Mary's Assumption

[GaryTaylor]

Sorry I don’t really get you.

What is your strong historical evidence for asserting so strongly that nobody was present at Mary’s death? Even the Apochrypha asserts the apostles were present. Even if the Apochrypha cannot be trusted at least untrustworthy historical evidence “for” their presence is better than absolutely no historical evidence “against”.

Or do you mean that they were probably present but couldn’t be sure she died?

Well, if the Popes since then, when clearly speaking to the point, have always asserted she did die … I think you will have a hard time asserting that it is absolutely clear and certain that “nobody knows.”

Nobody “saw” Mary arrive in heaven body and soul conjoined either by the same account if you are correct on this point .

It doesn’t make much sense to say “nobody knew that she went into heaven living there body and soul” does it?

But if you affirm the above about her death then it seems you have to affirm this as well.

I don’t think so though.

OK, then I am not sure what you mean by “no corruption … means … immortality.”

OK, then I am not sure what you mean by "no corruption … means … immortality

This is a secondary point as her no corruption maintained doesn’t mean one died or not. Those raised at the general resurrection alive won’t be corrupt because they won’t be dead.

What is your strong historical evidence for asserting so strongly that nobody was present at Mary’s death?

Because you have no eye witness, the saint mentioned above and quoted above, and tell me where did she die in Ephesus or Jerusalem?

The private revelation is centuries late the apocryphal some are condemned as mentioned and they are not required belief nor factual. Who wrote them?

 

[GaryTaylor]

It doesn’t make much sense to say “nobody knew that she went into heaven living there body and soul” does it?

Speaking of what makes sense, does it make sense to promote she died and you don’t know where, and have no facts? Not to me, but what does make sense is that while certainly body and souls will be assumed alive at the general resurrection it would only seem most fitting for me this would indeed happen too. Perfect sense.

 

[GaryTaylor]

.

Therefore Mary could have been “in pieces” immediately before her arrival in heaven.
Memaw denies this possibility totally

Or she could have have been assumed body and soul intact and alive. Do you deny this?

So whats the difference? That you assume to have a better case here? I really don’t see it. In a court of law this would be “dismissed” for hear say and conjecture. Not a single fact. Like the Bible “silence”

 

[adrift]

Adrift, Memaw is quite capable of defending herself if I am mistaken in summarising her positions.

I know she is and when the suspension is lifted I am sure she will. However, this is an open forum. I note when I answer others that others answer me that’s what you do on a forum.

I think you are rather late to this lengthy discussion - if you reread Memaw closely I believe you will find my summary of her position is accurate…which she has never denied when challenged.

I posted before you started posting and have continued to read and I have read carefully her post. Your summary is inaccurate. What she has said is that it is not infallibly taught that she died. Her position is that Mary didn’t die which is a position allowed by the Church a position she feels that she is not being allowed to have by some on this thread.

Again, please re-read Memaws unusual contributions in this area. These are her words.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the post that she says this. I have seen at least seven of your post call her position as “unusual” but I can’t find one post of hers .
edit
Oops I just realized that you are not actually quoting her words but making a conclusion that her position is unusual. Twice I posted a link to a well though out article. You haven’t seemed to have read it. I guess you missed it maybe that is why you think I came late you just missed my post.

 

[rinnie]

Oh my! You have joined Memaw My own personnel view is that Mary would want to imitate her son. He died I believe she did too. BUT either view is acceptable to the Church. Some however insist that we do not have that right.

Which as we agree we are free to believe either way. Your personal view as you said is that she would want to imitate her Son, which there is nothing wrong with that view.

My personal view is that by his death and resurrection he has set us free, but because of original sin we all have to have a physical death. But our Souls live on forever.

But the Blessed Mother was never touched by Original Sin, by a special grace given to her by God, so she became a exception to the rule because of her sinless life and trust and belief in God he not only saved her from Original SIn, but saved her from Original death you could say.

My belief is She found favor from God from the moment of her conception, and it continued on from this world to the next. Because logically thinking why would she have to have a physical death when she had no sin, nor did she carry the sin of ours, as her Son did.

My personal belief is she could not imitate her Son and die for the sins of others. And because of her deep faith and as I said favor from God went right to the top when her number was up in this world. I believe that was another gift from God, for the suffering she did in this world, saw her Son crucified, and never doubted God or blamed him. Just suffered with her Son, in a way that none of us could imagine.

Even the Death of her Son never shook her faith in God. Who could ever claim that could be like that.

 

[adrift]

Which as we agree we are free to believe either way. Your personal view as you said is that she would want to imitate her Son, which there is nothing wrong with that view.

My personal view is that by his death and resurrection he has set us free, but because of original sin we all have to have a physical death. But our Souls live on forever.

But the Blessed Mother was never touched by Original Sin, by a special grace given to her by God, so she became a exception to the rule because of her sinless life and trust and belief in God he not only saved her from Original SIn, but saved her from Original death you could say.

My belief is She found favor from God from the moment of her conception, and it continued on from this world to the next. Because logically thinking why would she have to have a physical death when she had no sin, nor did she carry the sin of ours, as her Son did.

My personal belief is she could not imitate her Son and die for the sins of others. And because of her deep faith and as I said favor from God went right to the top when her number was up in this world. I believe that was another gift from God, for the suffering she did in this world, saw her Son crucified, and never doubted God or blamed him. Just suffered with her Son, in a way that none of us could imagine.

Even the Death of her Son never shook her faith in God. Who could ever claim that could be like that.

Your reasoning is solid but watch out there are those who label it as “unusual”. The Church allows either belief and I don’t believe that will ever change. I was taught in school that she died. I never was taught that she might not have. It is interesting to contemplate but to our salvation it means nothing, as you have noted.

 

[rinnie]

Sorry I don’t really get you.

What is your strong historical evidence for asserting so strongly that nobody was present at Mary’s death? Even the Apochrypha asserts the apostles were present. Even if the Apochrypha cannot be trusted at least untrustworthy historical evidence “for” their presence is better than absolutely no historical evidence “against”.

Or do you mean that they were probably present but couldn’t be sure she died?

Well, if the Popes since then, when clearly speaking to the point, have always asserted she did die … I think you will have a hard time asserting that it is absolutely clear and certain that “nobody knows.”

Nobody “saw” Mary arrive in heaven body and soul conjoined either by the same account if you are correct on this point .

It doesn’t make much sense to say “nobody knew that she went into heaven living there body and soul” does it?

But if you affirm the above about her death then it seems you have to affirm this as well.

I don’t think so though.

OK, then I am not sure what you mean by “no corruption … means … immortality.”

You said the Popes have always asserted Mary did die. No one would argue with you. But even though we Love our Pope and agree with his teachings, where is what the belief or opinion of the Popes ever been the infallible word of God.

Even if no one saw Mary arrive in heaven body and soul, did not the Children claim to see her?

 

[rinnie]

Your reasoning is solid but watch out there are those who label it as “unusual”. The Church allows either belief and I don’t believe that will ever change. I was taught in school that she died. I never was taught that she might not have. It is interesting to contemplate but to our salvation it means nothing, as you have noted.

I agree, we were taught in school that she was asleep in Christ. I agree that many see it one way others another. But I wonder if it could mean something for our salvation.

Although we agree that Christ is who gave us Salvation, sometimes it takes someone like her as she appeared to those kids, to get us to play our part in our salvation. To remind us how important it for us to pray and keep in deep contact with her Son. To pray for one another and for the whole world.

We as Catholics know without Christ, Salvation was not possible, and we are Baptized for the forgiveness of sins, but we also know that we can lose the Salvation given to us by Christ by our sins.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right, I thought it would be interesting to attempt to see from another point of view. I learned a bit about all this on this thread. You know when St JP-II said the “17th century theologians”, I can’t say much, I don’t know what they were thinking, because I don’t know who they are. So it became a matter of a couple hours reading. I just don’t see where they “whoever they are” don’t have a very good point.

“I Believe in the Resurrection of the Body and Life Everlasting”

Which is the living and dead. Christs act wasn’t to show us that the soul and body were to be separated, very much the opposite He taught us they are to be together and naturally as that is how creation begin, in essence like Paul states Eve and Adam went in one direction with sin, we are talking the opposite. Adam and Eve were not going to die in the garden so to speak. I’d love to read whoever these theologians are though just to hear their points.

 

[adrift]

You said the Popes have always asserted Mary did die. No one would argue with you. But even though we Love our Pope and agree with his teachings, where is what the belief or opinion of the Popes ever been the infallible word of God.

Even if no one saw Mary arrive in heaven body and soul, did not the Children claim to see her?

Interestingly, when it came for the pope to declare infallibly her assumption, he worded it not to declare she did or didn’t die. It is obvious that he believed she died yet he did not make belief she died part of the dogma. Holy Spirit protecting the Church perhaps? From your last statement I wonder If you understand that those Catholics who believed she died also believe that Jesus shortly afterwards assumed her into heaven body and soul. Like her being conceived without original sin so to was she spared the corruption of the grave.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Many interpreters have argued that the earliest Dormition traditions did not include Mary’s resurrection and Assumption, and that these features were only added to the narratives later on, as the early Christians increasingly came to believe in these events. Alternatively, many other scholars have proposed that Mary’s resurrection and Assumption were original features of the Dormition traditions that fell away as later Christians departed from the primitive orthodoxy, resulting in later narratives that omit these features, concluding only with Mary’s death and the disappearance of her lifeless body. The evidence for either of these developmental typologies is lacking, however, and it seems instead that the different narrative types emerged almost simultaneously and independently of one another. The liturgical traditions Palestine do not support, neither developmental schema. It seems likely that the different fates ascribed to Mary at the end of the various Dormition narratives may have their source in the diversity of opinion in late antiquity regarding the eschatological significance of Paradise.

oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199250758.001.0001/acprof-9780199250752-chapter-4

Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption
Stephen J. Shoemaker

ABSTRACT
The ancient Dormition and Assumption traditions, a remarkably diverse collection of narratives recounting the end of the Virgin Mary’s life, first emerge into historical view from an uncertain past during the fifth and sixth centuries. Initially appearing in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, these legends spread rapidly throughout the Christian world, resulting in over 60 different narratives from before the tenth century preserved in nine ancient languages. This study presents a detailed analysis of the earliest traditions of Mary’s death, including the evidence of the earliest Marian liturgical traditions and related archaeological evidence as well as the numerous narrative sources. Most of the early narratives belong to one of several distinctive literary families, whose members bear evidence of close textual relations. Many previous scholars have attempted to arrange the different narrative types in a developmental typology, according to which the story of Mary’s death was transformed to reflect various developments in early Christian Mariology. Nevertheless, evidence to support these theories is wanting, and the present state of our knowledge suggests that the narrative diversity of the early Dormition traditions arose from several independent ‘origins’ rather than through ordered evolution from a single original type. Likewise, scholars have often asserted a connection between the origin of the Dormition traditions and resistance to the council of Chalcedon, but the traditions themselves make this an extremely unlikely proposal. While most of the traditions cannot be dated much before the fifth century, a few of the narratives were almost certainly in composed by the third century, if not even earlier. These narratives in particular bear evidence of contact with gnostic Christianity. Several of the most important narratives are translated in appendices, most appearing in English for the first time.

 

[GaryTaylor]

books.google.com/books?id=_yWVkCWe3n0C&pg=PA297&lpg=PA297&dq=Professor+Mary+Clayton+Dormition&source=bl&ots=_B-6dFXbMH&sig=PkM889QsevBu-OjG3cHDeU_jQlw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwA2oVChMIsZSK_KvUyAIVxh0-Ch3cWwuf#v=onepage&q=Professor%20Mary%20Clayton%20Dormition&f=false

books.google.com/books?id=aLxwYDgHf54C&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=Professor+Mary+Clayton+Dormition&source=bl&ots=rN1Qtu9uOA&sig=Z6LAI5CjlmDdCBIis80Bj1tJT_E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBGoVChMIsZSK_KvUyAIVxh0-Ch3cWwuf#v=onepage&q=Professor%20Mary%20Clayton%20Dormition&f=false

Mary Clayton also did a notable comparative study of the narratives.

This also seems right to me as I was saying above…

diversity of opinion in late antiquity regarding the eschatological significance of Paradise.

 

[GaryTaylor]

One more link for chronological order and the progression- Juniper Carol’s Mariology

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/AssumptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm

As the evidence stands, the first explicit reference to a genuine Assumption of Our Lady occurs in Epiphanius, ca. 377 AD.

Note: Before Nicaea (325) the only overt reference to the close of Our Lady’s earthly life is a phrase attributed to Origen: “With respect to the brethren of Jesus (John 2:12), there are many who ask how He had them, seeing that Mary remained a virgin until her death…” – the passage is more significant as testimony to Mary’s permanent virginity than as evidence for her death. True, her death is mentioned obliquely, as though it were self-evident; but this manner of speaking need not reflect a tradition; it may stem from lack of reflection on the dignity of God’s Mother. In a word, we may conclude no more than that the author took Our Lady’s death for granted.

 

[OuiSeigneur]

InHisGrace, Memaw…and all.

There are 3 dogmas in the Church.

.

There are more than 3 dogmas in the Church. You can pick up a copy of “The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott to learn about all the dogmas that the Church has.

 

[GaryTaylor]

There are more than 3 dogmas in the Church. You can pick up a copy of “The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott to learn about all the dogmas that the Church has.

Exactly and they are incredibly interconnected. It brings into question an honest evaluation of historic Tradition and tradition. I think the Pope did this with the Assumption as we can see above.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the post that she says this.

“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! I fully believeinthe Dogma of the Assumption and that is what I am defending. No more, no less. I leave the speculation up to others.” (Memaw)

Adrift I am not going to engage you further on this as it seems your strong personal views somehow hold you back from finding and understanding Memaw’s unusual interpretation of the Assumption on this black and white point.

Memaw is in fact the person speculating here by saying that the Assumption absolutely denies Mary was in pieces beforehand.
This it seems is because she does not understand this is the definition of death. The Assumption does not deny the likely possibility of Mary’s death. To hold that view would be clearly indicative of a mistaken understanding of the Dogma.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is a secondary point as her no corruption maintained doesn’t mean one died or not. Those raised at the general resurrection alive won’t be corrupt because they won’t be dead.

Gary I really have no idea what your point is, how it follows on from my observation of what you actually wrote or what point of mine you believe you need to clarify sorry.

What I do know is that in corruption can never be said to absolutely exclude the presence of death which your written words above did appear to deny.

I am not saying and have never said that Mary’s incorruption proves she died. I am saying that the Pope’s have taught that Mary did die and also taught her body remained incorrupt.

Many Catholics interpret the Pope’s wrongly if they believe that phrases they use about her never seeing corruption mean she didn’t die.

Because you have no eye witness, the saint mentioned above and quoted above, and tell me where did she die in Ephesus or Jerusalem?

The private revelation is centuries late the apocryphal some are condemned as mentioned and they are not required belief nor factual. Who wrote them?

Gary this is poor hermeutic logic.
You and Memaw seem to assert that we can be sure there were no eye witnesses… solely on the basis it’s not in the NT.

Most here would not find that a reasonable conclusion.
In the absence of any historical docs either way the most we can say is we do not know. No absolutes are on the table. That is the most that can reasonably be concluded.

But, given that non Biblical texts do exist and assume otherwise, this does shift conclusions mildly in favour that some apostles were present. Being theologically apocryphal does not destroy all truth in these docs, especially possible historical implications.

Nevertheless such writings are not absolute proof for the presence of the apostles as they are historically unreliable for a number of other reasons as well.

However to say we can reasonably conclude the apostles were very unlikely not there would be foolish. Lack of surviving evidence can never be a convincing argument that something never happened.
There is in fact more objective historical evidence that Caesar lived than Christ lived.

 

[adrift]

“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! I fully believeinthe Dogma of the Assumption and that is what I am defending. No more, no less. I leave the speculation up to others.” (Memaw)

This is the dogma that she was assumed body and soul into heaven

Adrift I am not going to engage you further on this as it seems your strong personal views somehow hold you back from finding and understanding Memaw’s unusual interpretation of the Assumption on this black and white point.

LOL!

Memaw is in fact the person speculating here by saying that the Assumption absolutely denies Mary was in pieces beforehand.
This it seems is because she does not understand this is the definition of death. The Assumption does not deny the likely possibility of Mary’s death. To hold that view would be clearly indicative of a mistaken understanding of the Dogma.

You have made a straw man argument. It is an unusual way of stating Mary died by saying she was in pieces. Your statement brings a picture of her arms legs head not being attached. Memaw holds the acceptable view that she did not die. Because she doesn’t believe Mary died does not mean she doesn’t understand death nor does she state that the Assumption denies death. What she states time and again is the Church allows for both beliefs that it was not dogmatically declared she died or she didn’t die. She is correct

The Holy Spirit guides the Church, not “significant numbers” ! And the **Pope did NOT dogmatically state that Mary died **when he could have very easily defined it. We just DON"T know for sure in spite of all the pious thought about it. There were NO witnesses to her “falling asleep” or her Assumption. Only God knows and for His own reasons He has NOT revealed that to us. Such a precious moment between her and her God. Just one of God’s Great Mysteries. God Bless, Memaw

My view is that the Infallible teaching of the Assumption does NOT state that Mary died so I go with that! The Pope could have so easily included that in there if the Holy Spirit would have inspired him to. But HE didn’t. Going with that and the fact that Mary was conceived Immaculate and NEVER sinned so was NOT under the penalty of sin and death, and we have NO actual witnesses to Her Assumption, I leave it all up to God and HE knows exactly how it took place. As I said before, it is one of GOD’s Great Mysteries. If HE would have wanted us to know, HE would have revealed it. I love pondering on God’s Mysteries, it shows me how awesome HE is and how little I know. And NO we cannot have it both ways. Either She died or She didn’t!! I try to focus on Her life and what she taught us and still teaches us. God Bless, Memaw
All I said was that I believe the Infallible dogma of the Assumption of Mary, how that actually took place is between God and Mary as No one else was actually there! And that is why it has never been made an Infallible dogma that Mary died. While some claim you can believe either or, they do not seem to allow me the privilege of believing what the Infallible dogma of the Assumption actually states!!! Like I have said several times, you can’t have it both ways. God bless Memaw

All I said was that I believe the Infallible dogma of the Assumption of Mary, how that actually took place is between God and Mary as No one else was actually there! And that is why it has** never been made an Infallible dogma that Mary died.** While some claim you can believe either or, they do not seem to allow me the privilege of believing what the Infallible dogma of the Assumption actually states!!! Like I have said several times, you can’t have it both ways. God bless Memaw

Pope’s Infallible Dogma on the Assumption, which does NOT say she died nor resurrected. Am I not allowed on this thread to believe what the Pope taught Infallibly??? God Bless, Memaw

These are just a few of her post. It is clear she did not make the statement that you insist that she said " saying that the Assumption absolutely denies Mary was in pieces beforehand. " is false.

However this teaching was not infallibly defined as a Dogma.
So Catholics are presently free to hold the unusual more recent view.

This is a statement you made and you are wrong on two points. It was not a recent view nor it is unusual.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is the dogma that she was assumed body and soul into heaven

LOL!

You have made a straw man argument. It is an unusual way of stating Mary died by saying she was in pieces. Your statement brings a picture of her arms legs head not being attached. Memaw holds the acceptable view that she did not die. Because she doesn’t believe Mary died does not mean she doesn’t understand death nor does she state that the Assumption denies death. What she states time and again is the Church allows for both beliefs that it was not dogmatically declared she died or she didn’t die. She is correct

These are just a few of her post. It is clear she did not make the statement that you insist that she said " saying that the Assumption absolutely denies Mary was in pieces beforehand. " is false.

This is a statement you made and you are wrong on two points. It was not a recent view nor it is unusual.

It was Memaw who first used the words “in pieces”.
She was clearly referring to my phrase that “Mary’s soul was separated from her body” (ie not “intact”).

End of story.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary this is poor hermeutic logic.

Actually, I feel the same about your conjecture and speculation. But in charity I don’t think this was the way to proceed and still don’t.

Most here would not find that a reasonable conclusion.

Huh, who for example? You and who? This seems to be another stretch of the imagination like the various and multiple narratives with no facts?

In the absence of any historical docs either way the most we can say is we do not know. No absolutes are on the table. That is the most that can reasonably be concluded.

Right she could have been assumed ALIVE you don’t know and what we can conclude is you have not a single fact, nothing.to support your narrative.

But, given that non Biblical texts do exist and assume otherwise, this does shift conclusions mildly in favour that some apostles were present. Being theologically apocryphal does not destroy all truth in these docs, especially possible historical implications.

Nothing inspired at all. There is Apocrypha and with various narratives including she was ALIVE! What truth, your speculation, there are no facts period. In fact the Biblical text is silent

Nevertheless such writings are not absolute proof for the presence of the apostles as they are historically unreliable for a number of other reasons as well.
However to say we can reasonably conclude the apostles were very unlikely not there would be foolish. Lack of surviving evidence can never be a convincing argument that something never happened. There is in fact more objective historical evidence that Caesar lived than Christ lived.

The apostles may have been there when she was “Assumed Alive and intact” too. How about we conclude that? But the bottom line is there are “NO FACTS” and both stories exist.

I don’t see anything new or of significance here but repeating addressed points.

There is no required belief Mary died, there are no facts where she died, when she died and how she died… And yes the apostles were there when she was assumed alive and intact.

PS I have no idea what your point is with corrupt or not corrupt its not proof of anything either way . Which is why its a secondary point. I don’t know how much clearer I can be for you.