Mary's assumption

[babochka]

If only the faithful in the West could appreciate their own Liturgy and what it teaches them, and realize that it is a MOST truthful reflection of their Faith: Not just dogmatic declarations (which are also necessary.)

That is why when we speak of this matter (the death of the Virgin Mary) the Eastern Rite Catholics and Orthodox will quote from the Liturgy. However, to some of the Latins (not all by any means) this sort of evidence is irrelevant since it is not dogmatically taught, which is all they will hearken to.

This is actually quite helpful for me, in understanding what is going on. I quote the liturgy of the Feast, with the assumption that others know that in doing so, I am giving the teaching of the Church, as the Church has given it to me. The liturgy is catechesis. It confuses me when I quote the liturgy as proof of Church teaching, and some totally discount that, as if it is no proof at all in what the Church teaches. Part of this might also be that in the East, the liturgy is much more catechetical (theology in your face, as a visitor to our parish once called it). Regarding individual feasts, this tends to be especially true of Vespers.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

babochka:

If this is an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians, does it not also mean that Mary’s Assumption is a resurrection, which presupposes bodily death? We will all be resurrected - just like Mary.
Reply With Quote

I have often made this same point myself. The resurrection of Our Lady is implicit in the Doctrine of the Assumption. And although some in this thread erroneously think there can be a resurrection without death, we all know that is absolutely impossible and false.
The VERY TERM RESURRECTION means to arise from the DEAD.

Another Eastern Rite, or perhaps Orthodox poster has stated, with much truth, that denial of the death of Our Lady is an affront and insult to her. Why? Because it is denying the suffering she endured for the sake of sinners, in union with her Son.

Those who are so SURE that Our Lady never died, despite all of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, should at least consider this possibility.

 

[Memaw]

As you mentioned, the Catechism only twice mentions her Assumpion, and once mentions her Dormtion.

As to why it isn’t stated that she died? It is. The Catechism quotes the troparion of the Feast: “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.” ( The troparion is kind of like the collect.) Less poetically, one can read this: “… in your death, you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life.”

Something else I’ve never thought about before. The Catechism also states: "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.”

If this is an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians, does it not also mean that Mary’s Assumption is a resurrection, which presupposes bodily death? We will all be resurrected - just like Mary.

Resurrection means our body will join our soul in Heaven, (or Hell) at the end of time and the last Judgement. Mary went to Heaven, Body and Soul together, at her Assumption. Our Resurrection will take place at the last Judgement and it is NOT “just like Mary.” God Bless, Memaw

 

[adrift]

Adrift do you also hold that airplane blackboxes are actually black?
Don’t be fooled. If you go into the matter you will find it honours the death of Mary.

Another ad hominem. You just can’t help yourself. You attack the person instead of what they say.

 

[adrift]

This is a photo of the memorial chapel in the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington DC of Our Lady of Ta’ Pinu:

http://www.nationalshrine.com/atf/cf/{b0534716-4524-407d-a065-b68c4bfcb4be}/13_Our_Lady_of_Ta_Pinu.jpg

According to tradition: "On 22 June 1883, a Gozitan peasant and worker in a field, Karmni Grima, apparently heard a female voice coming from the Chapel Pinu, that she was walking past. The voice was calling her in Maltese, and telling her “Ejja…ejja!” (“Come…come!”) When she entered the chapel, the same voice told her to “recite three Hail Mary’s in honour of the three days that my body rested in the tomb.” Grima kept this event a secret for two years.[2] When she finally told a friend, Francesco Portelli. His response was to say that he too had heard a woman’s voice at about the same time as Grima had. "

The actual chapel (now a Basilica) in the Maltese Islands was visited by popes:
On 26 May 1990 Pope John Paul II celebrated Mass at the Basilica during his pastoral visit to Malta.

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.”

There is a plaque in the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception with the Icon of Our Lady, surrounded by Angels arisen from the tomb, (shown above) which describes how Our Lady wants us to know that she did die and that her body spent 3 days in the tomb.

Just like the visions of Fatima, they are approved by the Church, but are not de fide. Still they are facts. And facts are stubborn things…

You have made a straw man and your not going to give it up. I have never made the argument that it was a tradition that Mary died. What I have stated is that it is acceptable to believe she didn’t that the Catechism does not say she died.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Resurrection means our body will join our soul in Heaven, (or Hell) at the end of time and the last Judgement. Mary went to Heaven, Body and Soul together, at her Assumption. Our Resurrection will take place at the last Judgement and it is NOT “just like Mary.” God Bless, Memaw

Our resurrection will be JUST LIKE the Virgin Mary’s. We will be raised from the dead, from our tombs, reuniting our souls to Glorified bodies just as happened to the Virgin Mary. That is PRECISELY the lesson AND the promise contained in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[babochka]

Resurrection means our body will join our soul in Heaven, (or Hell) at the end of time and the last Judgement. Mary went to Heaven, Body and Soul together, at her Assumption. Our Resurrection will take place at the last Judgement and it is NOT “just like Mary.” God Bless, Memaw

Resurrection means being raised from the dead. Death means the separation of the soul from the body. Christ was resurrected, we will be resurrected, and according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Mary’s Assumption anticipates our own resurrection.Yet you say that Mary was not resurrected. In your way of thinking, how does Mary’s Assumption anticipate our resurrection?

 

[Memaw]

Resurrection means being raised from the dead. Death means the separation of the soul from the body. Christ was resurrected, we will be resurrected, and according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Mary’s Assumption anticipates our own resurrection.Yet you say that Mary was not resurrected. In your way of thinking, how does Mary’s Assumption anticipate our resurrection?

You are confused. I said Mary was Assumed, Body and Soul,( together, no separation,) She doesn’t need to be Resurrected as we do at the end of time. Our Lord’s Resurrection anticipates our Resurrection, not Mary.
Mary’s Conception, her marriage to Joseph, her Fiat, the Incarnation of her Divine Son, Her life and her Assumption are all surrounded by Blessed Mystery. She is a one and only human being, as Shakespeare said, “God’s Masterpiece.” God Bless, Memaw

 

[babochka]

You are confused. I said Mary was Assumed, Body and Soul,( together, no separation,) She doesn’t need to be Resurrected as we do at the end of time. Our Lord’s Resurrection anticipates our Resurrection, not Mary.

Yes, I am confused. That’s why I keep asking questions. I’m hoping to understand your perspective, and what brings you to this perspective. We are both life-long Catholics with a sincere desire to know and follow the faith, yet we have been taught completely differently on this matter. When I ask questions, you just repeat what you’ve said or tell me I’m confused, but you don’t really attempt to address my question or confusion.

Mary’s Conception, her marriage to Joseph, her Fiat, the Incarnation of her Divine Son, Her life and her Assumption are all surrounded by Blessed Mystery. She is a one and only human being, as Shakespeare said, “God’s Masterpiece.” God Bless, Memaw

Absolutely. We can completely agree on this.

Ultimately, I suppose, none of this matters. God knows what he knows and we do not.

 

[adrift]

Absolutely. We can completely agree on this.

Ultimately, I suppose, none of this matters. God knows what he knows and we do not.

I think you are right here. Believing or not believing that Mary died does not affect our salvation. It is for that reason all the ones who said this is not dogma “yet” are wrong. The Church will not dogmatically say either way in my opinion .It will always be I believe a choice. The Church is wise in doing so. You have been very kind in your responses.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Another ad hominem. You just can’t help yourself. You attack the person instead of what they say.

Adrift if you feel personally attacked whenever someone politely demonstrates weaknesses in your research or thinking or when you are not actually connecting with current discussion on a forum then it might be better just to watch rather than participate.

I have not provided evidence that dormition is merely a euphemism for death because this mistake by Western Catholics is such a well known chestnut and has been clarified so often here, and indeed proven well above even on this thread, that it is trivial despite your somewhat simplistic and less than relevant"evidence".

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You are confused. I said Mary was Assumed, Body and Soul,( together, no separation,) She doesn’t need to be Resurrected as we do at the end of time. Our Lord’s Resurrection anticipates our Resurrection, not Mary.
Mary’s Conception, her marriage to Joseph, her Fiat, the Incarnation of her Divine Son, Her life and her Assumption are all surrounded by Blessed Mystery. She is a one and only human being, as Shakespeare said, “God’s Masterpiece.” God Bless, Memaw

Memaw I find it increasingly difficult to assume your good faith denial that there is no Church teaching wrt Mary’s death when you do not answer my polite question (twice now) in mid discussion.

You now say there is no official teaching…
Yet this teaching is clearly present in Pope Pius’ Encyclical.
Why do you not accept that Encyclicals are official.

 

[adrift]

Adrift if you feel personally attacked whenever someone politely demonstrates weaknesses in your research or thinking or when you are not actually connecting with current discussion on a forum then it might be better just to watch rather than participate.

I have not provided evidence that dormition is merely a euphemism for death because this mistake by Western Catholics is such a well known chestnut and has been clarified so often here, and indeed proven well above even on this thread, that it is trivial despite your somewhat simplistic and less than relevant"evidence".

:bowdown: You have not been polite nor have you shown any weakness. My whole point is that the Church allows both beliefs something you do not address just personal attacks I have not expressed my views of what I believe but you sure think you know. I have also noted that your other post are the same attack filled rhetoric . If you cannot discuss a subject without personal attacks perhaps it is you who should sit out.

This is some of your uncharitable comments just in this thread
Bradski I think you have issues.
Adrift do you also hold that airplane blackboxes are actually black?
Adrift I don’t think you are quite up to speed on the discussion with Memaw .
(and many other less well informed Catholics)
Not to mention the one I am responding to. It really reeks of uncharitable remarks not to mention straw men fallacies.

 

[adrift]

Did the Virgin Mary Die Before Her Assumption?

Still, the dogma, as Pius XII defined it, leaves the question of whether the Virgin Mary died open. What Catholics must believe is

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.

“[H]aving completed the course of her earthly life” is ambiguous; it allows for the possibility that Mary may not have died before her Assumption. In other words, while tradition has always indicated that Mary did die, Catholics are not bound, at least by the definition of the dogma, to believe it.

To repeat
Catholics are not bound, at least by the definition of the dogma, to believe Mary died or didn’t die.

 

[joseph_therese]

hi
happy feast day of our lady of knock(21/august)for all the irish and visitors from abroad.being that we are still in the octave of our lady of the assumption/dormition I feel like throwing the spanner in the works so to speak.Personally I don’t believe our lady to have been assumed.i have held this view (call me a heretic if you wish)for about fifteen years.i began to doubt this supposed dogma when reading a prevatican 2 book on the topic 'Teach yourself the faith’In that book if I can remember it listed some research materials which seemed to suggest that our lady wasn’t assumed.
The last time I was in rome (for the jubilee 2000 world youth day celebrations) I had the pleasure of joining with the youth of Italy in the basilica of our lady of the snows (more popularly call St Mary Major nowadays.)I was allowed in even though I wasn’t Italian so the stewards must have seen our Lady wanting to give a message to the universal church and mainly to the authorities in rome.
More recently while looking for the body of st joseph in provence france(around 2003) I got caught in a heavy shower of snow near a little village called Esparon.i had to abandon my efforts to dig up st joseph (some people think st joseph was assumed) but not before I walked in a circle to keep warm.At the time I thought Our Lady might have been giving me a message.(i.e after you finish digging up st Joseph come to rome to our lady of the snows.)
The only way to prove my hypothesis is to ask permission from the authorities in Rome to
look in the cript of sts Mary Major. Unfortunately I don’t have sufficient health to go to rome at present. Please pray for my healthy to improve if our Lady wants me to undertake this delicate mission.Meanwhile pray for the SSPX that they will continue to celebrate the traditional mass and sacraments against the opposition of the world ,flesh and devil.
God Bless
Dan.

 

[Memaw]

Yes, I am confused. That’s why I keep asking questions. I’m hoping to understand your perspective, and what brings you to this perspective. We are both life-long Catholics with a sincere desire to know and follow the faith, yet we have been taught completely differently on this matter. When I ask questions, you just repeat what you’ve said or tell me I’m confused, but you don’t really attempt to address my question or confusion.

Absolutely. We can completely agree on this.

Ultimately, I suppose, none of this matters. God knows what he knows and we do not.

You just solved you own confusion!! What else can I say but what I’ve already said? My perspective is, go with what the Church teaches. If we are “free” to believe either way, that is not very certain, do you think?? I don’t understand why they are free to believe their way, but I am not, as least not without being call names. I have been talking to a few Catholics, about my age, and not one of them so far was ever taught that Mary “died”. They were taught she was Assumed into Heaven, but no mention of her having died first. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Memaw I find it increasingly difficult to assume your good faith denial that there is no Church teaching wrt Mary’s death when you do not answer my polite question (twice now) in mid discussion.

You now say there is no official teaching…
Yet this teaching is clearly present in Pope Pius’ Encyclical.
Why do you not accept that Encyclicals are official.

There you go, putting words in my mouth. Have fun!!, God Bless, Memaw

 

[babochka]

You just solved you own confusion!! What else can I say but what I’ve already said? My perspective is, go with what the Church teaches. If we are “free” to believe either way, that is not very certain, do you think?? I don’t understand why they are free to believe their way, but I am not, as least not without being call names.

Let me address this last bit first. I don’t believe I’ve ever called you or anyone else on this forum names. I’m trying very hard to have a reasonable, respectful dialog with those with whom I strongly disagree. If you felt I have not been respectful, I apologize. As those of us who frequent these forums all know, sometimes we come across in ways that were not intended.

So, let me phrase my question differently. The Church does not* teach t*hat we are free to believe one way or another. The absence of a definite, dogmatic teaching is not a teaching. To my knowledge, no document of the Church of any authority - no liturgical text, no encyclical, no Ecumenical council, etc - has ever referenced the belief that Mary did not die. A number of documents have made explicit reference to her death. If I am incorrect here, please correct me and provide me with such documents so that I can read them for myself. It would clear up a great deal of my confusion and would, in my mind, put the two beliefs in equal status in the mind of the Church. As it is, I see it, the Church has a non dogmatic teaching that she did die, and has no teaching whatsoever that she did not die. The only teaching available from the Church on this subject is that she did die. This is how I have come to the conclusion that it is the teaching of the Church that Mary did not die.

Can you provide me with evidence that the Church teaches that we are free to believe either position? Because if I am wrong and the Church does teach this, I am willing to accept that, but I do want to see a document or something of authority on the matter.

Do you believe that only those things that have been solemnly, dogmatically defined by the Pope in an ex-cathedra statement or by an Ecumenical Council can be considered teachings of the Church?

Prior to Munificentissimus Deus, was a Catholic free to believe in the Assumption of Mary or not?

I have been talking to a few Catholics, about my age, and not one of them so far was ever taught that Mary “died”. They were taught she was Assumed into Heaven, but no mention of her having died first. God Bless, Memaw

Were they taught explicitly that she did not die or was it that no mention of her death was ever made?

I was raised in the Byzantine Catholic Church and only in the past few years, through these threads on Catholic Answers, have I come across the idea that she didn’t die.

I’m guessing that you came of age about the time the dogma was promulgated. That must have been a really big deal at the time. Did nobody read the document? I realize we didn’t have the Internet then, and the average lay person didn’t have access to Church documents in the way that we do now. But anybody who has ever read the document cannot be a stranger to the belief that she died.

 

[babochka]

There you go, putting words in my mouth. Have fun!!, God Bless, Memaw

I don’t think he put words in your mouth, and I would like to pose a similar question, so you can give us your own words.

To you, what constitutes Church teaching?

 

[adrift]

Let me address this last bit first. I don’t believe I’ve ever called you or anyone else on this forum names.

You have indeed been very polite and inviting of discussion others have not and they are the ones who spoil the discussion. I have learned a lot it hasn’t changed my beliefs but enforced them.

You have asked for evidence that Catholic are free to believe or not believe. What I have read is that the Church has not addressed the subject at all. A tract from Catholic Answers states

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not

The argument I have seen is there are many things that are believed by the Church that are not formally defined. A good point, however, the Assumption was formally defined and the tract continues " and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, “after the completion of her earthly life” (note the silence regarding her death), “was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.” "
I think it is incontrovertible that the Church has taught that Mary died but when it came to officially stating it the Church did not. You have to wonder why?
It has been posted Pope John Paul’s audience concerning Mary’s death. He makes it clear.

1. The Bull does not state Mary died
2. It wasn’t intended to deny the death of Mary
3. It wasn’t brought up until the 17th century that Mary did not die.
4. There are theologians who maintain that Mary did not die

I would point out the 4th one. The Pope doesn’t say they cannot hold this position but he gives good reasons why they shouldn’t. If the Church held you must believe that Mary died it would have been strange that he did not say so. I do believe that to believe that Mary did not die is not against the Church. I see no evidence that it is.