Mary's Assumption

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Memaw we are politely trying to inform you that you are seriously mistaken.
The Church in her liturgy and iconography clearly teaches that Mary was “in pieces” (your words) before she made it into heaven.

The Dogma does not teach otherwise, it is completely apolitical and so ambiguous on this point.

You are completely mistaken to believe that the Dogma of the Assumption categorically states Mary’s body and soul were always conjoined before she entered heaven.

If anything the reverse is true and that is what the Papacy has taught though non infallibly.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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?

Of course Mary’s body and soul is complete and united on entry to heaven.

But Memaw appears to go much further and opines that the Dogma states such was the case earth-side as well.

The Dogma certainly does not say that and has no view on the matter at all.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

I would disagree somewhat Gary.
Early art and liturgy assumed mortality (separation of body and soul) as the gateway to heaven even for Mary. As this typical ancient icon demonstrates:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Vico]

Of course Mary’s body and soul is complete and united on entry to heaven.

But Memaw appears to go much further and opines that the Dogma states such was the case earth-side as well.

The Dogma certainly does not say that and has no view on the matter at all.

Actual quotes of Memaw showing that earth-side is not intended because 1) death is uncertain, and 2) not in pieces (soul and body apart):

• Post # 162: 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.
• Post # 197: She was taken Body and Soul, both together, (intact) to Heaven. NO WHERE does the Church teach that Mary went to Heaven in pieces.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Actual quotes of Memaw showing that earth-side is not intended because 1) death is uncertain, and 2) not in pieces (soul and body apart):

• Post # 162: 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.
• Post # 197: She was taken Body and Soul, both together, (intact) to Heaven. NO WHERE does the Church teach that Mary went to Heaven in pieces.

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.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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)

Think about that, it appears to indicate you can be taken up alive intact to wherever so to speak, no argument from me on where, but yet metaphysically translated from mortal to immortal and not be judged.

In the divine judgment the examination of the case is instantaneous, because it needs neither the testimony of witnesses, for or against, nor the least discussion. God knows by immediate intuition, and at the moment of separation the soul knows itself without medium. It is enlightened, decisively and inevitably, on all its merits and demerits. It sees its state without possibility of error, sees all that it has thought, desired, said, and done, both in good and in evil. It sees all the good it has omitted. Memory and conscience penetrate its entire moral and spiritual life, even to the minutest details. Only then can it see clearly all that was involved in its particular vocation, for instance, that of a mother, of a father, of an apostle.

Secondly, the pronouncement of the sentence is also instantaneous. It does not come by a voice to be heard by the ear, but in a manner entirely spiritual. Intellectual illumination awakes all acquired ideas, gives additional infused ideas, whereby the soul sees its entire past in a glance. The soul sees how God judges, and conscience makes this judgment definitive. All this takes place at the first instant of separation. When it is true to say of a person that he is dead, it is also true to say that he is judged.

Thirdly, the execution of the sentence is also immediate. There is nothing to retard it. On the part of God, omnipotence accomplishes at once the order of divine justice, and on the part of the soul merit and demerit are, as St. Thomas says like lightness and heaviness in bodies. Where there are no obstacles, heavy bodies fall, light bodies rise. Thus separated souls go without delay, either to the recompense due to their merit (unless perhaps they have to undergo a temporary punishment in purgatory), or to the eternal punishment due to their demerits. Charity, like a living flame, ascends on high, whereas hate always descends.

Particular judgment, then, takes place at that first instant when it is true to say that the soul is separated. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange

But death doesn’t mean a dead body, it means from the mortality of this world to the immortality of the next is the separation spoken of, and where-ever one is placed.

Follow what I’m saying Vico? To me part of issue resides here. On the other side then further the Transfiguration indicates Elijah is glorified with Christ. Christ wasn’t yet glorified yet in time but outside of time. Which means now that Christ is glorified and it seems the thinking is, so is Elijah.

jimmyakin.com/2012/08/why-dont-we-call-moses-and-elijah-saint.html

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

Hi Blue, I think exempt is referenced here…

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.

Remember though this exemption applies whenever Mary was sanctified, in that the Church proclaims the IC most fitting doesn’t change that. In a similar way we see the Transfiguration of Christ.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I would disagree somewhat Gary.
Early art and liturgy assumed mortality (separation of body and soul) as the gateway to heaven even for Mary. As this typical ancient icon demonstrates:
https://minmaxsunt.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/the_dormition.jpg?w=538&h=400

Oh I don’t disagree, but Vico has a good point that the concept is there and in the art from the dogma forward. I wouldn’t say it was intentional but it does present the concept.

The question really is does body and soul intact fit the historic dogmas of the Church which do go back to the early councils. I think to say this can’t be then the task is to see if it can be by doctrine. If it can’t be dogmatically true then we have our answer.

Either way thats how I tend to see this.

 

[Memaw]

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.

Your assuming an awful lot here, where is your infallible proof? My Infallible proof did NOT say that Mary died or that her soul was separated from her body, or that she resurrected!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Oh I don’t disagree, but Vico has a good point that the concept is there and in the art from the dogma forward. I wouldn’t say it was intentional but it does present the concept.

The question really is does body and soul intact fit the historic dogmas of the Church which do go back to the early councils. I think to say this can’t be then the task is to see if it can be by doctrine. If it can’t be dogmatically true then we have our answer.

Either way thats how I tend to see this.

An icon is not infallible either.But the Dogma is. God Bless. Memaw

 

[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.

I did NOT ever say that the word “intact” was in the Dogma of the Assumption. I used it to explain that her body and soul never separated at the time of her Assumption. Others used the word “complete” but I never accused them of asserting that word in the dogma. did you? or the word “together”. Seems to me others are asserting much more into this subject than I. I have stated many times, I believe fully in the Dogma of the Assumption and not all your carryings on. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

AMEN,AMEN,AMEN God Bless, Memaw

 

[GaryTaylor]

You keep us on our toes dogmatically Memaw!

 

[Memaw]

Must we drag this on forever?? My burden of proof is in the Dogma. God Bless, Memaw.

 

[GaryTaylor]

When they proclaimed the dogma you can rest assure they took every single one of these doctrines into consideration since they surely viewed the entire history [never have I known that not to be true with anything]. And when those murals and theologians came along in the 17th century with this same concept we are discussing. Hmmm I wonder what they thought then. I wonder if they missed the “conceptual thinking” or was it intended to be suggested and contemplated?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think much centers to begin with, with Catholic-Christian thought on the soul and other obvious implications of the resurrected body, and also above the particular judgement.

newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/08550a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm

“No doctrine of the Christian Faith”, says St. Augustine, “is so vehemently and so obstinately opposed as the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh”

Still reading.

 

[RyanBlack]

It seems clear to me that Pius XII did affirm multiple times in the text the ancient teaching that the Theotokos did in fact die. Also, Pope St. John Paul II affirmed this as well.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_21051997.html

 

[Vico]

Think about that, it appears to indicate you can be taken up alive intact to wherever so to speak, no argument from me on where, but yet metaphysically translated from mortal to immortal and not be judged.

But death doesn’t mean a dead body, it means from the mortality of this world to the immortality of the next is the separation spoken of, and where-ever one is placed.

Follow what I’m saying Vico? To me part of issue resides here. On the other side then further the Transfiguration indicates Elijah is glorified with Christ. Christ wasn’t yet glorified yet in time but outside of time. Which means now that Christ is glorified and it seems the thinking is, so is Elijah.

jimmyakin.com/2012/08/why-dont-we-call-moses-and-elijah-saint.html

Death is a consequence of sin, and by it is meant “The cessation of the bodily functions of a human being through the departure of the soul.” - Modern Catholic Dictionary

This is in conflict with the “But death doesn’t mean a dead body”. The particular judgement occurs with the separation of the soul and body. Some of the commentators from Haydock Commentary speculate regarding Elias, of which one is:“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)”
Many thought Jesus was Elijah, see Matthew 16:14, because he would restore Israel’s glory – 2 Kings 2:11. They did not think of him as dead.

Yes, I see there is speculation on glorification. This vision of God is the source of the glorified body, see St. Paul, I Corinthians 15:42-44.

 

[Memaw]

I am not going to even go there, not for you or anyone else. I ONLY believe what the Dogma of the Assumption DID say, not speculate on what it DIDN"T say and try to impose that on others!!! There IS NO “absolute” certainty of her “death”. NO ONE was there, only her and God. And the Holy Spirit only shared with us the Dogma of the Assumption. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Vicious circle!! God Bless, Memaw