Mary's assumption

[babochka]

And so on it goes, while you also admit both positions are allowed, you couldn’t help putting me down for my thoughts on the subject. I “default” to the Church and her DEFINED Dogma. God Bless, Memaw

Sorry, I was trying to be precise with my words. I said that both positions might be allowed; I did not admit that both are allowed. I honestly don’t know. That is what others have told me, but I’ve never seen any evidence from Church teaching to convince me. I’m simply giving others, including you, the benefit of the doubt. I was not putting you down. I was, once again, hoping that you could help me understand by giving me something to go on. Something from the Church, something from a theologian who holds your position, something from history, ecumenical councils (and the source, so that I can read the entire context), just… something. All I get is that this is what makes sense to those who hold this position, so that’s what they believe.

Honestly, the Church allows me to believe a lot of things. I can believe in young Earth creationism or I can believe in Evolution, as long as I believe that the world and everything it it were created by God, and at some point me created the first man and first woman. I can believe that capitalism, in principle is the best economic system to insure the health and relative prosperity of all people, or I can believe that socialism best accomplishes that goal. The Church gives the theological and moral principles and the details are left up to us. I can believe that Confirmation should be conferred on infants, or I can believe that it is best to wait until a person is in his or her teens. It is part of what I love about being Catholic. In each of these cases, though, the Church has official addressed the issue: made it clear that either belief is acceptable. The belief that one can go either way on Mary’s death is based upon vagueness and not clarity, and that is not the way the Church usually functions. Perhaps in the future, the issue with be addressed and clarified. Probably not, though. It seems like it is really the least of the problems that the Church must address.

Anyway, maybe this isn’t just the best medium for you and I to discuss this. I am not putting you down for your thoughts and if that is what you’re getting out of this, there is miscommunication somewhere. Sometimes these discussions happen better in person, where peoples intentions and tone are more easily read.

 

[adrift]

Sorry, I was trying to be precise with my words. .

I would like your thoughts on this article which in some ways answers your questions. It is, as you can see, written by a doctor of sacred theologian and a member of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (Congregatio Sanctissimi Redemptoris) (Redemptorist)

I found it :hypno:
Mary’s Death and Bodily Assumption
by Lawrence P. Everett, C.Ss.R., S.T.D.

 

[babochka]

I would like your thoughts on this article which in some ways answers your questions. It is, as you can see, written by a doctor of sacred theologian and a member of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (Congregatio Sanctissimi Redemptoris) (Redemptorist)

I found it :hypno:
Mary’s Death and Bodily Assumption
by Lawrence P. Everett, C.Ss.R., S.T.D.

Now that’s what I’m talking about! Thank you so much for this. I’ll comment when I’ve had a chance to read it more thoroughly. I just skimmed it and it seems to be exactly what I’ve been looking for.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I would like your thoughts on this article which in some ways answers your questions. It is, as you can see, written by a doctor of sacred theologian and a member of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (Congregatio Sanctissimi Redemptoris) (Redemptorist)

I found it :hypno:
Mary’s Death and Bodily Assumption
by Lawrence P. Everett, C.Ss.R., S.T.D.

I too appreciate this!

I have read it, and I have to say it does give a very balanced view of the whole controversy.

First: It is quite a controversy within today’s theological circles. Something I was not aware of.

Second: There ARE a couple of very early statements that the Virgin Mary may never have died. Although even those are relatively inconclusive.

Third: The Eastern Church is where the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary matured much sooner than in the West. In fact we owe MUCH to the Eastern Church with regard to this doctrine even today.

Fourth: The article is inconclusive. Intentionally I am sure.

How that affects my understanding is:

First: There is a reasonable doubt about the death of the Virgin Mary in the minds of some knowledgable theologians.

Second: I feel that the whole co-redemptrix role of Mary (which is clearly stated in the article and alluded to in Munificentissimus Deus) adds yet more evidence (at least in my mind) to the truth of the death of the Virgin Mary.

I feel that there is still a lot more that is not being considered with respect to the death of the Virgin Mary, (as all of the arguments are based on OFFICIAL Church teaching, Liturgy, and writings of the Fathers and other Saints.) And maybe those further considerations are still being argued as well for all I know.

 

[adrift]

I too appreciate this!

I have read it, and I have to say it does give a very balanced view of the whole controversy.

First: It is quite a controversy within today’s theological circles. Something I was not aware of.

Second: There ARE a couple of very early statements that the Virgin Mary may never have died. Although even those are relatively inconclusive.

Third: The Eastern Church is where the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary matured much sooner than in the West. In fact we owe MUCH to the Eastern Church with regard to this doctrine even today.

Fourth: The article is inconclusive. Intentionally I am sure.

How that affects my understanding is:

First: There is a reasonable doubt about the death of the Virgin Mary in the minds of some knowledgable theologians.

Second: I feel that the whole co-redemptrix role of Mary (which is clearly stated in the article and alluded to in Munificentissimus Deus) adds yet more evidence (at least in my mind) to the truth of the death of the Virgin Mary.

I feel that there is still a lot more that is not being considered with respect to the death of the Virgin Mary, (as all of the arguments are based on OFFICIAL Church teaching, Liturgy, and writings of the Fathers and other Saints.) And maybe those further considerations are still being argued as well for all I know.

I appreciate your comments. The article makes my head spin. I don’t have the time to read it as it should be. I know that it raised questions for me. I have to reread to make sure I am not misreading.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Definition of DORMITION

Dormition, or in the Greek, κοίμησις (transliterated as koimesis or coemesis), meaning in this context to fall asleep in death. It is no mistake that we derive the word κοιμητήριον (Lat. coemeterium and English cemetery) from the exact same Greek root as the root of κοίμησις (Dormition).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You make assumptions that are unfounded. You are rare, thankfully, for this forum. It is a pity that you cannot see how your posts are uncharitable. You make unnecessary comments that do not further the conversation. They are ad hominem because you attack the person, not what was said. Read the other posters here they** do **address what is written and not the person. You are very caustic and unable to see yourself in the mirror.
You ask sarcastic questions "Adrift do you also hold that airplane blackboxes are actually black? " and then demur that they weren’t intentional.

My friend sarcasm is in the eye the beholder.
If yours are over sensitive there is nothing more I can say to placate you sorry.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Also, I should mention that some of the festal texts from the feast of the Dormition also explicitly mention the virgin “passing over into life through death” («διὰ θανάτου γάρ, πρὸς τὴν ζωὴν μεταβέβηκας» from the second troparion after the heirmos of the sixth ode of the second canon, attributed to St. John of Damascus). Likewise, the heirmos of the ninth ode of the first canon, attributed to Kyr Kosmas, makes an entreaty to the Virgin Mary, asking, “Virgin after childbirth, and living after death, mayest thou ever save thine inheritance.” («Ἡ μετὰ τόκον παρθένος, καὶ μετὰ θάνατον ζῶσα, σᾠζοις αεί, τὴν κληρονομίαν σου.»)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Mary being token alive body and soul is based on a very strong Tradition that even stated the Apostles was transported to see her death by the Holy Spirit.

If you are referring to the apochryphal Transitus Mariae legends I believe you would be mistaken in thinking:
(a) this is an accepted “Church tradition.”
(b) that it affirms Mary was alive - in fact the tradition assumes she was supine (ie “sleeping in death”) as iconography up to the time of these increasingly superstitious legends clearly asserts.

Some lay persons new to these legends believe Mary threw her sash down to one of the apostles (Thomas?) suggesting she was alive. Yet a careful reading of the original legend (there were many “Chinese whisper” manuscripts that increasingly evolved the originals) suggests the verbs used were in the passive tense suggesting “it fell” rather than Mary threw it down. In other words, as per iconography, she was deceased.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Mary did NOT die for sinners…

I don’t think Ambrose said that Memaw.
He said Mary died for the sake of sinners, that is, as an expression of love and solidarity with the whole human race. Just like Jesus. Obviously Jesus’s solidarity, being God, had a unique efficacy that Mary’s death could not have.
“A man has no greater love…”

What part of BODY and SOUL do you not understand!! I do NOT deny her body and soul went to Heaven, together, as the Church requires us to believe.

But you do deny that they were separated before they left earth.
The official Church in its Popes , iconography and liturgy has always taught the opposite - they rose from the earth separately.

Though this is an **official Church teaching **it is of course not yet a defined official Church teaching - so you are currently free to hold an opposing, untaught personal view.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I “default” to the Church and her DEFINED Dogma. God Bless, Memaw

That’s just it Memaw, you do not actually default to either the officially defined dogma of the Assumption, nor to the official non-defined teaching in the same document (that Mary died). There is no Church teaching official or otherwise, that Mary did not die.

The defined dogma of the Assumption certainly does NOT mean that it is held forever uncertain that we will never know either way.

The definition clearly chose to avoid making any comment on this point whatsoever and purposely left it ambiguous as the time was judged inopportune for clarifying this point in a dogmatic way.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You are implying that I am not seeking the truth…

Well, not much truth seeking seems to be going on below Memaw .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Memaw View Post

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon View Post
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

Are these not your own words Memaw: "Please show me where the Church “officially” teaches she died. "

We have shown you that the Pope clearly stated three times in his Encyclical that Mary died. Sure, it was not dogmatically defined and so your contrary view is validly tolerated.
Not all official teaching is dogma.

So please explain why you say this teaching is not official.
Can you perhaps define your understanding of “official”, it seems unusual?

 

[Memaw]

I would like your thoughts on this article which in some ways answers your questions. It is, as you can see, written by a doctor of sacred theologian and a member of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (Congregatio Sanctissimi Redemptoris) (Redemptorist)

I found it :hypno:
Mary’s Death and Bodily Assumption
by Lawrence P. Everett, C.Ss.R., S.T.D.

Thank You Adrift, as I said ALL along, we just do NOT know what took place at that precious moment between God and Mary.

"True, the Holy Father frequently mentions the death of the Blessed Virgin in the body of the document, but in every instance he quotes someone else. He does not give his own views on the subject. Consequently, I believe we can say with Father Roschini that "the question of Mary’s death is a matter for free discussion."27

I accept that as does the Church!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Now that’s what I’m talking about! Thank you so much for this. I’ll comment when I’ve had a chance to read it more thoroughly. I just skimmed it and it seems to be exactly what I’ve been looking for.

It appears that the upshot of the article is that theologians are still free to discuss whether the Virgin Mary died and arose from the dead in her Glorious Assumption or not. (Not really breaking news. ) I don’t know the qualifications or the party to which the author belongs, as he has made a well balanced case without appearing to favor either side.

The Laity would still be most secure in believing that she died first, as the Church has taught for ages, most explicitly in the East (the source for most of what the Church teaches in the dogma of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary). This is how I will continue to believe.

The Holy Spirit will guide the Church in all Truth.

 

[brandonmorris]

I never said that it was an official teaching all I said was the official church teaching on the subject is that it has never been a dogmatic teaching that as Catholics we have to believe it or we could believe either. I was giving examples how it could be both from Scripture on the account of Original sin . And yes that was the document that I was referring to . And if one can do history there is also a letter perported to be by the Blessed Virgin to the Ephesians that is generally believed by some Catholics of the region . So all I was saying officially the Church has never defined anything other than she was Mary ever Virgin and one can believe or not to believer either . Thanks God Bless and Hail Mary

 

[adrift]

Dormition, or in the Greek, κοίμησις (transliterated as koimesis or coemesis), meaning in this context to fall asleep in death. It is no mistake that we derive the word κοιμητήριον (Lat. coemeterium and English cemetery) from the exact same Greek root as the root of κοίμησις (Dormition).

Thank you

 

[Church_Militant]

Brandon is correct about what the church teaches.

These from the AAA forum.

• Why did Mary die?
• Assumption

 

[adrift]

The official Church in its Popes , iconography and liturgy has always taught the opposite - they rose from the earth separately.

.

To bad you didn’t read my link.

 

[adrift]

My friend sarcasm is in the eye the beholder.
If yours are over sensitive there is nothing more I can say to placate you sorry.

Really? You really can’t help yourself. If it weren’t sarcasm you would have answered “you took it the wrong way what I really meant was…” but you can’t. :whacky:

​

 

[Memaw]

Really? You really can’t help yourself. If it weren’t sarcasm you would have answered “you took it the wrong way what I really meant was…” but you can’t. :whacky:

​

Some people have a way of putting others down if they don’t happen to agree with them. Don’t let it bother you, that may be exactly what they want!! God Bless, Memaw