not. Otherwise, we’re just mindless automatons akin to those cult followers.

 

[thistle]

That is a rather legalistic way of looking at the faith Bound to believe? It is important to appreciate the significance of the falling asleep of the Theotokos to know why we must believe events as it happened as it is. It’s not just because we’re told to believe or not which answers the question whether we should believe or not. Otherwise, we’re just mindless automatons akin to those cult followers.

Not at all. In matters of faith and morals Christ gave authority to the Catholic Church. Either the Church teaches something or it doesn’t. In this case it teaches the Assumption but it does not teach Mary dying. Christ gave the Church authority to bind and loose and we are bound by the doctrines of the Church because they have the full authority of God behind them. If you have an issue being bound by Christ then that is your problem.

 

[bitznbitez]

But was the devotion as we know it today well apart from the rosary there before she died becuase then they would pray to her while she was on earth could she hear and interside our prayers if u c what I mean ?
Chuck

Its significant that the first miracle of the Christ, turning the water into wine, happened because of the intervention of Mary.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not at all. In matters of faith and morals Christ gave authority to the Catholic Church. Either the Church teaches something or it doesn’t. In this case it teaches the Assumption but it does not teach Mary dying. Christ gave the Church authority to bind and loose and we are bound by the doctrines of the Church because they have the full authority of God behind them. If you have an issue being bound by Christ then that is your problem.

So you’re throwing away 1600 years of tradition?

 

[thistle]

So you’re throwing away 1600 years of tradition?

Throwing away what?

I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this but Christ established the Catholic Church and gave it authority to bind and loose in matters of faith and morals. Therefore, whatever the Church teaches has the full authority of God behind the teachings and we are bound by these teachings. The Church binding us is God binding us.
In matters, for example, like Limbo for Infants, or if Mary died or did not die the Church does not know the answer and therefore allows Catholics to believe what they want, e.g. that Limbo for Infants does or does not exist, and that Mary did or did not die.
The Church says we are free to believe either in such cases so why do you have a problem with that when the Church does not??

 

[AmbroseSJ]

thistle:

Of course its not a waste of time. Do you really expect any Church document, especially a Dogmatic document to consist of only one sentence. All documents have preamble. Mary dying is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a Church doctrine.

I don’t understand what you don’t get. Catholics are BOUND by doctrine. We are NOT BOUND to believe Mary died (albeit I do). It therefore cannot be a doctrine because we are FREE to believe either way.

That means that St. Joseph never died either. No where does the Church command Catholics to believe that St. Joseph died.

The Church dogmatically states “when the course of her earthly life was completed.”

Only a fool would consider this to mean that she remained alive and was assumed. You are putting a NEW MEANING on what “completing the course of her earthly life” means. You are apparently thinking this is some reference to her usefulness, which having been completed, she was assumed. But that is NOT what the Church says. It says “the course of her earthly life was completed.” That is not a difficult concept to grasp except to those who would inject new meanings into a common well-known euphemism for death.

Aside from this, there are many INSURMOUNTABLE DIFFICULTIES with the proposition that Mary did not die before she was assumed.

We must then ask, HOW HAS THIS TRADITION COME DOWN TO US? Were there witnesses? If so, did they suppress the very act of God they were witness too? Why? Who were they?

If there were NOT witnesses, then the problem becomes even more difficult. What would St. John (her guardian on earth) have thought when she just disappeared? Her family and her friends? This was during Christian persecution. Her kidnapping or murder could easily have been surmised. Does this SOUND like God’s plan for the early Church, and His Own Mother? I don’t think so.

Lastly, where does the Church command us to believe Mary did NOT die? This is a staggering (and unChristian) belief. Jesus accepted death, death on the cross. Just as Mary was subject to all of the grief and pain common to us all, she was subject to death. Nowhere in Scripture, or in Church teaching has Mary EVER been said to be exempt from death. For us to believe something so completely out of character for a disciple of Christ, I would need Scriptural, and most certainly Church teaching. There is NONE.

 

[Evan]

That means that St. Joseph never died either. No where does the Church command Catholics to believe that St. Joseph died.

The Church dogmatically states “when the course of her earthly life was completed.”

Only a fool would consider this to mean that she remained alive and was assumed. You are putting a NEW MEANING on what “completing the course of her earthly life” means. You are apparently thinking this is some reference to her usefulness, which having been completed, she was assumed. But that is NOT what the Church says. It says “the course of her earthly life was completed.” That is not a difficult concept to grasp except to those who would inject new meanings into a common well-known euphemism for death.

Of course the Church has no teaching on the death of St. Joseph, but if it ever came into doubt and the Holy Spirit lead the Church to teach definitively that he died (or did not), then we must believe.

It also has no teaching on the death of my grandfather. Although I did not witness his death, I think he died. But there is no definitive teaching on it. So I am free to believe either way (he died or he did not).

You should rein in your rhetoric. You are getting a little insulting to those who legitimately believe BVM did not died, but was assumed at the end of her earthly life. If you want to have it set out definitely that she did die, maybe you should take it up with the Holy Spirit, He is the one that guides the Church. Tell Him He has to get this cleared up you will go over His head and get him fired; you can find a replacement and things will be done right this time!!!

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Evan:

You should rein in your rhetoric. You are getting a little insulting to those who legitimately believe BVM did not died, but was assumed at the end of her earthly life.

Arguing against my tone is an argument of great weakness. Why not confront the reasoning and argue against that? What does it mean to “legitimately” believe something? Does ignorance and thoughtlessness make a belief legitimate? Why don’t we hear sound reasoning from those who believe Mary did not die? My arguments are against their proposition, not against them. If I say a fool believes something, let them prove me wrong by illustrating the wisdom of their own belief.

Arguing that the Church doesn’t categorically forbid a belief, or that they “always” thought this was true, is not a valid argument; as I have clearly shown.

 

[Evan]

Arguing against my tone is an argument of great weakness. Why not confront the reasoning and argue against that? What does it mean to “legitimately” believe something? Does ignorance and thoughtlessness make a belief legitimate? Why don’t we hear sound reasoning from those who believe Mary did not die? My arguments are against their proposition, not against them. If I say a fool believes something, let them prove me wrong by illustrating the wisdom of their own belief.

Arguing that the Church doesn’t categorically forbid a belief, or that they “always” thought this was true, is not a valid argument; as I have clearly shown.

In my mathematical logic class we were warned against using proof by intimidation. Your tone is what separates an argument from a discussion from a feud.

Your argument is also invalid, and you have not clearly shown anything.

Saying that at the “end of her earthly life” means “at her death” is not supported. The church tries to be clear on statements, especially statements of dogma. If she desired the reading to indicate “at her death”, it would have been simple enough to use such a phrase. Euphemisms are not used in dogmatic statements. We can only read the words and determine what they say, not what other meanings they may have had.

I personally don’t care if she died or not. But I’ll not teach one way or the other. When I offer a class at my parish, I try to always respect the belief (if it is legitimate) of those who come to learn. I do not teach what I believe, but what the Church teaches.

Let us look at the Catechism:

CCC 627 Christ’s death was a real death in that it put an end to his earthly human existence. But because of the union which the person of the Son retained with his body, his was not a mortal corpse like others, for “it was not possible for death to hold him” and therefore “divine power preserved Christ’s body from corruption.”

Here death is clearly described. No talk of end of earthly life, but death.

CCC 1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.

Here death puts an end, but it does not state that there is no other way God can complete an earthly life. For example, Elijah was taken to heaven without death. His earthly life ended, but death was not the instrument.

There seems to be no reticence in speaking of death in the Catechism

CCC 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.” The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.

Here we have the end of life, but no mention of death save in the description of the of our lives. Why is that? Could it be that the option of death is left open for each believer to ponder in his own heart?

There is mention of “Taken up body and soul”, ie her complete humanity. In death soul and body are separated. There is no mention here of a later rejoining. Only the end of an earthly life and the beginning of a heavenly life. [a change of address] Also an additional title of Queen over all things.

 

[pete_29]

Of course the Church has no teaching on the death of St. Joseph, but if it ever came into doubt and the Holy Spirit lead the Church to teach definitively that he died (or did not), then we must believe.

It also has no teaching on the death of my grandfather. Although I did not witness his death, I think he died. But there is no definitive teaching on it. So I am free to believe either way (he died or he did not).

You should rein in your rhetoric. You are getting a little insulting to those who legitimately believe BVM did not died, but was assumed at the end of her earthly life. If you want to have it set out definitely that she did die, maybe you should take it up with the Holy Spirit, He is the one that guides the Church. Tell Him He has to get this cleared up you will go over His head and get him fired; you can find a replacement and things will be done right this time!!!

I think I was taught in grade school that St. Joseph died when Jesus was a teen or a young adult. I may not be remembering correctly though.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Evan:

I personally don’t care if she died or not. But I’ll not teach one way or the other. When I offer a class at my parish, I try to always respect the belief (if it is legitimate) of those who come to learn. I do not teach what I believe, but what the Church teaches.

Do you consider my belief legitimate?

Can two contrary beliefs be legitimate?

Can we, when confronted with two opposing beliefs, in good conscience, just decide to believe either or neither? As thoughtful Catholics shouldn’t we strive to know, not just the letter of the law, but the spirit as well?

Wouldn’t knowing the Truth be preferable to believing a fable?

I am interested in the Truth. Is there such a thing as a Catholic right to remain ignorant? Arguing intelligently is how we mere mortals hash out difficult matters.

You have yet to prove anything against my assertions (although since you have no opinion one way or the other --I wonder why you have even entered this discussion?)

You have quoted various sections of the English edition of the CCC where you find the word death used, as if this has any bearing on the wording of a Papal Encyclical.

You would prefer to keep the argument centered on this wording rather than confront the other reasons I have offered in defense of the Virgin Mary’s death. Why?

How do you answer the entire Eastern Church? Do you deny the Dormition of the Virgin Mary?

How do you answer all of the Fathers, Saints, Martyrs, Confessors, and other Magisterial teachers of the Church since primitive times, that understood and believed the Virgin Mary died?

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think I was taught in grade school that St. Joseph died when Jesus was a teen or a young adult. I may not be remembering correctly though.

I think this may stem from a tradition that Joseph was much older than the Ever-Virgin Mary, which also serves as an explanation for why they remained betrothed without ever consummating the marriage.

 

[Evan]

Do you consider my belief legitimate?

Can two contrary beliefs be legitimate?

Can we, when confronted with two opposing beliefs, in good conscience, just decide to believe either or neither? As thoughtful Catholics shouldn’t we strive to know, not just the letter of the law, but the spirit as well?

Wouldn’t knowing the Truth be preferable to believing a fable?

Your belief is legitimate. As is the opposite. These are beliefs. But believing something does not make it true. Nor does admitting you don’t know, make it false.

The Church says “We don’t know”. There are good arguments on both sides. The Eastern and Western Churches express truths in different manners. So when there appears to be a disagreement, then the truth is not known without the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

There are math problems that have no solution, there are others where no solution has been found. If I choose to accept that there is a solution, where one has not been found, I am free to do that. I am also free to believe there is no solution. I know that either there is or is not, but I can legitimately believe either one or the other UNTIL A PROOF IS FOUND THAT DETERMINES WHICH IS TRUE.

So like events in history. The mother of God may have died or may not have died. I can believe either or I can remain uncommitted.

I don’t have to answer the ECF or the Eastern Church. I can follow their argument, and accept that it is good. It is not a proof and, until the Church has spoken, it is something to consider. But I have no need to make a definitive statement. I am not an authority.

Knowing the truth would not necessarily be a good thing, it may be neutral. But not knowing provokes me to think about God. And that is a good thing.

I entered the discussion because I think the idea (either way) is intriguing and thought provoking. My faith does not enter in here, only my desire to know the mind of God and how He reveals himself in the world.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Evan:

The Church says “We don’t know”. There are good arguments on both sides.

No, the Church does NOT say “we don’t know.” You are saying that. The Church says dogmatically that “After the course of Mary’s earthly life was finished.” Does ANYONE in the history of humanity go on living bodily AFTER the course of their earthly life is finished?

If not, then WHY are you putting THAT INTERPRETATION on those words?

Jesus Himself says “I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.” (John 12:24)

Our Lady is no more exempt from this glorious FACT then the rest of humanity, not to mention the Son of God himself!

And SECONDLY:

What are these “good arguments” that you attest, but have yet to mention?

 

[Evan]

No, the Church does NOT say “we don’t know.” You are saying that. The Church says dogmatically that “After the course of Mary’s earthly life was finished.” Does ANYONE in the history of humanity go on living bodily AFTER the course of their earthly life is finished?

Yes! I just gave you one person who did not die at the end of his earthly life. Elijah. Of course, Mary is another possibility. Also, all those who are still living at the 2nd coming.

And when you assume your conclusion, you can almost always prove you are correct.

I state that the Church claims Mary’s life came to an end, not that she died.

The Church also claims that Mary was born without original sin and lived a sinless life. Now what people who lived under these conditions can we point to who died? Jesus; except for him, none other. For she was a singular example.

I can see that you read this statement one way, and I read it another. Repeating it again will not convince me that the Church says what I do not see nor will it convince you of what you do not see. I think this may be the end of a fruitful exchange.

May you be blessed in your contemplation of the Life of the Blessed Mother and someday, ask her “Did you die?”

God Bless

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Evan:

Yes! I just gave you one person who did not die at the end of his earthly life. Elijah. Of course, Mary is another possibility. Also, all those who are still living at the 2nd coming.

Unfortunately, the Church does not teach dogmatically that Elijah did not die. There are many difficulties with that interpretation.

I’m not trying to get you to change your mind, I’m trying to see if you have ANY cogent, sound arguments for your position that would convince me that I am wrong. At least I have many sound reasons for believing the way I do.

But I will say this much, I find I spend most of my time arguing this point with people that either say they don’t care one way or the other (like yourself), or people that DO believe that Mary died, but just like to argue the point on the exact grounds you have done. The wording of the Papal encyclical is just not explicit enough for them. That is their one and only argument. I never seem to argue with someone that actually BELIEVES Mary did not die. It just doesn’t seem to be a belief people who hold this position are willing to defend.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

If you look in the Catechism it talks about Mary’s Dormition. What is her Dormition if it isn’t her death?

Keep in mind the Catechism is binding since it is authoritative.