Mary did or didn't die?

[GaryTaylor]

Yes and Assumed “Body and Soul”. Which is de-fide. Further…

Based upon Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Church, we can say the following about death and what follows.

At the moment of death, the soul is separated from the body and no longer sustains order within the natural body; as a result, the body begins to corrupt and left to its own will decompose. The soul, however, is immortal and never ceases to exist, once created.

“Immediately upon death, the soul of each person is judged by the Lord”

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=340085

Corrupt or not is not an issue or a point which resolves the point in question. The soul could not have been immediately judged thus heaven, and the body remained in the ground for three days…“impossible” which “body and soul” indicates.

Also the ordinary teaching “probable” is that Mary desired to die, which is quite possible, but she still was Assumed Body and Soul without separation. Mary didn’t “need” to die either. So its presupposed she “desired” to die. Elijah desired to die also and this was rejected. Thus its Gods will not Elijahs and which did not coincide. I think it could be qualified but its a stretch.

Its also possible Mary did not die.

 

[Memaw]

I will wait for the church to decide.
But until it becomes a real issue, it is likely the church will not rule.

It would seem to make sense that she did not die as there was no sin on her part.
However she could well have decided to go through this experience.

It would not have been “up to her”!! She only did God’s Will not hers. Like I said before it is one of God’s Sacred Mysteries and NO ONE was there to witness it no matter who "thinks " it otherwise. WE, (Saints and us also) can try to apply our pious thoughts on it but no one “knows for sure” what really took place at that precious moment. Otherwise the Pope would have proclaimed it Infallible!!! There would have been NO reason not to! God Bless, Memaw

 

[AmbroseSJ]

GaryTaylor:

I don’t see where anything is “clear” but she was Assumed Body and Soul. I don’t see where dead or assumed Body and Soul is defined anywhere. In fact I don’t think the east and west teaching in this regard is mutually exclusive.

In one sense you are certainly correct. It is clear that the Virgin Mary was Assumed Body and Soul into heaven.

Also, you are right, the Church of the East and West are NOT mutually exclusive, in fact, they are in perfect harmony on this point.

twf:

I agree that it has not been defined De Fide, but I think it is useful for the faithful to be made aware of the Church’s witness in Her ancient liturgies, the Fathers, and iconography.

You have summed up perfectly my whole position! Speaking of iconography, here is a pic from the Oratory of Ta’ Pinu at the Basilica of the National Shrine of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception in Washington DC. It was dedicated in 2006. It is further proof we have of the harmony between the East and West on not only the Assumption of Our Lady into Heaven body and soul, but her death or dormition.

http://emblemagic.com/apicturehost/newman/our lady of ta pinu.jpg

The original shrine, the Basilica of Ta’ Pinu became a Marian Shrine in Malta because of the occurrence of a miraculous message from our Lady:

Karmni Grima (2 February 1838 – 25 February 1922) was a Maltese peasant whose mystical religious experience led to the construction of the church of Our Lady of Ta’ Pinu.

Karmni Grima was born in the village of Għarb in Gozo, the sister island of Malta. Her parents, Thomas and Antonia (née Apap) were poor labourers who worked in the fields located on the nearby hills of Ghammar. Every day, after hearing mass (liturgy) in a small chapel dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Karmni would go to work in the fields.

On the 22 June 1883 while, as usual she was passing in front of the small chapel, she [Karmni Grima] heard a mysterious voice calling her: “Come … come today. For a whole year, you will not be able to return”. This event is considered as “The most notable occurrence in the history of the Diocese”[1] of Gozo . Karmni Grima,although terrified,obeyed and entered into the chapel. From a painting of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary located in the chapel, Karmni heard a voice saying: “Recite three Hail Marys in honour of the three days that I stayed within the tomb”.

This Marian Shrine of Malta (which is now a basilica) has been blessed and visited by popes. From Wikipedia: “Pope John Paul II celebrated mass on the parvise of the shrine during his visit to the island of Gozo on 26 May 1990.[3] On 18 April 2010, when visiting Malta, Pope Benedict XVI donated and placed a Golden Rose in front of the devotional image of Our Lady Of Ta’ Pinu which was brought over from Gozo to Malta for this special occasion. The Pope invited everybody to “Pray to Her Under the Title Queen of the Family”[4]”

The picture above is a mosaic copy of the original painting that is in the Marian Basilica in Malta.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t see it and it and it must coincide with below. Think this through as we take a look. I think we can forward the conversation as most of us have had this conversation many times. There are simply points we can’t ignore

Think about this “after” reading…

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html

1. Dogmas - This is De Fide - This is infallible
2. Doctrines - This is Sent. Certa - This is infallible but has not been formally elevated yet to the level of De Fide
3. Teachings - Includes Sent. Communis, Sent. pia et probabilis, Sent. communior, and Sent. probabilior - These have varying degrees of certainty and are widely believed. However, they do not rise to the same level as Sent. Certa or De Fide and are therefore not infallible.

After His Death, Christ’s soul, which was separated from His Body, descended into the underworld. (De fide.)

"Which makes the idea and probable teaching that Mary desired to die like Jesus non sequitur in my mind and seemingly at odds with
body and soul

The Privileges of the Mother of God

Mary was conceived without stain of Original sin. (De fide.)

From her conception Mary was free from all motions of concupiscence. (Sent. communis.)

In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life. (Sent. fidei proxima.) She was immune from all sin mortal and venial.

Mary was a Virgin before, during and after the Birth of Jesus Christ.

Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the co-operation of man. (De fide.)

Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.)

Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin. (De fide.)

Mary suffered a temporal death. (Sent. communior.)

Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven. (De fide.)

Mary suffered a temporal death. (Sent. communior.)

Teachings - Includes Sent. Communis, Sent. pia et probabilis, (Sent. communior,) and Sent. probabilior - These have varying degrees of certainty and are widely believed. However, they do not rise to the same level as Sent. Certa or De Fide and are therefore not infallible.

Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven. (De fide.)

Immediately after death the particular judgment takes place, in which, by a Divine Sentence of Judgment, the eternal fate of the deceased person is decided. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

The souls of the just which in the moment of death are free from all guilt of sin and punishment for sin, enter into Heaven. (De fide.)

Thus Mary would have been assumed body and soul at the moment of death but there was no need for her to die but for the probable teaching she desired to die. Thus…

Mary was conceived without stain of Original sin. (De fide.)

From her conception Mary was free from all motions of concupiscence. (Sent. communis.)

In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life. (Sent. fidei proxima.) She was immune from all sin mortal and venial.

In other words there was no need for Mary to die and she was guilty of nothing. Had Mary chose to die like her son which is quite possible she wouldn’t have had a separation of body and soul like her son. Nor could she have been in the ground three days as the Dormition suggests and corrupt or not is non sequitur.

Be it she lived or died she was assumed immediately body and soul to be sure by defide teaching.

 

[Memaw]

In one sense you are certainly correct. It is clear that the Virgin Mary was Assumed Body and Soul into heaven.

Also, you are right, the Church of the East and West are NOT mutually exclusive, in fact, they are in perfect harmony on this point.

You have summed up perfectly my whole position! Speaking of iconography, here is a pic from the Oratory of Ta’ Pinu at the Basilica of the National Shrine of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception in Washington DC. It was dedicated in 2006. It is further proof we have of the harmony between the East and West on not only the Assumption of Our Lady into Heaven body and soul, but her death or dormition.

http://emblemagic.com/apicturehost/newman/our lady of ta pinu.jpg

The original shrine, the Basilica of Ta’ Pinu became a Marian Shrine in Malta because of the occurrence of a miraculous message from our Lady:

Karmni Grima (2 February 1838 – 25 February 1922) was a Maltese peasant whose mystical religious experience led to the construction of the church of Our Lady of Ta’ Pinu.

Karmni Grima was born in the village of Għarb in Gozo, the sister island of Malta. Her parents, Thomas and Antonia (née Apap) were poor labourers who worked in the fields located on the nearby hills of Ghammar. Every day, after hearing mass (liturgy) in a small chapel dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Karmni would go to work in the fields.

On the 22 June 1883 while, as usual she was passing in front of the small chapel, she [Karmni Grima] heard a mysterious voice calling her: “Come … come today. For a whole year, you will not be able to return”. This event is considered as “The most notable occurrence in the history of the Diocese”[1] of Gozo . Karmni Grima,although terrified,obeyed and entered into the chapel. From a painting of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary located in the chapel, Karmni heard a voice saying: “Recite three Hail Marys in honour of the three days that I stayed within the tomb”.

This Marian Shrine of Malta (which is now a basilica) has been blessed and visited by popes. From Wikipedia: “Pope John Paul II celebrated mass on the parvise of the shrine during his visit to the island of Gozo on 26 May 1990.[3] On 18 April 2010, when visiting Malta, Pope Benedict XVI donated and placed a Golden Rose in front of the devotional image of Our Lady Of Ta’ Pinu which was brought over from Gozo to Malta for this special occasion. The Pope invited everybody to “Pray to Her Under the Title Queen of the Family”[4]”

The picture above is a mosaic copy of the original painting that is in the Marian Basilica in Malta.

That is an artists version not the Church’s teaching. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Father_Read]

Father, bless.

Ambrose’s link to Pope St. John Paul’s audience on the matter sums up the issue for me. His Holiness refers to the **fact ** (his word) of Her death and confirms that the notion that She did not die was unknown to the Church prior to the 17th century. w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_25061997.html
I agree that it has not been defined De Fide, but I think it is useful for the faithful to be made aware of the Church’s witness in Her ancient liturgies, the Fathers, and iconography. The Church holds Our Lady up as a perfect type and model of the Church. On many levels I find this difficult if we deny Her a share in the resurrection (and as Pope St. John Paul pointed out, there can be no share in the resurrection without a share in the death of Christ). Certainly the Eastern Churches, and this would include the Eastern Catholic Churches, teach Her Dormition definitively. The issue may be open for Latin Catholics, but there is no doubt for our Eastern brethren who never departed from the universal ancient witness.

Regarding quotes from Munificentissimus Deus, here are a couple (emphasis added):

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, twf, but is there a specific question you had for me? In any event, please keep in mind that I am limiting my participation in this thread to answering the OP’s request for a understanding that is “perfectly clear” on the question as to whether or not Mary died. This, then, should be seen as the context for all my comments herein. In my opinion, because the Catholic Church has no de fide pronouncement on it, and the question is open for debate, there is no perfectly clear response. To back this up, I can simply point to the threads on CAF which have debated the question to great lengths but without any clear resolution.

This thread, too, seems to be transforming into a debate over which side (Mary died vs. Mary did not die) can make the better case. I consider that to be off-topic, which is why I’m restricting my (name removed by moderator)ut in terms of what Crown of Stars specifically asked.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Agreed, I also think when we consider the translation of “body and soul” its true also Marys body underwent change to glorification of the body and soul. In a very real sense this is death of the body as we know it.

The Bible tells us that when Jesus returns to earth, he will physically raise all those who have died, giving them back the bodies they lost at death.

These will be the same bodies people had in earthly life—but our resurrection bodies will not die and, for the righteous, they will be transformed into a glorified state, freed from suffering and pain, and enabled to do many of the amazing things Jesus could do with his glorified body (cf. 1 Cor. 15:35–44, 1 John 3:2).

The resurrection of the body is an essential Christian doctrine, as the apostle Paul declares: “*f the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:13–18).

Because, as Paul tells us, the Christian faith cannot exist without this doctrine, it has been infallibly defined by the Church. It is included in the three infallible professions of faith—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed—and has been solemnly, infallibly taught by ecumenical councils.

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215), infallibly defined that at the second coming Jesus “will judge the living and the dead, to render to every person according to his works, both to the reprobate and to the elect. All of them will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad [Rom. 2:6–11]” (constitution 1).

Most recently, the Catechism of the Catholic Church reiterated this long-defined teaching, stating, “‘We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess’ (Council of Lyons II). We sow a corruptible body in the tomb, but he raises up an incorruptible body, a ‘spiritual body’ (cf. 1 Cor 15:42–44)” (CCC 1017).

As the following quotes from the Church Fathers show, this has been the historic teaching of the Christian faith on the matter since the very beginning. *

catholic.com/tracts/resurrection-of-the-body

Anyway I’m pretty open to all of this and honestly feel much understanding has come out of the conversations.

Thus this point “but he raises up an incorruptible body” and in this case “body and soul” is assured as it is Church teaching. We are talking in my estimation what happened in the twinkle of and eye so to speak. There’s much to think about which is defide and to be qualified with other teachings which require assent. Not an easy conversation in logic as some would quickly propose.

 

[Memaw]

Agreed, I also think when we consider the translation of “body and soul” its true also Marys body underwent change to glorification of the body and soul. In a very real sense this is death of the body as we know it.

catholic.com/tracts/resurrection-of-the-body

Anyway I’m pretty open to all of this and honestly feel much understanding has come out of the conversations.

Thus this point “but he raises up an incorruptible body” and in this case “body and soul” is assured as it is Church teaching. We are talking in my estimation what happened in the twinkle of and eye so to speak. There’s much to think about which is defide and to be qualified with other teachings which require assent. Not an easy conversation in logic as some would quickly propose.

Mary didn’t require a Resurrection, she was Assumed body and soul together! God Bless, Memaw

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Latin Catholic Feast of the Assumption is celebrated on August 15, and the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics celebrate the Dormition of the Theotokos (the falling asleep of the Mother of God) on the same date, preceded by a 14-day fast period. Eastern Christians believe that Mary died a natural death, that her soul was received by Christ upon death,

and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her death

and that she was taken up into heaven bodily in anticipation of the general resurrection. Her tomb was found empty on the third day. “…Orthodox tradition is clear and unwavering in regard to the central point [of the Dormition]: the Holy Virgin underwent, as did her Son, a physical death, but her body – like His – was afterwards raised from the dead and she was taken up into heaven, in her body as well as in her soul. She has passed beyond death and judgement, and lives wholly in the Age to Come. The Resurrection of the Body … has in her case been anticipated and is already an accomplished fact. That does not mean, however, that she is dissociated from the rest of humanity and placed in a wholly different category: for we all hope to share one day in that same glory of the Resurrection of the Body which she enjoys even now.”[31]
Many Catholics also believe that Mary first died before being assumed, but they add that she was miraculously resurrected before being assumed, while others believe she was assumed bodily into Heaven without first passing through death.[32][33] As mentioned earlier, this aspect of the Assumption is not authoritatively defined in Catholic theology, and either understanding may be legitimately held by Catholics. Eastern Catholics observe the Feast as the Dormition. Many theologians note by way of comparison that in the Catholic Church, the Assumption is dogmatically defined, while in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Dormition is less dogmatically than liturgically and mystically defined. Such differences spring from a larger pattern in the two traditions, wherein Catholic teachings are often dogmatically and authoritatively defined – in part because of the more centralized structure of the Catholic Church– while in Eastern Orthodoxy, many doctrines are less authoritative

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary

Not a point I wish to labor, I would only offer a bad wiki pedia article which I can state for sure coincides with for example Maximus the Confessor-Life of the Virgin.

Thus this point “but he raises up an incorruptible body” and in this case “body and soul” is assured as it is Church teaching. We are talking in my estimation what happened in the twinkle of and eye so to speak. I also think when we consider the translation of “body and soul” its true also Marys body underwent change to glorification of the body and soul. In a very real sense this is death of the body as we know it.

Much love!

 

[AmbroseSJ]

It would not have been “up to her”!! She only did God’s Will not hers. Like I said before it is one of God’s Sacred Mysteries and NO ONE was there to witness it no matter who "thinks " it otherwise. WE, (Saints and us also) can try to apply our pious thoughts on it but no one “knows for sure” what really took place at that precious moment. Otherwise the Pope would have proclaimed it Infallible!!! There would have been NO reason not to! God Bless, Memaw

You raise some interesting points.

I agree with you 100% when you say that is was not “up to her” whether she died or not, as some believe. I agree with you that it was God’s will that she die, but not as the wages of sin, as she was Immaculate. But instead, for the same reason she suffered so much during the course of her earthly life; viz: to unite her spotless and pure offering in union with her Son, to the Almighty Father for the forgiveness of sins and the salvation of mankind.

Secondly, you say there were no witnesses. Are you sure? The presence or absence of witnesses is crucial to the question of whether the Virgin Mary died or not.

If there were witnesses, why did they not bear witness to what they saw?
If there were no witnesses, then how would St. John the Apostle, and all of the rest of the Apostles along with the whole primitive Church know what became of her? They would have reason to suspect many worrisome possibilities in that age of persecution. The LAST thing they would suppose is that she just shimmered into Heaven without so much as a word!

 

[Memaw]

You raise some interesting points.

I agree with you 100% when you say that is was not “up to her” whether she died or not, as some believe. I agree with you that it was God’s will that she die, but not as the wages of sin, as she was Immaculate. But instead, for the same reason she suffered so much during the course of her earthly life; viz: to unite her spotless and pure offering in union with her Son, to the Almighty Father for the forgiveness of sins and the salvation of mankind.

Secondly, you say there were no witnesses. Are you sure? The presence or absence of witnesses is crucial to the question of whether the Virgin Mary died or not.

If there were witnesses, why did they not bear witness to what they saw?
If there were no witnesses, then how would St. John the Apostle, and all of the rest of the Apostles along with the whole primitive Church know what became of her? They would have reason to suspect many worrisome possibilities in that age of persecution. The LAST thing they would suppose is that she just shimmered into Heaven without so much as a word!

I never said it was God’s Will that she die!!! Read my post again. I said that precious Moment is only between God and Mary! We have NO written proof that the Apostles saw her die. If they did, why didn’t they write about it? Why didn’t the Pope define that too?? We don’t even know when she was Assumed. Maybe the Apostles were already traveling around. Like I said, One of God’s great Mysteries. I love it. God Bless, Memaw

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t know about the later writings. This has always stood out to me.

St. Epiphanius of Salamis, the Panarion (Greek: Πανάριον, “Medicine Chest”) (310 - 403 AD)

“But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried. … Rather, Scripture is absolutely silent on the end of Mary because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy, in order not to shock the minds of men.”

"For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence. For it may be that somewhere we have found hints that it is impossible to discover the death of the holy, blessed one. On the one hand, you see, Simeon says of her, ‘And your own soul a sword shall pierce, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed’ (Luke 2:35). On the other hand, when the Apocalypse of John says, ‘And the dragon hastened against the woman who had brought forth the male child, and there were given to her an eagle’s wings, and she was carried off into the wilderness, that the dragon might not seize her’ (Rev 12:13-14), it may be that this is fulfilled in her.

“However, I do not assert this absolutely, and I do not say that she remained immortal; but neither do I maintain stoutly that she died. …”

"…either the holy Virgin died and was buried; then her falling asleep was with honor, her death chaste, her crown that of virginity. Or she was killed, as it is written: ‘And your own soul a sword shall pierce’; then her glory is among the martyrs and her holy body amid blessings, she through whom light rose over the world. Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no one knows…

newadvent.org/cathen/13393b.htm

 

[Memaw]

I don’t know about the later writings. This has always stood out to me.

newadvent.org/cathen/13393b.htm

AMEN, it was between her God and her. God Bless, Memaw

 

[AmbroseSJ]

AMEN, it was between her God and her. God Bless, Memaw

The Assumption, which by all accounts actually WAS secret or hidden, is known to the entire Catholic Church! How so?

The simple human act of dying was not a secret. If it were, as St. Pope John Paul II says:

The New Testament provides no information on the circumstances of Mary’s death. This silence leads one to suppose that it happened naturally, with no detail particularly worthy of mention. If this were not the case, how could the information about it have remained hidden from her contemporaries and not have been passed down to us in some way?

This reasoning stands out for me.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The simple human act of dying was not a secret.

Thats the entire point we’ve reduced this to thus “body and soul” which the line of death and life is blurred.

I also think when we consider the translation of “body and soul” its true also Marys body underwent change to glorification of the body and soul. In a very real sense this is death of the body as we know it. Or eternal life which is assured in this case.

So this momentary interplay of translation is simply to date unknown and I’m afraid we enter into speculation at this junction.

For example how is it we know that she wasn’t completely conscious as sleep is no more than a lower state of consciousness of which too we can fall back on tradition.

 

[Memaw]

Thats the entire point we’ve reduced this to thus “body and soul” which the line of death and life is blurred.

So this momentary interplay of translation is simply to date unknown and I’m afraid we enter into speculation at this junction.

For example how is it we know that she wasn’t completely conscious as sleep is no more than a lower state of consciousness of which too we can fall back on tradition.

I doubt she “slept” thru one of the most precious moments of her life. God Bless, Memaw

 

[GaryTaylor]

The entire mystery of human life to eternal life is enclosed in that flashing moment of Marys translation. Truly its a mystery and one which perhaps we seek the answer too in hopes to understand our own mortality-immortality. Its quite normal to impose our own understanding of life on this point. It took the Church a very long time and through divine revelation to infallibly confirm “body and soul” which is extraordinary. The mystery of this translation is simply unknown and undefined.

 

[Peregrinans]

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AOFMARY.HTM
****"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.”

So it is obvious that she died, at which time her soul went to Heaven, was entombed and the apostles deduced later, based on the empty tomb, that her body had been also taken up to Heaven.

 

[Peregrinans]

I wanted to add that the above quote, “At the Council of Chalcedon…”,etc., is attributed to St. John Damascene, who lived in the 700s, is not only is a Doctor of the Church and one of the last Church Fathers, he is also a wellspring for Marian teachings. His teachings on the Assumption, despite his use of very flowery language, is clear…Mary died first.

Here are two extracts from one of his sermons on the Assumption: (bolded by me)

“In order to be clothed with immortality she must first put off mortality, since the Lord of nature did not reject the penalty of death. She dies according to the flesh, destroys death by death, and through corruption gains incorruption and makes her death the source of resurrection.”

Here he is obviously stated she died.

“Thy blessed soul is naturally parted from thy blissful and undefiled body, and the body is delivered to the grave, yet it does not endure in death, nor is it the prey of corruption.”

Here he is giving the order of things: death, soul departs,put in tomb, body taken up to Heaven.

 

[Memaw]

I wanted to add that the above quote, “At the Council of Chalcedon…”,etc., is attributed to St. John Damascene, who lived in the 700s, is not only is a Doctor of the Church and one of the last Church Fathers, he is also a wellspring for Marian teachings. His teachings on the Assumption, despite his use of very flowery language, is clear…Mary died first.

Here are two extracts from one of his sermons on the Assumption: (bolded by me)

“In order to be clothed with immortality she must first put off mortality, since the Lord of nature did not reject the penalty of death. She dies according to the flesh, destroys death by death, and through corruption gains incorruption and makes her death the source of resurrection.”

Here he is obviously stated she died.

“Thy blessed soul is naturally parted from thy blissful and undefiled body, and the body is delivered to the grave, yet it does not endure in death, nor is it the prey of corruption.”

Here he is giving the order of things: death, soul departs,put in tomb, body taken up to Heaven.

I wonder how he knew this 700 years later??? God Bless, Memaw