Well, my bishop this morning said in his homily that Mary “fell asleep” (ie. died) conclusively, no ifs, no buts. And he is an actual Catholic bishop, since we’re throwing around credentials here.
And to add:
The Dormition has been believed unquestionned and unchanged for over a millennium. Then suddenly today it’s, “nnnyyyeeeehhhhh, maybe she died, maybe she didn’t.” If that is not making things up, I don’t know what is.
We are not 'throwing around credentials" but MY BISHOP yesterday in HIS homily did not specifically state Mary died,
(really, he didn’t).
Seriously, you missed my point. Let me state it again.
The point is not whether something is ‘infallible’ or not. I hold to the Magesterium and to ALL the teachings of the Church,’
The point is not whether a priest, or bishop, or the Pope, makes a homily, a statement, whatever, using terms which themselves are not entirely clear (based on translations etc.)
THE POINT IS that while INDEED there are many saints etc. who stated that Mary died (but not how LONG she was dead or exactly WHEN she was assumed), there are others who state it is POSSIBLE that she only APPEARED to have died and was assumed right at the instant before death. While this may seem ‘new’, let’s face it, the understanding (and the Holy Spirit does guide to deeper understanding and MAY have done so here) that a body could APPEAR to be dead (no breathing, no heartbeat) to people even as recently as a couple of CENTURIES back does not NECESSARILY mean the person was actually dead.
The saints who taught about the Assumption (and there weren’t all that many) were working from oral tradition.
Now you tell me, is it likely that a first century AD apostle (even Luke the physician) would have been able to know WITH CERTAINTY that Mary had TRULY died, if in fact she was assumed body to soul to heaven immediately after she might have gasped, fallen back, stopped breathing and stopped her heartbeat??? Wouldn’t it have LOOKED like death? But it might not have been.
And as we have gained a deeper understanding of what CONSTITUTES PHYSICAL DEATH, we understand that this MIGHT have happened. There are scriptures that support the idea.
Just because it’s a ‘newer’ idea doesn’t mean it’s wrong, IF it can be traced back to ideas present IN SCRIPTURE and TRADITION and IF it is supported by the Church.
Look at the rosary (which has had quite a few changes in its ‘newfangled’ life --it is after all second millennium). The prayers, the concepts, can all be traced back to Scripture and Tradition.
SO can the idea that Mary might not have tasted PHYSICAL death per se but been assumed at the ‘instant’, thus not suffering corruption.
It is only a POSSIBILITY. But the Church, while it speaks of falling asleep and death etc., in its own Scripture has many passages wherein people who ‘sleep’ are raised.
If there were no passages about Elijah and Moses being assumed (and transfigured to boot) as the Law and the Prophets, and nothing in tradition about the Ark (and nobody EVER knew what really happened to the ark when it disappeared), then one could certainly ‘point a finger’ at the idea that Mary might NOT have actually died. . .
Now that I have given you an example from Father Z, why not address it there and get an answer from somebody who, unlike me, hasn’t just READ ABOUT this kind of teaching and considered it (without choosing to accept or reject). . .but somebody who is in the Church and actually TEACHES IT??
Go to the SOURCE instead of constantly yelling and criticizing ‘us Romans’ as if we’re just liars and tale-tellers please.
That is just another way of saying she didn’t die.