Mary's Assumption

[Vico]

Hmmmn. Memaw clearly asserts meanings in the Dogma that simply are not there.
The Popes have taught (non infallibly) that before entry into heaven Mary was “in pieces”.
That is what death is.
Early Church art and liturgy has literally drawn Mary “in pieces” as below.

Therefore the Dogma is wrongly interpreted if any interpretation is understood to positively deny this historical fact.

The dogma is what must be believed. It is not defined infallibly that the Blessed Virgin Mary died. It is not defined infallibly that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not die. So it is permissible to believe that she died or or did not die, before she was transfigured. History is irrelevant to what is permissible.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right its not so much for me that she would have died or desired to die, but how this would have happened. The basis for the teaching of resurrection depends on the original greek -scripture and the oral tradition witness. So its Christs resurrection, his own words, Elijah, Enoch, Moses, Daniel in the furnace etc.

The greek - but there is better support for the reading ‘We shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed’

newadvent.org/bible/1co015.htm#vrs19

As the soul has a natural propensity to the body, its perpetual separation from the body would seem unnatural.
As the body is the partner of the soul’s crimes, and the companion of her virtues, the justice of God seems to demand that the body be the sharer in the soul’s punishment and reward.
As the soul separated from the body is naturally imperfect, the consummation of its happiness, replete with every good, seems to demand the resurrection of the body.
The first of these reasons appears to be urged by Christ Himself in Matthew 22:23; the second reminds one of the words of St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:19, and 2 Thessalonians 1:4. Besides urging the foregoing arguments, the Fathers appeal also to certain analogies found in revelation and in nature itself, e.g. Jonas in the whale’s belly, the three children in the fiery furnace, Daniel in the lions’ den, the carrying away of Henoch and Elias, the raising of the dead, the blossoming of Aaron’s rod, the preservation of the garments of the Israelites in the desert, the grain of seed dying and springing up again, the egg, the season of the year, the succession of day and night. Many pictures of early Christian art express these analogies. But in spite of the foregoing congruities, theologians more generally incline to the opinion that in the state of pure nature there would have been no resurrection of the body.

newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm

The Bible is silent and the earliest documentation by the Early Church Fathers mentions nothing of the end of Marys journey. Epiphanius of Salamis

Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403): The holy virgin may have died and been buried—her falling asleep was with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death—as the Scripture says, “And a sword shall pierce her soul” her fame is among the martyrs and her holy body, by which light rose on the world, [rests] amid blessings. Or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. No one knows her end. But we must not honor the saints to excess; we must honor their Master

So what is he saying, nothing exists in this period relating to Marys death. And if you read his works he is specifically addressing the on-going phenom in the East with private revelation and apocrypha, which btw Shoemaker also in the Eastern rite has recently covered in his own research.

The ancient Dormition and Assumption traditions are a collection of over sixty different narratives, preserved in nine ancient languages, that commemorate the end of the Virgin Mary’s life. These traditions have long been overlooked by scholars of early Christianity, no doubt largely because this complicated corpus was insufficiently well known. The present study aims to remedy this situation with a detailed analysis of the earliest traditions of Mary’s death, including liturgical and archaeological evidence as well as the numerous narrative sources. Several of the most important narratives are translated in appendices, many appearing in English for the first time. The book will be of interest to all scholars of early Christian literature.

ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199210749.do

The next mention come from the Council of Chalcedon where evidence was asked to be bought for safe keeping at Constantinople the Bishop of Jerusalem documented at Chalcedon states there are no artifacts.

“The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209-210).

But in 459 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree that officially condemned and rejected the Transitus along with several other heretical writings. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this decree in the sixth century. [Webster, W; Marian Dogmas in The Church of Rome at the Bar of History; Banner of Truth Trust, 1995; pp. 81-85.]

So you have no evidence, no eye witness and a phenom evolving in regards to Mariology. All great reading. You also have not one but two sights at Jerusalem and Ephesus of the sight suggested that Mary lived and died which isn’t possible. Both are visited by the faithful, in fact all the Popes perhaps except Francis visited Ephesus and going back to Paul VI.

So to put this perspective. No one knows what happened to Mary at the end of her life. As far as “required belief” thats covered. As far as the resurrection and her death. No one knows. As far as everyone must die, thats not absolutely true and proven by above in regards to the Resurrection.

As far as “my opinion” I do think Mary would have wanted to die which is why I quoted JP-II as his words satisfy my research which I quoted. However it should be no surprise why there is no defined dogma on Marys death specifically nor will there be as I see.

Further it would be “my opinion” Elijah was in some form translated from mortal to immortal as apparently God can rise a body and soul and alive also indicated at the final resurrection but in the final resurrection this is known from mortal to immortal. With Elijah this is a little different in prophecy. And that is the tradition.

Thanks

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Popes have taught (non infallibly) that before entry into heaven Mary was “in pieces”.
That is what death is.

Hi Blue, I kinda disagree which I hope you see why with the link I posted. sorry to disagree.

First that is not what death is and is a contradiction to the word of God. By the general rule this is how death transpires due to “sin” and is necessary but as we see and the Word of God testifies to along with His Saints this isn’t absolute. So to be clear its speculation and in the case of Mary not very good. And the argument that Mary would have preferred to die? Read the Bible Elijah preferred to die also. However, that didn’t happen and why, because its Gods will not Elijahs or Marys which Mary also specifically states-Luke.

So did Mary die? Its probable and thats “exactly” the wording by Dogma. So is it possible she could have been assumed alive? Elijah and the general resurrection itself are the proof and thats not probable its infallible.

But all that said, the only thing I can’t qualify is Elijah is hidden away somewhere still mortal, nor that He will come back from immortal to mortal. So in my mind this is a rough spot. In fact strictly speaking I wouldn’t even say Elijah was taken up alive but in some sense was translated from death to this world to immortal life. Otherwise this is all conflict to me and issues with mortality and immortality. This can only be resolved with “God can do anything” however by the same token then that is also applied to Mary.

As to why the faithful come to the belief by blind faith or sound reasoning Mary was assumed alive to me seems clear. Nor do I see anything wrong with it in fact I would say that is the tradition and infallibly per resurrection-general. To me that pious belief is no different than Mary could not have died in two places but insisting one is absolutely the truth and based on private revelation and apocrypha and a developing Marion cult by the time of Constantinople.

I hope my faith and belief is acceptable to God. As I read and JP-II elaborates on the question of death I agree, so tell what’s death and whats possible with God? From what I see its reduced as Paul said to a “twinkling of an eye” and the Church affirms “immediate” -particular judgement and well as to no corruption, as said, no corruption also means no sin and immortality. And this can work both ways as we see with Saints today and it can happen immediately and with body and soul intact which is an infallible teaching of Church tradition and the word of God.

Thanks.

 

[rinnie]

What in the world do you think her Assumption really means, She was taken Body and Soul, both together, (intact) to Heaven. NO WHERE does the Church teach that Mary went to Heaven in pieces. How much clearer does that have to be! Infallible Dogmas rise ABOVE everything else including the most sincere expressed “opinions”. I fully believe in the Dogma of the Assumption and that is what I am defending. No more, no less. I leave the speculation up to others of which I am NOT required to believe. As most of you have stated many times before but are not willing to leave it at that. God Bless, Memaw

Memaw I think what people are trying, and what you are trying to say is this. Our Blessed Mother left this world body and soul and was taken up to heaven by her Son.

Did she physically die? It would appear to our earthly intelligence that she indeed died to this world. Because lets face it, she did not seem to say Hey guys gotta go, My Son is here.

We are taught she was asleep in Christ. I would assume she had quit breathing which would mean she was dead in this world, or dead as we know dead to be. (not breathing).

We know she was taken up to heaven body and soul. That is all we know. We cannot truly define death, and we taught as Christians death was truly conquered by Christ.

But Physical death is what people are saying, and we can never know exactly when her mortal body came alive again in Christ, but common sense, or better yet human understanding can only say at the moment of her assumption in heaven.

But what I believe we can all agree on is this, We are told on the LAST DAY Christ will come again and join the mortal body back with the soul that has been departed from it.

We know that the Blessed Mother is in heaven with the body and soul.

With that said, let me say this, I remember one time someone asking Christ if we will know one another in the next world, and he said yes. But if the body we are resurrected in our mortal body? It cannot be because our mortal body is destroyed at death, but although our new body may look like our mortal body, may not?? Would our new body not be different?

Either way our mortal body can never be compared to the Blessed Mother she was completely free from sin, no original sin, so to say she was raised without the judgement, is believable also. Simply because why would someone who was sinless be judged.

So I believe as the Church has defined she was raised body and soul at the moment of her earthly death. But it is truly a mystery that we cannot argue or define.

And beings its a mystery both may be believed. My point, God has not revealed this mystery to us or the Pope.

 

[rinnie]

The dogma is what must be believed. It is not defined infallibly that the Blessed Virgin Mary died. It is not defined infallibly that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not die. So it is permissible to believe that she died or or did not die, before she was transfigured. History is irrelevant to what is permissible.

This is exactly true. But we are taught the Blessed Mother completed her earthly life. Now that does say something. When we die we also complete our earthly life.

But if I had to make a guess, which of course, means nothing. But at the MOMENT her earthy life was COMPLETED, so that would say she become dead to this world, she indeed became ALIVE in the next.

I would say she took her last breath in this world (which we call human death) and took her next breath in eternal life with her Son in heaven.

But it seems her human body was transformed into some sort of Divine Human Body, because of how those kids claim to have seen her. IT is like a human body, yet shown in some in a Divine way.

Which leads me to believe that when the human body is resurrected on the last day, it will be different then human, it will also become Divine. But again never compare to Christ.

 

[adrift]

This is exactly true. But we are taught the Blessed Mother completed her earthly life. Now that does say something. When we die we also complete our earthly life.

But if I had to make a guess, which of course, means nothing. But at the MOMENT her earthy life was COMPLETED, so that would say she become dead to this world, she indeed became ALIVE in the next.

I would say she took her last breath in this world (which we call human death) and took her next breath in eternal life with her Son in heaven.

But it seems her human body was transformed into some sort of Divine Human Body, because of how those kids claim to have seen her. IT is like a human body, yet shown in some in a Divine way.

Which leads me to believe that when the human body is resurrected on the last day, it will be different then human, it will also become Divine. But again never compare to Christ.

Catholics have been accused of making Mary a goddess so using a term such as divine might promote this false belief. I believe the word to be used is glorified body.
Catholic Answers has a tract on this subject
Resurrection of the Body

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The dogma is what must be believed. It is not defined infallibly that the Blessed Virgin Mary died. It is not defined infallibly that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not die. So it is permissible to believe that she died or or did not die, before she was transfigured. History is irrelevant to what is permissible.

Vico relax a little and you will discover my actual point is not this and therefore reasonable.
History clearly demonstrates a venerable teaching that Mary was in pieces before her Assumption. Therefore whatever the Assumption declares with certainty CANNOT BE That she definitely was not in a separated state.
Memaw asserts the Assumption teaches infallibly that Mary was NOT in pieces beforehand. It teaches no such thing.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Hi Blue, I kinda disagree which I hope you see why with the link I posted. sorry to disagree.

First that is not what death is and is a contradiction to the word of God. By the general rule this is how death transpires due to “sin” and is necessary but as we see and the Word of God testifies to along with His Saints this isn’t absolute. So to be clear its speculation and in the case of Mary not very good. And the argument that Mary would have preferred to die? Read the Bible Elijah preferred to die also. However, that didn’t happen and why, because its Gods will not Elijahs or Marys which Mary also specifically states-Luke.

So did Mary die? Its probable and thats “exactly” the wording by Dogma. So is it possible she could have been assumed alive? Elijah and the general resurrection itself are the proof and thats not probable its infallible.

But all that said, the only thing I can’t qualify is Elijah is hidden away somewhere still mortal, nor that He will come back from immortal to mortal. So in my mind this is a rough spot. In fact strictly speaking I wouldn’t even say Elijah was taken up alive but in some sense was translated from death to this world to immortal life. Otherwise this is all conflict to me and issues with mortality and immortality. This can only be resolved with “God can do anything” however by the same token then that is also applied to Mary.

As to why the faithful come to the belief by blind faith or sound reasoning Mary was assumed alive to me seems clear. Nor do I see anything wrong with it in fact I would say that is the tradition and infallibly per resurrection-general. To me that pious belief is no different than Mary could not have died in two places but insisting one is absolutely the truth and based on private revelation and apocrypha and a developing Marion cult by the time of Constantinople.

I hope my faith and belief is acceptable to God. As I read and JP-II elaborates on the question of death I agree, so tell what’s death and whats possible with God? From what I see its reduced as Paul said to a “twinkling of an eye” and the Church affirms “immediate” -particular judgement and well as to no corruption, as said, no corruption also means no sin and immortality. And this can work both ways as we see with Saints today and it can happen immediately and with body and soul intact which is an infallible teaching of Church tradition and the word of God.

Thanks.

Not sure what you don’t quite agree with…
It’s a historic fact that the Pope’s, if they speak openly on the matter, speak of her death.
The Church teaches in many places that it’s very definition of death is separation of body and soul.
I don’t think there is much wiggle room on these points.

Your side comment above looks a bit suspect… incorruption does not really necessarily imply immortality (ie absence of death). Jesus’sbody in the tomb was iincorruptible, yet it was dead.

 

[adrift]

…Memaw asserts the Assumption teaches infallibly that Mary was NOT in pieces beforehand. It teaches no such thing.

You mischaracterize Memaw. Nowhere have I seen her declare that Mary did not die, strange way of saying it to be in pieces:shrug:

This is what she has always stated.

Isn’t that what you have been saying all along, that we could believe either way. Why are you and others, so set on not giving me that option, without accusing me of all kinds of things. !!! God Bless, Memaw

Good question. The option is that you can believe either way. She has stated that she believes Mary did not die which has not been infallibly declared that she did. You have very good reasoning on why Mary died but it isn’t absolute. Not everyone believed she died even though they were in the minority. I gave a link earlier to a very balanced view.
Mary’s Death and Bodily Assumption
This paragraph especially applies

…2. Having completed the course of her earthly life: Due to the dispute over the fact of Our Blessed Lady’s death, the question of the precise scope of the doctrine of the Assumption was likewise a matter of dispute among theologians prior to November 1, 1950. Some maintained that the object of this privilege is the glorious resurrection of the Blessed Virgin, presupposing, therefore, the fact of her death.4 This opinion was based upon the reasoning that in theological investigation we must not separate those truths which are inseparable in Tradition, the Liturgy, and the pious belief of the faithful. This opinion took for granted that the death, glorious resurrection, and bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin were taught as inseparable truths in Tradition and were always believed to be such by the faithful. Other theologians, on the contrary, maintained that the doctrine of the Assumption has within its scope only the glorious Assumption of Mary, body and soul into heaven, whether she died or not.5…

 

[rinnie]

Catholics have been accused of making Mary a goddess so using a term such as divine might promote this false belief. I believe the word to be used is glorified body.
Catholic Answers has a tract on this subject
Resurrection of the Body

Thanks, Adrift point taken. But something you posted made a strong point also.

It states Christ said that on the last day he will come again in glory and all of the people who have DIED he will reunite their souls back again with their earthly body.

With that said, if the Blessed Mother did indeed died as we died, she would also be reunited with her earthly body.

But she was sent to heaven body and soul. Which would mean from what I can see, that her soul was never separated from her earthly body, because her earthly body was sent to heaven along with her soul. At the same moment.

So I believe that she may have indeed been in a deep sleep in Christ and woke up again in heaven with him.

Sin is what causes physical death of the body, she had none, so if she had no sin, she would not have death.

 

[rinnie]

Not sure what you don’t quite agree with…
It’s a historic fact that the Pope’s, if they speak openly on the matter, speak of her death.
The Church teaches in many places that it’s very definition of death is separation of body and soul.
I don’t think there is much wiggle room on these points.

Your side comment above looks a bit suspect… incorruption does not really necessarily imply immortality (ie absence of death). Jesus’sbody in the tomb was iincorruptible, yet it was dead.

But, and this is a BIG BUT, Jesus had to die, to take away death. It would not be possible for the Blessed Mother to enter into heaven even though she was indeed sinless. without her son who was without sin, to die for all sin, and open up heaven.

Jesus died for sin, not his but ours. Jesus took upon all of our sins so that we could be forgiven. So was he sinless, on his own, correct, but he was not sinless when he took upon our sins.

As scripture reads although he whom was without sin, he died from sins of others.

 

[adrift]

Thanks, Adrift point taken. But something you posted made a strong point also.

It states Christ said that on the last day he will come again in glory and all of the people who have DIED he will reunite their souls back again with their earthly body.

With that said, if the Blessed Mother did indeed died as we died, she would also be reunited with her earthly body.

But she was sent to heaven body and soul. Which would mean from what I can see, that her soul was never separated from her earthly body, because her earthly body was sent to heaven along with her soul. At the same moment.

So I believe that she may have indeed been in a deep sleep in Christ and woke up again in heaven with him.

Sin is what causes physical death of the body, she had none, so if she had no sin, she would not have death.

Oh my! You have joined Memaw My own personnel view is that Mary would want to imitate her son. He died I believe she did too. BUT either view is acceptable to the Church. Some however insist that we do not have that right.

 

[PopePiusXIISupp]

When Jesus was born part of his cells were left in Mary so since Jesus’ cells were Mary She was assumed because Jesus does not corrupt.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not sure what you don’t quite agree with…
It’s a historic fact that the Pope’s, if they speak openly on the matter, speak of her death.
The Church teaches in many places that it’s very definition of death is separation of body and soul.
I don’t think there is much wiggle room on these points.

Your side comment above looks a bit suspect… incorruption does not really necessarily imply immortality (ie absence of death). Jesus’sbody in the tomb was iincorruptible, yet it was dead.

And its a historic fact no body knows that she died or where.

The Church teaches in many places that it’s very definition of death is separation of body and soul.

The infallible general resurrection teaches otherwise and that is Tradition and I know there is no wiggle room on it. I never said incorruption necessarily implied immortality.

 

[adrift]

But, and this is a BIG BUT, Jesus had to die, to take away death. It would not be possible for the Blessed Mother to enter into heaven even though she was indeed sinless. without her son who was without sin, to die for all sin, and open up heaven.

Jesus died for sin, not his but ours. Jesus took upon all of our sins so that we could be forgiven. So was he sinless, on his own, correct, but he was not sinless when he took upon our sins.

As scripture reads although he whom was without sin, he died from sins of others.

Your absolutely right. This is hard for some to understand that Mary also had to be saved so she rightly calls Jesus her savior.

 

[GaryTaylor]

but he was not sinless when he took upon our sins.

WHAT!!! what page is that on in the Catechism?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You mischaracterize Memaw…

Adrift, Memaw is quite capable of defending herself if I am mistaken in summarising her positions.

I think you are rather late to this lengthy discussion - if you reread Memaw closely I believe you will find my summary of her position is accurate…which she has never denied when challenged.

…strange way of saying it to be in pieces:shrug:

Again, please re-read Memaws unusual contributions in this area. These are her words.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The dogma is what must be believed. It is not defined infallibly that the Blessed Virgin Mary died. It is not defined infallibly that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not die. So it is permissible to believe that she died or or did not die, before she was transfigured. History is irrelevant to what is permissible.

I think you may still have missed Memaw’s mistaken point.

She believes the Dogma asserts infallibly, with certainty, absolutely, always that Mary was NOT in pieces at any time before her Assumption.

It does not.
For the Dogma to assert this would be for it to assert that Mary did not die.
We all agree that the Dogma leaves that question open don’t we?

Therefore Mary could have been “in pieces” immediately before her arrival in heaven.
Memaw denies this possibility totally.

Somehow Memaw doesn’t understand that “to be in pieces” (ie separation of body and soul) is the definition of death. Therefore the Dogma cannot deny this possibility that Mary was “in pieces” immediately before her arrival in heaven where she was then perfectly restored to immortal, full and glorious bodily life.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

But, and this is a BIG BUT, Jesus had to die, to take away death. It would not be possible for the Blessed Mother to enter into heaven even though she was indeed sinless. without her son who was without sin, to die for all sin, and open up heaven.

Jesus died for sin, not his but ours. Jesus took upon all of our sins so that we could be forgiven. So was he sinless, on his own, correct, but he was not sinless when he took upon our sins.

As scripture reads although he whom was without sin, he died from sins of others.

I don’t think I disagree with this Rinnie.
But what has this to do with your minor disagreements in what Gary quoted of me below?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And its a historic fact no body knows that she died.

Sorry I don’t really get you.

What is your strong historical evidence for asserting so strongly that nobody was present at Mary’s death? Even the Apochrypha asserts the apostles were present. Even if the Apochrypha cannot be trusted at least untrustworthy historical evidence “for” their presence is better than absolutely no historical evidence “against”.

Or do you mean that they were probably present but couldn’t be sure she died?

Well, if the Popes since then, when clearly speaking to the point, have always asserted she did die … I think you will have a hard time asserting that it is absolutely clear and certain that “nobody knows.”

Nobody “saw” Mary arrive in heaven body and soul conjoined either by the same account if you are correct on this point .

It doesn’t make much sense to say “nobody knew that she went into heaven living there body and soul” does it?

But if you affirm the above about her death then it seems you have to affirm this as well.

I don’t think so though.

I never said incorruption necessarily implied immortality.

OK, then I am not sure what you mean by “no corruption … means … immortality.”