Mary's Assumption

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, this is exactly the issue Memaw is confused on.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

JP II explicitly taught that the opinion that Mary died is a very recent theology while the view she did die has an unbroken tradition from the beginning and has always been held by the Papal tradition.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Death always includes a dead body… the Catechism says the same as above. However by a miracle of God it may be held incorrupt if that is what you mean.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Again, you are wrong to assert that no one was there. You do not know that, and in fact, there is more support in the the traditions of the Church for the position that she did die and that there were witnesses than there is for your position, which add things to the actual dogmatic statement, in spite of your claims not to do so.

This has been pointed out to Memaw before RB.
She seems to just ignore valid observations that she is unable to reasonably counter.

 

[Memaw]

Traditions of the Church are not mere speculation. Traditional teaching is that the Apostles, except for St. Thomas, were present with the Theotokos at the time of her death. Your pontifications that no one was present are contrary to your claim that you add nothing to the dogmatic teaching. I’m not saying that you are required to believe this tradition. What I am saying is that when you insist that there were no witnesses, you deny an ancient tradition of that has not been rejected or replaced by the Dogma of the Assumption.

Never said that in the Dogma I read!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

This has been pointed out to Memaw before RB.
She seems to just ignore valid observations that she is unable to reasonably counter./QUOTE)

Valid observations are NOT Infallible!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[RyanBlack]

Never said that in the Dogma I read!! God Bless, Memaw

But Pope St. John Paul II did affirm it. Furthermore, the Apostolic Constitution in which the Dogma of the Assumption is declared does affirm, multiple times, that the Theotokos did die.

Since when are dogmatic teachings the only ones that matter?

 

[RyanBlack]

Blue Horizon;13362824:

This has been pointed out to Memaw before RB.
She seems to just ignore valid observations that she is unable to reasonably counter.

And “not infallible” doesn’t mean the same thing as “not true,” or “not a Church teaching.”

 

[Memaw]

Read it for yourself!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[RyanBlack]

Read it for yourself!! God Bless, Memaw

It’s not there, especially when you read the dogmatic declaration in context of the entire Apostolic Constitution.

 

[Memaw]

But Pope St. John Paul II did affirm it. Furthermore, the Apostolic Constitution in which the Dogma of the Assumption is declared does affirm, multiple times, that the Theotokos did die?

Since when are dogmatic teachings the only ones that matter?

I’ve never said they don’t matter but a Dogma is over and above anything else.If it was for us to know for sure what took place at that time, I believe the Holy Spirit would have included it in the Dogma but HE didn’t. God Bless, Memaw

 

[RyanBlack]

I’ve never said they don’t matter but a Dogma is over and above anything else.If it was for us to know for sure what took place at that time, I believe the Holy Spirit would have included it in the Dogma but HE didn’t. God Bless, Memaw

So the only Church teachings we can be sure about are those that have been dogmatically defined? Is that what you’re saying?

 

[Memaw]

So the only Church teachings we can be sure about are those that have been dogmatically defined? Is that what you’re saying?

Isn’t that what you have been saying all along, that we could believe either way. Why are you and others, so set on not giving me that option, without accusing me of all kinds of things. !!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Memaw;13362893:

And “not infallible” doesn’t mean the same thing as “not true,” or “not a Church teaching.”

Show me where I ever said it did? God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

But Memaw, this works both ways…the dogma doesn’t say she was ALONE, either. (I just read it. If I’ve misread it, please show me the correct paragraph.)

So you are “speculating”, too. You are BLASTING people, yet you’re on the same footing - there is no comment EITHER WAY, in the dogma.

The difference is, the others have writings of the Fathers, and of multiple RC popes, backing them up in the belief that she died, and that it was witnessed. Can you point to a single Father, or a single pope, who specifically say she was alone? Please don’t blast back - merely provide a single source supporting your claim…or say, “I don’t have one. It’s just what I personally choose to believe.”

This discussion is one of the unintended consequences of trying to make things dogma that…well…aren’t truly necessary for one’s salvation. smh Lord have mercy.

I am NOT “blasting” anyone but it really puzzles me that so many “claim” one can believe either she died or she didn’t and yet don’t seem to give me that same option. I am NOT trying to change you opinion, just defending mine. Saints, Fathers and even Popes have not all claimed that Mary died. They seem to be able to have their own opinion!. You have yours and I have mine. Can’t we leave it at that!!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

So the only Church teachings we can be sure about are those that have been dogmatically defined? Is that what you’re saying?

No, your saying that. God Bless, Memaw

 

[RyanBlack]

Isn’t that what you have been saying all along, that we could believe either way. Why are you and others, so set on not giving me that option, without accusing me of all kinds of things. !!! God Bless, Memaw

I have not been saying all along that we could believe either way. Other posters have said that numerous times.

I have agreed all along that the dogmatic declaration does not specifically state one way or the other that the Theotokos died. At the same time, I have stated that Pope Pius XII clearly affirms the teaching that she did die in Munificentissimus Deus. Also, numerous saints and other popes have affirmed that teaching as well. As for whether this non-infallible teaching that the Theotokos did in fact die is an optional belief, I’m not sure. Since I’m not a bishop or priest, I don’t worry myself over which teachings require what level of acceptance by the faithful.

As to your own beliefs, I would not tell you that you do not have the option to believe that she did not die. That’s not my place. However, I would point out that the overwhelming weight of tradition does not support your position. Also, I would point out that at various points in this thread, you have emphatically stated that you simply follow the dogmatic declaration, but then you have also emphatically declared that she was not resurrected, there were no witnesses to her death, and that when she was assumed, her body and soul had to have been assumed simultaneously. None of these things are part of the dogmatic declaration, and there are various Catholic traditions that are inconsistent with all three of them.

 

[GaryTaylor]

1. Concerning the end of Mary’s earthly life, the Council uses the terms of the Bull defining the dogma of the Assumption and states: “The Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over” (Lumen gentium, n. 59). With this formula, the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, following my Venerable Predecessor Pius XII, made no pronouncement on the question of Mary’s death. 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. St John Paul II

Why death- “To be clothed in immortality”

1. It is true that in Revelation death is presented as a punishment for sin. However, the fact that the Church proclaims 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.

1. The New Testament provides no information on the circumstances of Mary’s death. This silence leads one to suppose that it happened naturally, with no detail particularly worthy of mention. If this were not the case, how could the information about it have remained hidden from her contemporaries and not have been passed down to us in some way?

As to the cause of Mary’s death, the opinions that wish to exclude her from death by natural causes seem groundless. It is more important to look for the Blessed Virgin’s spiritual attitude at the moment of her departure from this world. In this regard, St Francis de Sales maintains that Mary’s death was due to a transport of love. He speaks of a dying “in love, from love and through love”, going so far as to say that the Mother of God died of love for her Son Jesus (Treatise on the Love of God, bk. 7, ch. XIII-XIV).

Mary’s death was an event of love

Whatever from the physical point of view was the organic, biological cause of the end of her bodily life, it can be said that for Mary the passage from this life to the next was the full development of grace in glory, so that no death can ever be so fittingly described as a “dormition” as hers.

1. In some of the writings of the Church Fathers we find Jesus himself described as coming to take his Mother at the time of her death to bring her into heavenly glory. In this way they present the death of Mary as an event of love which conducted her to her divine Son to share his immortal life. At the end of her earthly life, she must have experienced, like Paul and more strongly, the desire to be freed from her body in order to be with Christ for ever (cf. Phil 1:23).

The experience of death personally enriched the Blessed Virgin: by undergoing mankind’s common destiny, she can more effectively exercise her spiritual motherhood towards those approaching the last moment of their life.

ewtn.com/library/MARY/JP2BVM70.HTM

 

[Vico]

Death always includes a dead body… the Catechism says the same as above. However by a miracle of God it may be held incorrupt if that is what you mean.

I was responding to what Gary Taylor posted "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. "

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Well observed Q.
Do you know how ancient that Secret prayer is?

I’m no liturgical scholar so I’m really not the one to ask, but I did take a look to see what I could find. I checked the prayers in a book linked by the Wikipedia article for the Gelasian Sacramentary and did not see it there. I didn’t read the introduction so I’m not 100% about the contents. I’m trusting the Wikipedia editor labeled the book accurately. The first collect for the feast did have a very similar phrase to the secret I posted asking that we feel Mary to intercede for us (something like “ut pro nobis intercedere sentiamus”).

I then checked this edition of the Gregorian Sacramentary, which does have it (p. 97, under “Super Oblata”). The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the Gregorian Sacramentary originates from the latter part of the 8th Century, so it looks like this prayer was composed or migrated into the Roman liturgy by that point. If so, that would make the prayer 1,200 years old or more by the time Municifentissimus Deus was written!

archive.org/details/gregoriansacrame00cath