Mary's Assumption

  • Thread starter Thread starter IGotQuestions
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue_Horizon said:
Yes. Pope Pious clearly stated in his Encyclical taught (non-infallibly) that Mary died and this is therefore an official (not yet infallible) teaching.

You appear to come to this conclusion merely because he was not prepared to state that infallibly this time.
Click to expand...
All I said was that I believe the Infallible dogma of the Assumption of Mary, how that actually took place is between God and Mary as No one else was actually there! And that is why it has never been made an Infallible dogma that Mary died. While some claim you can believe either or, they do not seem to allow me the privilege of believing what the Infallible dogma of the Assumption actually states!!! Like I have said several times, you can’t have it both ways. God bless Memaw
 
Blue_Horizon said:
The Catechism prob doesn’t teach that Mary died as clearly as Pope Pious did.

Though the ancient Feast of the Dormition (as opposed to the Feast of the Assumption) in fact celebrates the Death of Mary - in the Early Church and the East sleep is a euphemism for death. But most Western Catholics don’t seem to appreciate this subtle point.
Click to expand...
According to Ludwig Ott*, the object of the Feast of the Sleeping of Mary (Dormitio, κοιμησις) was the death of Mary. Soon after, the incorruptibility of her body was thought of, so the name of the feast was changed to assumptio (with Sacramentarium Gregorinum, 590-604 A.D.). Since the sixth century in the east, and the end of the seventh century, for Rome (Sergius I, 687-701 A.D.) the Church celebrated the feast. The Patristic sources and later scholastic movement have speculative grounds on which to base the Blessed Virgin Mary’s incorruptibility and transfiguration, in Revelation:
  • Freedom from sin,
  • Motherhood of God,
  • Perpetual virginity, and
  • participation in the work of Christ.
  • Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, pp. 209-210.
 
Vico said:
According to Ludwig Ott*, the object of the Feast of the Sleeping of Mary (Dormitio, κοιμησις) was the death of Mary. Soon after, the incorruptibility of her body was thought of, so the name of the feast was changed to assumptio (with Sacramentarium Gregorinum, 590-604 A.D.). Since the sixth century in the east, and the end of the seventh century, for Rome (Sergius I, 687-701 A.D.) the Church celebrated the feast. The Patristic sources and later scholastic movement have speculative grounds on which to base the Blessed Virgin Mary’s incorruptibility and transfiguration, in Revelation:
  • Freedom from sin,
  • Motherhood of God,
  • Perpetual virginity, and
  • participation in the work of Christ.
  • Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, pp. 209-210.
Click to expand...
No one knows for sure! Mary was NOT resurrected, she was Assumed! God Bless, Memaw
 
Memaw said:
No one knows for sure! Mary was NOT resurrected, she was Assumed! God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
By stating emphatically that Mary was not resurrected, you are saying that you do know for sure.

If she died, then she was resurrected. You are sure that she was not resurrected, therefore you must be sure that she did not die.
 
While that is true, it is important to note the it is also the traditionally held view in the west that she did die. This is certainly not an East/West issue, though the teaching in the East is unambiguous.
 
babochka said:
By stating emphatically that Mary was not resurrected, you are saying that you do know for sure.

If she died, then she was resurrected. You are sure that she was not resurrected, therefore you must be sure that she did not die.
Click to expand...
The Church did NOT ever Infallibly proclaim she was resurrected, BUT it DID Infallibly proclaim she was Assumed. BIG difference. You have to die to be resurrected!!! God Bless, Memaw
 
Memaw said:
The Church did NOT ever Infallibly proclaim she was resurrected, BUT it DID Infallibly proclaim she was Assumed. BIG difference. You have to die to be resurrected!!! God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
And you don’t know that she didn’t die, so you can’t say that she wasn’t resurrected. The traditional understanding-West and East-is that she did in fact die, so please stop these emphatic pontifications that simply are nothing other than an opinion.
 
Memaw said:
All I said was that I believe the Infallible dogma of the Assumption of Mary, how that actually took place is between God and Mary as No one else was actually there! And that is why it has never been made an Infallible dogma that Mary died. While some claim you can believe either or, they do not seem to allow me the privilege of believing what the Infallible dogma of the Assumption actually states!!! Like I have said several times, you can’t have it both ways. God bless Memaw
Click to expand...
Pope Pious clearly stated in his Encyclical (non-infallibly) that Mary died.
For some reason you are unwilling to confirm this which suggests you deny it.

If its your theological assumptions re the Assumption that cause you to deny this clear cut observation - then this may be the cause of your hard to understand interpretation of the Assumption Dogma you’ve stated above.
No one else was actually there!
Click to expand...
Why is this relevant? Legend and earliest Iconography shows the Apostles saw the body of Mary and understood she had died.

Regardless, why should the Church be unable to decide on such matters if she is guided by the Holy Spirit and infallibly should she do so?
 
Vico said:
According to Ludwig Ott*, the object of the Feast of the Sleeping of Mary (Dormitio, κοιμησις) was the death of Mary. Soon after, the incorruptibility of her body was thought of, so the name of the feast was changed to assumptio (with Sacramentarium Gregorinum, 590-604 A.D.). Since the sixth century in the east, and the end of the seventh century, for Rome (Sergius I, 687-701 A.D.) the Church celebrated the feast. The Patristic sources and later scholastic movement have speculative grounds on which to base the Blessed Virgin Mary’s incorruptibility and transfiguration, in Revelation:
  • Freedom from sin,
  • Motherhood of God,
  • Perpetual virginity, and
  • participation in the work of Christ.
  • Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, pp. 209-210.
Click to expand...
Yes you are quite right.
Though dead her body remained incorruptible by a special miracle of God.
That is another reason for calling her death a “Sleep” or, formally, a Dormition.
 
Memaw said:
The Church did NOT ever Infallibly proclaim she was resurrected, BUT it DID Infallibly proclaim she was Assumed. BIG difference. You have to die to be resurrected!!! God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
Memaw you seem to interpret the Dogma of the Assumption to mean that it has been infallibly declared we will never know if Mary died or not…

On this you are clearly mistaken.

For if it was defined that we will never know whether or not she died then Pope Pious would NOT have dared to state (and personally hold) even non-infallibly that Mary died in the same Encyclical 🤷.
 
RyanBlack said:
And you don’t know that she didn’t die, so you can’t say that she wasn’t resurrected. The traditional understanding-West and East-is that she did in fact die, so please stop these emphatic pontifications that simply are nothing other than an opinion.
Click to expand...
Yes I believe you are correct.
As further proof that the East (and West in the Early Church) took it for granted that Mary died is the celebration of Mary’s Resurrection. This teaching was part of the celebration of the Dormition Feast.
Here’s a good article: ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/dormition_of_the_theotokos
 
RyanBlack said:
And you don’t know that she didn’t die, so you can’t say that she wasn’t resurrected. The traditional understanding-West and East-is that she did in fact die, so please stop these emphatic pontifications that simply are nothing other than an opinion.
Click to expand...
No one has PROOF that Mary died!!! NO one knows FOR SURE what happened at that moment and the Catholic Church does NOT teach Infallibly that she did. I am a Latin Catholic and I believe what the Church teaches. God Bless, Memaw
 
babochka said:
By stating emphatically that Mary was not resurrected, you are saying that you do know for sure.

If she died, then she was resurrected. You are sure that she was not resurrected, therefore you must be sure that she did not die.
Click to expand...
I am saying that the Church doesn’t teach that Mary was resurrected ! Only that she was Assumed. God Bless. Memaw
 
" lso, Adam and Eve would not have been subject to death if they had not disobeyed God. Jesus and Mary took the place of Adam and Eve in the New Covenant except they obeyed God’s will. They don’t inherit death because death is the result of the original sin."

ah come on the creation story is a metaphor -look at DNA studies the mitochonrial Eve and the Y chromosome Adam did not even live at the same

Jesus was in his human nature the **Son **of Mary -

with that as a given - many Anglicans believe in the Dormition view of the Assumption of Mary
 
They keep referring to the Eastern belief and I said I am Latin Rite and I believe in the
Pope’s Infallible Dogma on the Assumption, which does NOT say she died nor resurrected. Am I not allowed on this thread to believe what the Pope taught Infallibly??? God Bless, Memaw
 
Wish I had the time to be here more often but I don’t. I just now got caught on this thread since the last time I posted. Thanks for all the great info everyone.

In His Grace
 
Also no Pope has taught infallibly or proclaimed infallibly that the Theotokos died. If you can find any such statement by ANY Pope you are welcome to present it.
 
This is a really silly debate. We don’t need to wait for a special papal definition to believe things that have always been believed. It didn’t take until the 1950s for people to believe in the Assumption. And the Assumption liturgy traditionally taught her death. For example, the secret for the traditional mass of the Assumption goes something like this:

Lord, may the prayer of the Mother of God for your people come to You. Even though we know her to have migrated on account of the condition of her flesh, let us feel that she intercedes for us before You in heavenly glory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top