R
RyanBlack
Guest
No one has stated otherwise. What Jharek and I have been trying to point out is that the Assumption does not preclude her having been resurrected because the Dogma of the Assumption does not preclude her death.
- Status
M
Memaw
Guest
It never mentioned Her death!!! Like I said before NO ONE knows for sure what happened at that Mysterious Moment, not even the Pope for sure! God Bless, Memaw
S
spedteacherita
Guest
S
spedteacherita
Guest
If no one knows for sure how do we know it happened? Not trying to be rude just wanting to understand where this teaching came from…
Blessings a ll!
Rita
What the CC did in 1950 is fine for members of your communion. We as Lutherans continue in the faith that allows personal piety on something that, while doing no harm to the Gospel, we do not consider an article of faith.
Jon
P
Peregrinans
Guest
To all that believe Mary didn’t die.
Who was the truth, in this case that she couldn’t die, revealed to and when? Obviously, generations, who lived closer to the event, believed otherwise.
And the concept, and reality, of the Trinity is found in scripture for anyone who can count.
We are told, in scripture, that there is only one God. So God =(1) Distinct Nature of God =(1), Jesus says that He and His father are one. God = (1) Distinct Nature of God (2) the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. God = (1) Distinct Nature of God = (3) So logically 1 God with 3 (tri) distinct natures = trinity.
The witness to Jesus’ words, the concept and teachings were always in evidence. The understanding may have become clearer and the explanation better, but, despite arguments about it, the core information about the Trinity was present in the gospels and was not changed.
That is quite different then what we are discussing here with the Assumption, because the scant core information we initially had about the Assumption led to the understanding that Mary died. Many hundreds of years later some people come along and claim that either:
A) the core information has changed, due to revelations of the Holy Spirit,so our understanding has changed. Or
B) our understanding has changed so we need to disregard the initial core information, since it doesn’t fit.
So, if it’s “A”, to whom and when was this revealed?
And if it is “B”, that is a dangerous practice for any religion that wants to maintain accuracy and preserve its teachings. IMO
Who was the truth, in this case that she couldn’t die, revealed to and when? Obviously, generations, who lived closer to the event, believed otherwise.
And the concept, and reality, of the Trinity is found in scripture for anyone who can count.
We are told, in scripture, that there is only one God. So God =(1) Distinct Nature of God =(1), Jesus says that He and His father are one. God = (1) Distinct Nature of God (2) the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. God = (1) Distinct Nature of God = (3) So logically 1 God with 3 (tri) distinct natures = trinity.
The witness to Jesus’ words, the concept and teachings were always in evidence. The understanding may have become clearer and the explanation better, but, despite arguments about it, the core information about the Trinity was present in the gospels and was not changed.
That is quite different then what we are discussing here with the Assumption, because the scant core information we initially had about the Assumption led to the understanding that Mary died. Many hundreds of years later some people come along and claim that either:
A) the core information has changed, due to revelations of the Holy Spirit,so our understanding has changed. Or
B) our understanding has changed so we need to disregard the initial core information, since it doesn’t fit.
So, if it’s “A”, to whom and when was this revealed?
And if it is “B”, that is a dangerous practice for any religion that wants to maintain accuracy and preserve its teachings. IMO
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Yet Church Fathers and popes have been confident enough in the death of the Theotokos that they have taught it. Is it your position that only those teachings that have been dogmatically defined count as church teaching?
R
rinnie
Guest
If you want biblical support, that easy. Read the last book of the bible where the it states the woman who Gave life to a male child who was to rule the world. Now who is the WOMAN who was SEEN up in the clouds who gave birth to the male child who was to rule the world? I think we can agree on that.
SO there is your proof!! She was indeed taken up to heaven, if not how could she be seen in the clouds? Body and Soul.
R
rinnie
Guest
I agree, we are free to believe she fell asleep to this world and was risen in the next. But both are fitting because she was the only person who was free from Original Sin, by the merit of God for the birth of her Son.
Because we all have the stain of Original Sin on us our bodies will indeed decay and return back to dirt until Christ raises us up from the tomb.
But the Blessed Mothers body never decayed because she was saved from Original Sin by God.
Because we all have the stain of Original Sin on us our bodies will indeed decay and return back to dirt until Christ raises us up from the tomb.
But the Blessed Mothers body never decayed because she was saved from Original Sin by God.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Thankyou for the correction - that is of course what I meant but my edit time was exceeded before I noticed!
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
That’s an interesting question RB.
I see at least five different theological themes possibly in play when it comes to defining the limits of what “Assumption” may or may not include:
Death
Incorruption
Ascension
Glorification
Resurrection
Then we have to distinguish how these four relate to the different terms/feasts we apply to Mary which are acceptably:
Her Dormition
Her Death
Her Transitus
Her Resurrection
Her Assumption
I agree with you that the title “Assumption” definitely includes Ascension.
It also seems to necessarily include her Glorification and bodily Incorruption.
Papal teaching certainly and explicitly includes her death and therefore implicitly includes her Resurrection (as explicitly recognised by the Eastern Church).
Was Mary resurrected on earth or in the air (ie heaven)? I have never seen this fine point ever discussed. She cannot be greater than her Son which might suggest in the air would be more congruent. Early Church Iconography (as opposed to very recent Western paintings) always show Mary ascending supine and lifeless (yet incorrupt) on a bier which strongly suggests she was resurrected in the air (ie heaven side) beyond the sight of mortal men. Hence Glorification would be the same. Her Crowning suggests it could have been in heaven but it is hardly a coercive argument.
Whatever way, her Assumption is definitely celebrating her “Ascension” but seems to be named differently because it is different from Jesus’s. Perhaps her lifeless body ascended and then resurrected. Perhaps the difference in names is because Jesus was resurrected and glorified earth-side, she only heaven-side and out of sight…hence her ascension and then resurrection is “assumed”.
I find the expression “Transitus” very interesting - deriving more from Eastern legend than liturgy. This “passing over” definitely includes the passing over of her deceased but incorrupt body.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
You are completely mistaken here Memaw.
The Dogma of the Assumption says nothing of the sort.
“Body and Soul intact” is nowhere mentioned in the defined dogma.
You are getting confused with terminology regarding her perpetual Virginity.
The Dogma states:
“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.”
The Dogma does NOT say that her body and soul were still conjoined (“intact”) … which is how you have interpreted the Dogma.
But what is unusual in this Dogma is that a human’s body was also lifted up to God’s heaven. Only one Man has ever been known to do that before (with Him body and soul were conjoined).
But with Mary we are not told (in the Dogma) whether body and soul were conjoined - they could have been separated.
Indeed, this separation is clearly taught in Early Church iconography.
It is also taught by the Popes and tradition - but not dogmatically…yet.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Again you are mistaken Memaw.
The Pope who declared the Dogma of the Assumption is indeed personally sure that Mary died. He taught this in the same Encyclical but did not judge it timely to force the whole Church to accede to that certainty just yet.
The Papacy has always taught their certainty consistently on this matter, as has Catholic Tradition until C17 when some theologians started questioning this.
What is your proof for holding that Pope Pious XII who proclaimed the Dogma was personally doubtful over the matter of Mary’s death (apart from your interpretation of his Dogma which we hold you have misunderstood).
M
Memaw
Guest
Because they keep insisting she died and I keep saying we do not know for sure. We don’t even know when her earthly time was over. I do believe in the Assumption of Mary because the Pope has defined that Infallibly. And that is done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. God Bless, Memaw
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I don’t even think its a question of if she died but more of what do you believe about your own judgement. Its a question of what happened in a twinkling of an eye? Because thats dogmatically what this is reduced to. Like all of our lives really with Christ and judgement in the particular judgement. All beautiful writing and thinking through the years. The issue resides in the mystery of judged-immediately-body AND soul assumed into heaven. Is it me or is it not reduced to this point of ever discernment of mystery? You would have to be saying against infallible teaching Mary could not have been translated immediately and assumed body and soul-immediately imho. Then defining what happened in that instance.
M
Memaw
Guest
My own judgment is not at all comparable to the Blessed Mother’s Assumption. My body will go to the grave and no one knows how long it will wait to be reunited with my soul. Mary didn’t have a judgment at all. Only God knows for sure what happened at that Moment. God Bless, Memaw
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Well this is what I think all of us here are required to believe in the particular judgement
I don’t think we can say Mary wasn’t judged immediately but we could say Mary wasn’t guilty of anything thus in that twinkling of an eye-immediately she was assumed body and soul?
In other words the soul and body didn’t await judgement for any amount of time but “immediately”
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P2L.HTM
I don’t think we can say Mary wasn’t judged immediately but we could say Mary wasn’t guilty of anything thus in that twinkling of an eye-immediately she was assumed body and soul?
In other words the soul and body didn’t await judgement for any amount of time but “immediately”
M
Memaw
Guest
She didn’t require “Judgment” She was Immaculate from Conception to Assumption. What else are we going to throw at Our Blessed Mother?? Some already label her as an unwed Mother, which she WASN’T. God Bless, Memaw
K
Kmon23
Guest
I get the impression that you are saying that calling her an unwed mother is such a wrong thing. This is very problematic since this is some of the language/imagery us Orthodox use in our hymns, but then **so would Eastern Catholics. **
V
Vico
Guest
He will come to judge the living and the dead.
CCC 1051 Every man receives his eternal recompense in his immortal soul from the moment of his death in a particular judgment by Christ, the judge of the living and the dead.
CCC 1051 Every man receives his eternal recompense in his immortal soul from the moment of his death in a particular judgment by Christ, the judge of the living and the dead.
- Status