Mary's Assumption and Her Glorified Body

[Blue_Horizon]

BCC
In your first icon, the most ancient (9th century I believe is when they first started painting the Dormition), do you see what Jesus is holding?

What is your understanding?

 

[Faithdancer]

I really don’t want a debate going on in this thread as to exactly when she was assumed. It doesn’t matter to me whether she was assumed at the moment of her death or sometime after her death. I am not sure what the Church officially teaches on this but I think that we as Catholics are allowed to differ in our opinions on that. If not, I’d appreciate it if someone would let me know what the Church’s official teaching is and please back it up with official Church documents such as the Catechism.

Basically I guess I am trying to figure out if she was born with a glorified body or if she got a new and glorified body when she was assumed into Heaven.

As I recall from my Mariology class, there has been debate in the past about whether Mary was assumed at the moment of physical death, or immediately thereafter.

Much of the sections on Mary in the Catechism are drawn from Chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium. That document states that Mary “on the completion of her earthy sojourn, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory.” This is of course nearly identical to the words of Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus. While the Magisterium in these documents was rather vague on the exact details of the glorification of her body, Father William Saunders, writing for EWTN states: "Since Mary was free of Original Sin and its effects (one of which is corruption of the body at death), since she shared intimately in the life of the Lord and in His passion, death and resurrection, and since she was present at Pentecost, this model disciple appropriately shared in the bodily resurrection and glorification of the Lord at the end of her life. (Note that the solemn definition does not specify whether Mary physically died before being assumed or just was assumed; it simply states, “Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life…”) Father Saunders continues by quoting a Bishop Theoteknos as stating “For even though her God-bearing body tasted death, it did not undergo corruption, but was preserved incorrupt and undefiled and taken up into heaven with its pure and spotless soul.” Then Father Saunders cites St. John Damascene: "St. John Damascene (d. 749) also recorded an interesting story concerning the Assumption: “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.” (ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3c.htm

Sorry, I just took up a lot of space to say that basically, it’s hard to find a definitive answer. I think it’s reasonable to believe that her body was always glorified, since she was forever sinless. However, we can assume that she aged normally, so ?Perhaps she was restored to a more youthful appearance upon her Assumption? But that’s a whole 'nother area of speculation, isn’t it? When our bodies are restored, what age will they appear? Or will that even be relevant, for a glorified body, since “seeing” another in Heaven may have an altogether different meaning.

 

[Faithdancer]

As I recall from my Mariology class, there has been debate in the past about whether Mary was assumed at the moment of physical death, or immediately thereafter.

Much of the sections on Mary in the Catechism are drawn from Chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium. That document states that Mary “on the completion of her earthy sojourn, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory.” This is of course nearly identical to the words of Pope Pius XII in Munificentissimus Deus. While the Magisterium in these documents was rather vague on the exact details of the glorification of her body, Father William Saunders, writing for EWTN states: "Since Mary was free of Original Sin and its effects (one of which is corruption of the body at death), since she shared intimately in the life of the Lord and in His passion, death and resurrection, and since she was present at Pentecost, this model disciple appropriately shared in the bodily resurrection and glorification of the Lord at the end of her life. (Note that the solemn definition does not specify whether Mary physically died before being assumed or just was assumed; it simply states, “Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life…”) Father Saunders continues by quoting a Bishop Theoteknos as stating “For even though her God-bearing body tasted death, it did not undergo corruption, but was preserved incorrupt and undefiled and taken up into heaven with its pure and spotless soul.” Then Father Saunders cites St. John Damascene: "St. John Damascene (d. 749) also recorded an interesting story concerning the Assumption: “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.” (ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc3c.htm

Sorry, I just took up a lot of space to say that basically, it’s hard to find a definitive answer. I think it’s reasonable to believe that her body was always glorified, since she was forever sinless. However, we can assume that she aged normally, so ?Perhaps she was restored to a more youthful appearance upon her Assumption? But that’s a whole 'nother area of speculation, isn’t it? When our bodies are restored, what age will they appear? Or will that even be relevant, for a glorified body, since “seeing” another in Heaven may have an altogether different meaning.

 

[ConstantineTG]

BCC
In your first icon, the most ancient (9th century I believe is when they first started painting the Dormition), do you see what Jesus is holding?

What is your understanding?

Mary’s soul. Jesus himself came to meet His mother’s soul upon her “falling asleep”. But her resurrection won’t be for another couple of days.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Re "A dead body cannot ascend."

Mary’s soul. Jesus himself came to meet His mother’s soul upon her “falling asleep”.

I agree, its Mary’s soul.
Jesus is in heaven with Mary’s soul, waiting for her incorrupt body to ascend before reuniting her, soul and body, on entrance to heaven (i.e. if anything then its an ascension before resurrection). There is no mention of Jesus coming back down to earth yet again (he only just came down to earth to receive her soul from her body) to place Mary’s soul back into her body so she could rise on earth then ascend.

This C9th iconography of Jesus with a “little Mary” was the very first to express Assumption theology. It was eventually supplanted and “little Mary” and Jesus disappeared from the scene - changing the implied Assumption theology into the more usual one we Westerners believe is the only legitimate one on the block…

This original C9th iconography directly reflects ancient non-Canonical Greek texts written by John of Thessalonika C5th, now lost but reproduced by later writers in other languages (e.g. “Transitus Mariae”) and other apochryphal traditions. These contradictory texts and variations seem agreed in talking of a “body” ascending by the agency of angels. That is a funny way to talk about Mary if she was already resurrected before ascending to heaven.

And if she resurrected before ascending - what is Jesus holding in his arms?

With some double somersaults and back-flips we can probably make this iconography (and the even earlier Translation theology) fit the present animated (resurrection/ascencion), western paintings and related theology. But I prefer to shave with Occam’s razor myself.

In any case, if we see the ascension/resurrection theology as inseparable and actually one and the same for Mary then its all moot anyhow.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

. I think it’s reasonable to believe that her body was always glorified, since she was forever sinless.

FD
Catholics simply do not believe this.
One of the characteristic qualities of glorification is impassability, being beyond all pain and suffering. This was not the case with Jesus’s mother, quite the reverse.

This link may help: newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Mary’s soul. Jesus himself came to meet His mother’s soul upon her “falling asleep”. But her resurrection won’t be for another couple of days.

That is the common symbology employed in this icon - specifically, her spotless soul.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Blue Horizon:

I agree, its Mary’s soul.
Jesus is in heaven with Mary’s soul, waiting for her incorrupt body to ascend before reuniting her, soul and body, on entrance to heaven (i.e. if anything then its an ascension before resurrection). There is no mention of Jesus coming back down to earth yet again (he only just came down to earth to receive her soul from her body) to place Mary’s soul back into her body so she could rise on earth then ascend.

This C9th iconography of Jesus with a “little Mary” was the very first to express Assumption theology. It was eventually supplanted and “little Mary” and Jesus disappeared from the scene - changing the implied Assumption theology into the more usual one we Westerners believe is the only legitimate one on the block…

The problem I have with a dead body being levitated “up” to heaven to be rejoined with the soul, notwithstanding a 9th c. icon are these:

• It is not consistent with anything we hear in the Gospel.
• Heaven is not really “up” there. It is a spiritual place of sorts, but not a physical place.
• What reason would we have to support this thinking? When we already have the Gospel of the Resurrection? Bodies rise in the resurrection to glory. Mary’s GLORIFIED RISEN BODY was ASSUMED into heaven. A dead physical body can’t go to heaven, or even get close.

We have discussed the problem of there being no tradition of Mary having a resurrection, while her Assumption did have a tradition. But is that really an insurmountable problem? I don’t see it that way. Many doctrines were originally implied by the larger doctrine. Therefore it is perfectly consistent with the Gospel, Church Tradition and doctrine to believe that Mary arose with a glorified body which was then assumed, as being IMPLIED by the doctrine of the Assumption.

For what reason would we deny the Resurrection of the Body (one of the primary beliefs of Christians) to the Virgin Mary? What purpose does it serve? On what Biblical or theological grounds would it rest? On the other hand, a resurrection to a glorified body and the Assumption are pledges of what we all believe shall be done for us as well at the last judgement.

Wasn’t EVERYTHING that was done for the BVM a gift to us all? Her Immaculate Conception made the Incarnation possible. Her Assumption (and resurrection) are further pledges to us Christian disciples and her children.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Re "A dead body cannot ascend."

I agree, its Mary’s soul.
Jesus is in heaven with Mary’s soul, waiting for her incorrupt body to ascend before reuniting her, soul and body, on entrance to heaven (i.e. if anything then its an ascension before resurrection). There is no mention of Jesus coming back down to earth yet again (he only just came down to earth to receive her soul from her body) to place Mary’s soul back into her body so she could rise on earth then ascend.

Ascension and Assumption are figurative language. It doesn’t mean that they are literally in a physical place in the sky. One of the exegesis on the Ascension I listened to talks about the description of Christ ascending as human senses trying to grasp something that the human senses cannot understand. As Jesus move from this dimension to beyond, what they see is only what their physical senses can comprehend. To think that Mary’s body is literally floating in the air until it reaches some altitude which is the entrance to heaven is a shallow understanding of heaven and its relation to earth. Mary cannot pass from here to there with a lifeless body. That is why she must be resurrected and then translated to heaven. I mean, we do not know really much what the possible ways are. But there is one way for sure on how it could have happened, the same way it happened for Christ. Therefore to think it happened any other way is speculation at best.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

… to think it happened any other way is speculation at best.

CT I am fine with the view that an “incorrupt body ascending” is speculation and, indeed, a minority view. What I objected to above was your previously less nuanced, negative apriori position that “a dead body cannot ascend.”

And yes, I have moved on from what nun’s taught me in primary school about heaven thanks. I was simply mimicing iconographical theology, which obviously communicates theological truths via place, position and extension (to say nothing of little “homounculus-ed” souls!).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The problem I have with a dead body being levitated “up” to heaven to be rejoined with the soul, notwithstanding a 9th c. icon are these:

• It is not consistent with anything we hear in the Gospel.

For me that is a positive. Have you noticed that time and time again the Virgin proves to be a source of contradiction to the world, and especially to male rationality and “consistency.” Even Aquinas was blind-sided by her. She is unique, there has never been a human-person treated so unquely by God in both body and soul. We must expect the unexpected.

• Heaven is not really “up” there. It is a spiritual place of sorts, but not a physical place.

Again BTW, I don’t think we can talk about “spiritual place”, seems a contradiction in terms. Yes, glorified bodies do not necessarily possess “extension” (Descartes has brainwashed us that only extended things are real) nor are they within the “space-time” continuum of Einstein. I suppose they could if they wanted to. I think talk of them being in some n-dimension beyond 4 is a bit wishy-washy.

I understand that rising into the clouds and out of sight symbolises “translation” to heaven, union with God, being in His presence, under His Rule, in His Kingdom in all its fullness (which means it must be a bodily “place” in some fashion). This is why the word “levitation” just doesn’t cut it with Jesus’s bodily ascending, nor Mary’s translation in death. Union with God after death requires a “disappearing” as well.

I think there are a number of theological ways of accommodating such a rising of the sacred, incorrupted body of Mary. In fact they are nascently present in the early non-Canonical Transitus Mariae writings (e.g. her body first went to “Paradise” rather than “Heaven” - a sort of “hortus conclusus” or private resurrection “audience” with Jesus).
Similar theologising (in reverse) lead to Limbo of the just and of babies…

• What reason would we have to support this thinking? When we already have the Gospel of the Resurrection? Bodies rise in the resurrection to glory. Mary’s GLORIFIED RISEN BODY was ASSUMED into heaven. A dead physical body can’t go to heaven, or even get close.

And yet, that is what some of the most ancient non-Canonical writings (and icons based on them), on face value, appear to say. I am not saying its right, just saying that there is precedent and I am not aware of such a theology being condemned by anyone reputable or otherwise.

I am not denying the current popular understanding of the Assumption as resurrection/ascension type thinking. I am saying it has not been explicitly described in this way theologically (as far as I know). I don’t believe it ever will be because once you try to define it like this it breaks. Its like trying to carve the fine features of “David” in coarse sandstone.

For what reason would we deny the Resurrection of the Body (one of the primary beliefs of Christians) to the Virgin Mary?

I see nothing above which denies the resurrection of the body. I am suggesting the Virgin’s manner of rising was unique and this condescension of God is obscured if we too easily gloss over the difficulties and also when we give it a title (“Resurrection of Mary”) that tradition seems to refrain from doing.

 

[Faithdancer]

These are interesting points. It seems to happen more frequently when I am praying the Salve Regina or the Ave Maria that I find myself wondering where exactly Mary is. This random thought occurs to me more than when I am praying to the the Father or the Son. I guess it happens more when I am praying before a Marian statue or icon, perhaps because I don’t want to fall in even the slightest way into praying to the statue or icon as if Mary was present in it.

 

[Faithdancer]

FD
Catholics simply do not believe this.
One of the characteristic qualities of glorification is impassability, being beyond all pain and suffering. This was not the case with Jesus’s mother, quite the reverse.

This link may help: newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm

Mary’s only suffering which we are taught by Scripture is her mental and emotional suffering. She suffered no pains in childbirth, though presumably she may have suffered other physical pain, from gall stones, arthritis, etc. She would also presumably have aged normally, as it would have been very strange to see a 60 year old woman walking around with the appearance of a teenager. Is “aging” the same as corruption?

Marian dogma is that Christ saved Mary from the corruption that comes with death. This would certainly indicate that her body was corruptible.

 

[Faithdancer]

Mary’s only suffering which we know of from Scripture is her mental and emotional suffering. She suffered no pain in childbirth, though she may have suffered other physical pain, from gall stones, arthritis, etc… She would also presumably have aged normally, as it would have been very strange to see a 60 year old woman walking around with the appearance of a teenager.

Only God knows whether glorification of the body is the same for everyone, or whether Mary and some of the saints, who have attained maximum perfection of the intellect in this life, require less glorification than others. I don’t think anyone has the definite answer to some of these questions about Mary since none of it is in Scripture.There are 4 Marian dogmas upon which all agree, though: Mary as Mother of God, Mary’s virginitas prepartum, in partu, and antepartum, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Blue Horizon:

I see nothing above which denies the resurrection of the body. I am suggesting the Virgin’s manner of rising was unique and this condescension of God is obscured if we too easily gloss over the difficulties and also when we give it a title (“Resurrection of Mary”) that tradition seems to refrain from doing.

It could also be said that before the Nicene Council Tradition refrained from using the term Homoousion. That Before the Council of Ephesus, Tradition refrained from using the term Theotokos. That Before the Lateran Council Tradition refrained from using the term Transubstantiation.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It could also be said that before the Nicene Council Tradition refrained from using the term Homoousion. That Before the Council of Ephesus, Tradition refrained from using the term Theotokos. That Before the Lateran Council Tradition refrained from using the term Transubstantiation.

Fair enough .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

She suffered no pain in childbirth…

FD I don’t think so … are you able to provide a reputable source for this assumption?
Though without the stain of original sin Mary nevertheless shared all the usual effects thereof in solidarity with the human condition - including death and aging.
(A lengthy discussion on this very point recently concluded elsewhere on this Forum).

Mary and some of the saints, who have attained maximum perfection of the intellect in this life…

I don’t think so. Maximum perfection of charity yes.
I believe you may have confused perfection of habit/grace (esp the theological virtues) with the perfection of nature (esp the two faculties of the soul known as Will and Intellect).

Thus the most penetrating intellect is probably Lucifer’s.
For material beings, John the Baptist? Adam?, Eve? who knows?
I am not sure if Mary’s lack of concupiscence meant her intellect, by natural endowment, was any more penetrating than that of some other person. Not being “clouded” by excess of desire would provide a natural clarity and advantage in practice - but there is prob no reason why JTBapist might not have been naturally endowed with a greater mind than her (even though he still had to battle more re the distortions of desire) both in capacity and use.

 

[rjmiller]

CT
"A dead body cannot ascend."
Hmmmn, I see no logical or theological reason why Mary’s incorrupt dead body cannot ascend (be lifted to heaven). Indeed, this is exactly what much early theology and iconography reasonably seems to declare. There even seems to be an ancient title for this very aspect of the Dormition/Asumption of Mary known as “The Translation of the Blessed Virgin.”

The word “translation”, in a religious context, means to move sacred, mortal remains from one place to another in solemn ceremony. Hence the “relics” are Mary’s dead, incorrupt body (a glorified/resurrected one would obviously not qualify), the “translation” is from earth to heaven (sounds like an ascension to me) and the ritual procession was carried out, in iconography, by four angels with the Seven Choirs of Angels as the processional audience. Wonderful stuff. But maybe I misunderstand “The Translation of the Virigin.”

So where do you get the basis for, not only your reversal of this, but a positive denail of its possibility?

**Mary was resurrected then immediately assumed. **
I do not believe Catholic tradition clearly or definitively “points out” any such thing.

In fact, as above, I would go so far as to say that it could equally be said that Mary’s incorrupt dead body was “translated” heavenwards and then immediately raised to life (you call this “resurrected”). Exactly the reverse of what you opine.

Personally, however, I believe both views are mis-leading.
That is because I hold they are one and the same event. They are co-terminus…this view best accomodates the varied traditions received. That is why it has its own unique word/title, “The Assumption.”

 

[rjmiller]

In reference to the dead body assending. Jesus assended. Mary was assumed. Also the church says “at the moment of death she was assumed.” I understand that to mean neither dead or alive. Since you cannot be both dead and alive at the same time then that is that point in between.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Also the church says “at the moment of death she was assumed.”

exact statement

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

that is really not the same as saying “at the moment of death”