Mary's Assumption

  • Thread starter Thread starter IGotQuestions
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I won’t impose on the debate, but will simply quote Martin Luther:
There can he no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith… It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.
Click to expand...
To me, this seems sufficient.

Jon
 
Vico said:
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.
Click to expand...
But the Church does have an unbroken tradition and Papal teaching (non infallible) that Mary did die.

The same cannot be said of the unusual position that Mary did die which which has only seriously arisen since around C17 as Pope JP II plainly stated.
 
Memaw said:
I am saying that the Church doesn’t teach that Mary was resurrected !
Click to expand...
Indeed the Church can be reasonably inferred to hold this teaching - Pope Pious plainly taught (non infallibly) she died in his Assumption Encyclical. It therefore follows that to be in heaven body and soul would necessarily imply a resurrection phase as well.
Both East and Western Early Church (which was united at that time) honoured this resurrection teaching in the Feast of the Dormition.

The Eastern Church still echoes that resurrection theology in this Dormition Feast.
The Western Church has never denied this theology but merely emphasized the Assumption instead which emphasis has hidden (but not discarded) this resurrection aspect.

Your ongoing difficulty seems to be that the Church must have infallibly declared teachings or no teachings at all. In this opinion I believe you are mistaken Memaw.
 
QNDNNDQDCE said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well observed Q.
Do you know how ancient that Secret prayer is?
 
Blue_Horizon said:
But the Church does have an unbroken tradition and Papal teaching (non infallible) that Mary did die.

The same cannot be said of the unusual position that Mary did die which which has only seriously arisen since around C17 as Pope JP II plainly stated.
Click to expand...
I think you meant the unusual position that Mary did not die. There is a reason that the dogma was stated without reference to death and it is given by Pope John Paul II (item 3): “Nevertheless, Pius XII did not intend to deny the fact of her death, but merely did not judge it opportune to affirm solemnly the death of the Mother of God as a truth to be accepted by all believers.”
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_02071997.html

I believe that the died, however acknowledge that it is not a dogma of faith so that individuals may believe that she did not die, rather she ended her earthly experience.
 
JonNC said:
I won’t impose on the debate, but ill simply quote Martin Luther:
There can he no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith… It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.
Click to expand...
Well, actually, the Holy Spirit told him nothing. The Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to make an infallibe declaration. The Holy Spirit must not have thought what Luther believed was sufficient. 😉
Click to expand...
 
Duane1966 said:
Well, actually, the Holy Spirit told him nothing. The Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to make an infallibe declaration. The Holy Spirit must not have thought what Luther believed was sufficient. 😉
Click to expand...
But it was sufficient for billions of Christians prior to 1950. Luther’s position (and mine) is consistent with the Catholic Church until 1950. I’m perfectly willing to hold it.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
But it was sufficient for billions of Christians prior to 1950. Luther’s position (and mine) is consistent with the Catholic Church until 1950. I’m perfectly willing to hold it.

Jon
Click to expand...
By that logic, it is perfectly okay to be non-Trinitarian, as it was sufficient prior to Nicaea.
 
And on the other hand, no Pope has ever proclaimed Infallibly that Mary died.God Bless, Memaw
 
Duane1966 said:
By that logic, it is perfectly okay to be non-Trinitarian, as it was sufficient prior to Nicaea.
Click to expand...
No, but you wouldn’t condemn someone from that time for not having a defined understanding of the Trinity. Luther’s understanding of the assumption was quite acceptable at his time.
You, OTOH, are bound to the teachings of your communion today, and I to mine.

Jon
 
To be resurrected one must die. To be Assumed, one doesn’t have to die. God Bless, Memaw
Don’t you think we’ve gone on far enough with this? God Bless, Memaw
 
Memaw said:
And on the other hand, no Pope has ever proclaimed Infallibly that Mary died.God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
But popes have taught clearly that she did die. Are infallible teachings the only one that matter?
 
Memaw said:
To be resurrected one must die. To be Assumed, one doesn’t have to die. God Bless, Memaw
Don’t you think we’ve gone on far enough with this? God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
One can be resurrected and assumed. The Assumption of the Theotokos does not mean that she was not resurrected prior to being assumed.
 
There is no evidence of the Assumption in the Bible. One must believe in the teaching authority of the Church to believe this dogma. Obedience…
 
JonNC said:
No, but you wouldn’t condemn someone from that time for not having a defined understanding of the Trinity. Luther’s understanding of the assumption was quite acceptable at his time.
You, OTOH, are bound to the teachings of your communion today, and I to mine.

Jon
Click to expand...
Jon, you stated this seems sufficient, implying that it is sufficient for right now. It was sufficient for back then, it is no longer such. Obviously, the Holy Spirit wanted this truth of the BVM proclaimed. Just as non-trinity was sufficient, it is no longer.
 
Memaw said:
Assumption is in distinction from both. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
Being assumed is in distinction from being resurrected only if the Theotokos did not die (a position which has very little support in the traditions of the Church). However, it is in distinction from Christ’s Ascension, since, as God, he ascended into Heaven by virtue of his own power. The Theotokos, being human, was assumed into Heaven by the power of God. If she did in fact die (which has the overwhelming support of the traditions of both the East and the West), she was resurrected and assumed.
 
RyanBlack said:
Being assumed is in distinction from being resurrected only if the Theotokos did not die (a position which has very little support in the traditions of the Church). However, it is in distinction from Christ’s Ascension, since, as God, he ascended into Heaven by virtue of his own power. The Theotokos, being human, was assumed into Heaven by the power of God. If she did in fact die (which has the overwhelming support of the traditions of both the East and the West), she was resurrected and assumed.
Click to expand...
And if She didn’t suffer death, she wasn’t resurrected, She was Assumed Body and Soul intact as stated in the Infallible Dogma. God Bless, Memaw
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top