Mary's Assumption

[Blue_Horizon]

What is intact is body and soul corpore et anima], as given in MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS: “… we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma declaramus et definimus divinitus revelatum dogma esse]: that the Immaculate Mother of God Immaculatam Deiparam], the ever Virgin Mary semper Virginem Mariam], having completed the course of her earthly life expleto terrestris vitae cursu], was assumed fuisse assumptam] body and soul corpore et anima] into heavenly glory ad caelestem gloriam]”.

Because the word “intact” is not present even in the Latin text it is at best but one of a number of interpretations of what “assumed body and soul into heaven” means - and a most unlikely one at that.

The reason it seems a spurious inference is because it would positively deny Early Church tradition and iconography which clearly demonstrates that Mary’s incorrupt body was separated from her soul earth-side of her Transitus to heaven.

But lets wait for Memaw to provide her source’s for her unusual interpretation.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Because the word “intact” is not present even in the Latin text it is at best but one of a number of interpretations of what “assumed body and soul into heaven” means - and a most unlikely one at that.

The reason it seems a spurious inference is because it would positively deny Early Church tradition and iconography which clearly demonstrates that Mary’s incorrupt body was separated from her soul earth-side of her Transitus to heaven.

But lets wait for Memaw to provide her source’s for her unusual interpretation.

I think thats the point of contention that needs to be further focused on, body and soul together immediately - intact.

I don’t see where the dogma or the encyclicals which followed intended to focus on this point. It seems its an affirmation both body and soul are assumed but it doesn’t explicitly state both together immediately. So the writing affirms and with intent no corruption and the special privilege of being assumed body and soul. However the writings also avoid the wording resurrected but associate Marys passing in a like manner to her Son. So while we can say in his case body and soul, it was still soul then body. Admittedly its a rather difficult point in Marys case as the writings leave an open question.

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm53.htm

 

[Stilldreamn]

You guys argue like a bunch of Lutherans.

Jon

The kinship is strong.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So I see Memaws points here. But I just don’t see where any intent was to deviate from the entire christian theology and tradition. Regardless of the IC the same thinking applies in the moment of death-judgement.

1. That privilege has shone forth in new radiance since our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the loving Mother of God’s Immaculate Conception. These two privileges are most closely bound to one another. Christ overcame sin and death by his own death, and one who through Baptism has been born again in a supernatural way has conquered sin and death through the same Christ. Yet, according to the general rule, God does not will to grant to the just the full effect of the victory over death until the end of time has come. And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul.

1. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

1. Following the footsteps of his distinguished teacher, the Angelic Doctor, despite the fact that he never dealt directly with this question, nevertheless, whenever he touched upon it, always held together with the Catholic Church, that Mary’s body had been assumed into heaven along with her soul.(31)

1. Along with many others, the Seraphic Doctor held the same views. He considered it as entirely certain that, as God had preserved the most holy Virgin Mary from the violation of her virginal purity and integrity in conceiving and in childbirth, he would never have permitted her body to have been resolved into dust and ashes.(32) Explaining these words of Sacred Scripture: “Who is this that comes up from the desert, flowing with delights, leaning upon her beloved?”(33) and applying them in a kind of accommodated sense to the Blessed Virgin, he reasons thus: "From this we can see that she is there bodily…her blessedness would not have been complete unless she were there as a person. The soul is not a person, but the soul, joined to the body, is a person. It is manifest that she is there in soul and in body. Otherwise she would not possess her complete beatitude.(34)

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html

However, St. John Paul II above also touched on the question…

Mary free from original sin by a unique divine privilege does not lead to the conclusion that she also received physical immortality. The Mother is not superior to the Son who underwent death, giving it a new meaning and changing it into a means of salvation. Involved in Christ’s redemptive work and associated in his saving sacrifice, Mary was able to share in his suffering and death for the sake of humanity’s Redemption. What Severus of Antioch says about Christ also applies to her: “Without a preliminary death, how could the Resurrection have taken place?” (Antijulianistica, Beirut 1931, 194f.). To share in Christ’s Resurrection, Mary had first to share in his death.

 

[Memaw]

Memaw more than one of us has now challenged you to quote where in the Dogma the word “intact” is used please?

If you cannot rise to the challenge and either prove it (or accept you are mistaken)
what credibility do you have in anything you have to say here from this point on ?

Your bound to pick on every word, (kinda like the modern media), I said intact which means body and soul together, NO separation. And you should know that! Are YOU judging my credibility??? Get a life!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[babochka]

Your bound to pick on every word, (kinda like the modern media), I said intact which means body and soul together, NO separation. And you should know that! Are YOU judging my credibility??? Get a life!! God Bless, Memaw

You have insisted all along that you take the dogma at face value, without believing any of the ancient traditions surrounding her death. Yet in rejecting the tradition surrounding her death (which you are free to do) and insisting upon the word “intact”, you are adding to the dogma. The truth is, based upon only the dogma, we do not and cannot know that she was assumed, body and soul intact. Of course, if she did not die, intact is the only thing that makes sense, but the dogma doesn’t say that.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think also another point of contention from here is resurrection and assumption. Its true the wording resurrected is avoided but its not historically. What it points to imho is Jesus resurrected himself, Mary did not. The Assumption is carried out by Jesus raising Mary which the dogma indicates. Jesus assumed Mary into Heaven which keeping in mind what St JP II states, “a unique divine privilege does not lead to the conclusion that she also received physical immortality.” . Which imho is why resurrected is avoided in terminology to avoid misconception which the dogma clearly shows in this sense that she needed a savior.

 

[Memaw]

You have insisted all along that you take the dogma at face value, without believing any of the ancient traditions surrounding her death. Yet in rejecting the tradition surrounding her death (which you are free to do) and insisting upon the word “intact”, you are adding to the dogma. The truth is, based upon only the dogma, we do not and cannot know that she was assumed, body and soul intact. Of course, if she did not die, intact is the only thing that makes sense, but the dogma doesn’t say that.

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

 

[Kmon23]

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

What we can agree with (both Eastern and Western Christians) that it is the teaching of the church that she was assumed into heaven, and as such we do not have any of her relics.

I am not Catholic, but having almost become one, from a Catholic point of view the dogma does NOT state that she was assumed body and soul into heaven together. It says she was assumed body and soul, but as previous posters have said, the word “intact” is not part of the dogma and as such you seem to be concluding that “intact” is part of the dogma. However it is not, and is your interpretation.

I think we can leave the last several pages of discussion alone, and that yes, for a Latin Catholic, you are free to believe that the most Holy Theotokos did not die a physical death as that is not dogmatically defined in the Roman Church (although tradition implies she did die).
However, the only point of contention at this point is your addition to the Catholic dogma of “intact” which is NOT in the dogma. You may say that the meaning of the assumption necessarily includes this (based on your quote** “What in the world do you think her Assumption really means, She was taken Body and Soul, both together, (intact) to Heaven.”**).However, that is not true, and is not part of the dogma. It may be part of an individual’s private belief/opinion which you may hold to. Yet you claim to believe only what the dogma claims, and this is not one of them. That is in my opinion the only real disagreement here.

If you still continue to assert that “intact” is part of the dogma, then it is seriously troubling considering the other 22 sui iurus Catholic Churches believe otherwise. To assert “intact” as part of the dogma would mean those other eastern catholic churches must also hold to this belief, yet they do not. So “intact” most definitely is not part of the definition of the dogma.

 

[babochka]

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

Where does the dogma state that she was assumed intact and together?

You say, “no more, no less”, but the fact is that you are adding more.

You are defending your interpretation of the dogma. The dogma states that “at the end of her earthly life, she was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” You are adding the words “together” and “intact” to the Church’s dogma.

No, the church doesn’t teach that she went to heaven in pieces, but it doesn’t deny the possibility, either. So certainly someone is free to believe that her body and soul were joined at some later point, right? You ask that we respect your right to believe that Mary didn’t die, because the dogma does not require you to believe that she did. Can you not extend that same right to others, who believe that there was separation of soul and body (death)?

The dogma does not address this point. Why is it not possible that her soul reached heavenly glory and was quickly reunited with her glorified body? Why does the dogma preclude that? In your mind, since there was no death, there could be no separation of soul and body. Since the (non-binding) tradition, which you have every right not to believe, teaches that she was laid in the tomb first, from my perspective her soul would have gone straight to heaven and her body would have come later, to rejoin her soul. The dogma allows me to believe this. It doesn’t deny the dogma in any way, yet you insist body and soul had to be together and intact.

Memaw, I know that you have seen this icon before, but for those who have not, this is how Eastern Christians view the event. The “baby” in the arms of Jesus is none other than the soul of his mother. Jesus, of course, is already in heavenly glory, as is Mary’s soul. Believe this version or not. As you have made so clear, it is your choice. However, our choice, also legitimate, does not involve “together and intact”.
http://puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/andre/images/dormit.gif

 

[Memaw]

Please, show me where I have added ANYTHING to the Dogma. You say I’m not required to believe the Blessed Mother died a physical death as we do, but then you rant because I don’t. I never said what anyone HAS to believe, I just state what I believe. What kind of an “absolutist line” have you taken? Funny, your allowed your opinion but I’m not. Taint fair!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Kmon23]

We are referring to your claim that she was assumed body and soul INTACT as dogma.

 

[Vico]

Because the word “intact” is not present even in the Latin text it is at best but one of a number of interpretations of what “assumed body and soul into heaven” means - and a most unlikely one at that.

The reason it seems a spurious inference is because it would positively deny Early Church tradition and iconography which clearly demonstrates that Mary’s incorrupt body was separated from her soul earth-side of her Transitus to heaven.

But lets wait for Memaw to provide her source’s for her unusual interpretation.

The word is not used but the concept is there of both body and soul and per the dictionary intact means “complete”. What is there of a human other than body and soul?

 

[Memaw]

I understand rant to mean expressing an opinion in an extravagant, immoderate, (excessive) manner. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion. Surly you realize that. SO whats your problem?? As for the ad hominem, works BOTH ways I believe. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

We are referring to your claim that she was assumed body and soul INTACT as dogma.

I NEVER said the word “intact” was actually in the Dogma. I used it to show she was take to Heaven Body and Soul at the same time, together, intact. Come on now surly you folks are able to understand that. Your making mountains out of molehills! Is that the thing to do??? This is supposed to be a discussion and it seems to have turned into a dog fight! God Bless, Memaw

 

[GaryTaylor]

The word is not used but the concept is there of both body and soul and per the dictionary intact means “complete”. What is there of a human other than body and soul?

Mortality and Immortality.

No doubt and in the art also from the dogma forward the concept is there. But is it dogmatically sound from all the doctrines interacting as we see with the particular judgement and Christs very own resurrection that she very may have been taken up intact in a similar fashion as Elijah and died of this world instantly in the process. I “think” it still is. Which means I don’t know for sure “yet”. But the other side of thinking apparently doesn’t either.

 

[Vico]

Mortality and Immortality.

No doubt and in the art also from the dogma forward the concept is there. But is it dogmatically sound from all the doctrines interacting as we see with the particular judgement and Christs very own resurrection that she very may have been taken up intact in a similar fashion as Elijah and died of this world instantly in the process. I “think” it still is. Which means I don’t know for sure “yet”. But the other side of thinking apparently doesn’t either.

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary appears to be different than Elias taken into heaven by a whirlwind:

4 Kings Chapter 21 And it came to pass, when the Lord would take up Elias, into heaven, by a whirlwind, *that Elias and Eliseus were going from Galgal.
**Haydock Commentary **Ver. 1.

                       *Heaven.* By *heaven* here is  meant, the air, the lowest of the heavenly regions, (Challoner) through  which he was                            carried by the ministry of angels, who  directed the storm, (Haydock ) to the place designed for him. --- It is  generally supposed                            to be Paradise, (Calmet) whither Henoch had  been translated. (Haydock) --- They are still living, (Calmet) and must  come again,                            to invite all to repent. After which they  will die martyrs, in the persecution of Antichrist. (Haydock) --- See  St. Augustine,                            de Gen. ad lit. ix. 6., and Apocalypse xi.  (Worthington) --- Ecclesiasticus xlviii. 10. (Menochius) --- They are a  proof of                            a future resurrection. (Calmet) --- To decide  where the paradise which they inhabit, (Haydock) is situated, would be  rash.                            (St. Chrysostom, hom. 21. in Gen. &c.)  Some suppose it is still in some unknown region of the earth: others  place it above                            the sky, (Menochius) or in the bosom of  Abraham. (Calmet) --- The Jews (following Munster) assert that Elias  penetrated the                            sphere of fire, where his body was consumed.  (Vatable) --- The earthly paradise is very probably no longer existing,  in its                            ancient luxuriant state. (Haydock) --- It may  now be covered with the waters of the Persian Gulf. (Worthington)

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Memaw you cannot on your own personal authority make the Dogma say what it is clearly not saying.
I think it is extremely important to quote a short infallible DOGMA correctly word for word, don’t you?

I know you said “intact” and I know you meant that means Mary’s body and soul did not separate at any time. I did state that understanding below didn’t I?

This positively denies ancient tradition (which is permitted) that clearly disagrees with your interpretation.

That is why I suggest your INTERPRETATION of the Assumption Dogma is not credible and therefore anything you further say about the Dogma logically cannot be credible.

Unless of course you can provide Magisterial comments that prove what you say?

Do you have any Magisterial quotes to back up your unusual interpretation?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So I see Memaws points here. But I just don’t see where any intent was to deviate from the entire christian theology and tradition.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html

Thanks for these quotes.
I think it is extremely important not to confuse indirect references affirming Mary’s Incorruption with affirming she did not die.

These quotes are much better understood to be affirming Mary’s death AND Incorruption.

eg
“And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul.”
No problem here, clearly referring to death…but interesting that corruption is mentioned in addition to death.

“Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave”

So what was Mary exempted from? …not so much the “grave”, rather the corruption that always goes with the grave.

“Mary’s body had been assumed into heaven along with her soul.”
We all hold that they were united on reaching heaven - we can infer nothing clearly from here re whether or not they were separated on earth or not.

" he would never have permitted her body to have been resolved into dust and ashes".
This certainly means Mary was preserved from bodily corruption but it cannot be inferred at all that preservation from death is also necessarily implied.

“It is manifest that she is there in soul and in body. Otherwise she would not possess her complete beatitude”
We all agree that in heaven body and soul are united for Mary is a complete person in heaven.

“Mary free from original sin by a unique divine privilege does not lead to the conclusion that she also received physical immortality.”
Physical immortality means never dying. This is completely in keeping with non infallible Papal teaching that Mary died. Why say this if this were not the personal decision of the Papacy. However it is not infallible and not coercive on the Church…yet.

“What Severus of Antioch says about Christ also applies to her: “Without a preliminary death, how could the Resurrection have taken place?” (Antijulianistica, Beirut 1931, 194f.). To share in Christ’s Resurrection, Mary had first to share in his death.”
Well that is a pretty clear Papal teaching, though non-infallible.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think also another point of contention from here is resurrection and assumption. Its true the wording resurrected is avoided but its not historically. What it points to imho is Jesus resurrected himself, Mary did not. The Assumption is carried out by Jesus raising Mary which the dogma indicates. Jesus assumed Mary into Heaven which keeping in mind what St JP II states, “a unique divine privilege does not lead to the conclusion that she also received physical immortality.” . Which imho is why resurrected is avoided in terminology to avoid misconception which the dogma clearly shows in this sense that she needed a savior.

I believe the unique privilege was at least as much her bodily incorruption - which great privilege make’s greater sense only if Mary did die!