R
RyanBlack
Guest
You’re asking the wrong questions. According to the tradition of the Dormition, the Theotokos did indeed die, but a few days later, her tomb was found empty, since she had been assumed into Heaven.
- Status
B
babochka
Guest
I’m not going to go into my whole argument right now on why I believe that the Church does teach the fact of Mary’s death. I just wanted to take a moment to correct a common misunderstanding that I see in your post, one which is frequently used to bolster the position that she did not die and that the Church doesn’t teach that she died.
Death and Dormition are not two separate things. Dormitition is a euphemism for death and his how Eastern Christians refer to the death of a Christian. It is a term used by St. Paul to refer to the death of a Christian. When we celebrate the Dormition of the Theotokos, we are celebrating nothing other than her death (and subsequent Assumption) and our liturgical texts and iconography are clear on this matter.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
In the last judgment the living and the dead are resurrected body and soul. Difficult to speak of Mary and what the Lord would have desired. If its most fitting Mary was preserved without stain, then the same theory applies? Also never was there a saint who first wasn’t a sinner.
But I agree with the tradition.Phil 3:21 “He will give a new form to this lowly body of ours and remake it according to the pattern of His glorified body…”
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I understand; Yet that death which is alluded to as a fact, requires qualification. The death marks a permanent character in opposition to the faith. It needs to be clarified about the short time frame of this rest in dormition or what you claim to be a death of the body, so as not confuse the divine revelation of Jesus teaching when speaks of those who are sleeping, when to the carnal mind see’s in those in sleep as though dead.
Here is where the mystical aspects of my Catholic faith enter here. In the eyes of God’s revelation Mary in her dormition of rest sleeps, she is never dead to God. To a carnal mind a death does not relate to the profundity of the Catholic faith. When the Assumption, the resurrection are what awaits those who sleep in Christ.
Jesus never states those whom He loves and those He raises from dead as being dead, but as those who have fallen asleep.
I think it is here, where the EO may be missing the faith expression of my personally belief as a Catholic that the blessed perpetual Virgin Mother of God never dies to God, but may have fallen to sleep in Christ, and assumed into heaven both body and soul.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
I think you are arguing linguistic semantics here, not difference of belief. Calling it “dormition of rest” and “sleep” is the same as “dead” in relation to the living. No one is dead to God, not even those in hell, from Adam to the future.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Probably but we are lost at understanding the linguistics; " Yet that death which is alluded to as a fact, requires qualification."
We can’t define that from the last judgement of which; Phil 3:21 “He will give a new form to this lowly body of ours and remake it according to the pattern of His glorified body…” And the living will be taken up dead to the old and alive in the new.
It can’t mean earthly dead or medial understanding is required in the carnal sense. Nor would Mary be first to confuse the moral understanding of death as Enoch and Elijah come to mind.
We can’t define that from the last judgement of which; Phil 3:21 “He will give a new form to this lowly body of ours and remake it according to the pattern of His glorified body…” And the living will be taken up dead to the old and alive in the new.
It can’t mean earthly dead or medial understanding is required in the carnal sense. Nor would Mary be first to confuse the moral understanding of death as Enoch and Elijah come to mind.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Here are a couple quotes from Orthodox:*Metropolitan Kallistos on Immaculate Conception
He says, “Orthodoxy, for the most part [denies] the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.”
However, he also says this:"
The Orthodox Church calls Mary ‘All-Holy;’ it calls her ‘immaculate’ or ‘spotless’ (in Greek, achrantos); and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin. But was she also free from original sin? In other words, does Orthodoxy agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius the Ninth in 1854, according to which Mary, from the moment she was conceived by her mother Saint Anne, was by God’s special decree delivered from ‘all stain of original sin?’ The Orthodox Church has never in fact made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter. In the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, at any rate approach close to it; but since 1854 the great majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine, for several reasons. They feel it to be unnecessary; they feel that, at any rate as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, it implies a false understanding of original sin; they suspect the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament. From the Orthodox point of view, however, the whole question belongs to the realm of theological opinion; and if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe in the Immaculate Conception, he could not be termed a heretic for so doing.
*(see quote at EWTN taken from “The Orthodox Church”)
**Fr. Lev Gillet
**[T]hroughout the history of Orthodox theology, we find an unbroken line of theologians, of quite considerable authority, who have explicitly denied the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary…
The vast majority – but not all – Orthodox theologians agreed that Mary was purified from original sin before the birth of Our Lord. By this, they usually mean that she was purified in her mother’s womb like John the Baptist. This “sanctification” is not the Immaculate Conception…
I shall begin by quoting several phrases which cannot be said with absolute certainty to imply a belief in the Immaculate Conception but in which it is quite possible to find traces of such a belief. [then he proceeds to quote implied evidence for]
Let us now turn to more explicit evidence. [and he quotes more explicit evidence in favor…]
[W]e should notice that the Roman definition of 1854 was not attacked by the most representative theologians of the time, Metropolitan Philaretes of Moscow and Macarius Boulgakov. (quoted at Ecclesial Peace)
He says, “Orthodoxy, for the most part [denies] the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.”
However, he also says this:"
The Orthodox Church calls Mary ‘All-Holy;’ it calls her ‘immaculate’ or ‘spotless’ (in Greek, achrantos); and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin. But was she also free from original sin? In other words, does Orthodoxy agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, proclaimed as a dogma by Pope Pius the Ninth in 1854, according to which Mary, from the moment she was conceived by her mother Saint Anne, was by God’s special decree delivered from ‘all stain of original sin?’ The Orthodox Church has never in fact made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter. In the past individual Orthodox have made statements which, if not definitely affirming the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, at any rate approach close to it; but since 1854 the great majority of Orthodox have rejected the doctrine, for several reasons. They feel it to be unnecessary; they feel that, at any rate as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, it implies a false understanding of original sin; they suspect the doctrine because it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament. From the Orthodox point of view, however, the whole question belongs to the realm of theological opinion; and if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe in the Immaculate Conception, he could not be termed a heretic for so doing.
*(see quote at EWTN taken from “The Orthodox Church”)
**Fr. Lev Gillet
**[T]hroughout the history of Orthodox theology, we find an unbroken line of theologians, of quite considerable authority, who have explicitly denied the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary…
The vast majority – but not all – Orthodox theologians agreed that Mary was purified from original sin before the birth of Our Lord. By this, they usually mean that she was purified in her mother’s womb like John the Baptist. This “sanctification” is not the Immaculate Conception…
I shall begin by quoting several phrases which cannot be said with absolute certainty to imply a belief in the Immaculate Conception but in which it is quite possible to find traces of such a belief. [then he proceeds to quote implied evidence for]
Let us now turn to more explicit evidence. [and he quotes more explicit evidence in favor…]
[W]e should notice that the Roman definition of 1854 was not attacked by the most representative theologians of the time, Metropolitan Philaretes of Moscow and Macarius Boulgakov. (quoted at Ecclesial Peace)
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Thats what I briefly mentioned earlier as the IC is most fitting but the teaching of the tradition of the Church is sanctified at the Incarnation. The implications are one of the same in relation to Marys salvation divinization. Jesus freed man through His redemption of not only actual sin but the stain of the transgression -original sin passed to all man and addressed in the Creed to the remission of sin. As to unnecessary as dogma the Catholic Church debated to point for 400 years. That it seems to separate Mary from the rest of the descendants of Adam, putting her in a completely different class from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament is self evident from the Incarnation of the Word of God. Had there been another then the claim would seem valid, however, be it as it indeed is, the rest of Adams descendants are in a different class in relation to the single act of sanctified grace bestowed on Mary be it at the IC or the Incarnation?
491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.
Romans 6
For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.
492 The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”.136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”.
494 At the announcement that she would give birth to “the Son of the Most High” without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that “with God nothing will be impossible”: "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God’s word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God’s grace:140
As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary “the Mother of the living” and frequently claim: “Death through Eve, life through Mary.”
491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God,134was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.
Romans 6
For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.
492 The “splendor of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”.136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”.
494 At the announcement that she would give birth to “the Son of the Most High” without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that “with God nothing will be impossible”: "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God’s word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God’s grace:140
As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary “the Mother of the living” and frequently claim: “Death through Eve, life through Mary.”
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Hippolytus (AD 235)
He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).
Origen (AD 244)
This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).
St. Ephraim the Syrian (AD 361)
You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).
“My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate.” (ibid.)
St. Ambrose of Milan (AD 387)
Come, then, and search out Your sheep, not through Your servants or hired men, but do it Yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain of sin (ut incorrupta sit virgo, sed virgo per gratium ab omni integra labe peccati)." (Commentary on Psalm 118, 22-30 [A.D. 387])
Gregory Nazianzen
He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).
St. Augustine (ca. AD 415)
Having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins,—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear Him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say again, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer? …if they had been so questioned, would they not have declared with a single voice: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us!”? (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).
Theodotus of Ancrya
A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).
Proclus of Constantinople
As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1 [ante A.D. 446]).
St. Andrew of Crete (AD 660 – AD 740)
Today, O Savior, You have give to pious Anne fruitful offspring of her womb, Your Immaculate Mother… (Canon on the Nativity of the Blessed Mother – Ode 4)
O Virgin undefiled, undefiled is your birth… (Canon on the Nativity of the Blessed Mother – Ode 5)
St. John Damascene (ca. AD 645 – ca. AD 749)
We had closed Paradise; you opened again the entryway to the tree of life. We turned joys into sorrow; you turned sorrow back into the greatest of joys for us. And how would you, the Immaculate, taste of death? You are the bridge to life, you are the staircase to heaven; and [for you] death will be but a passageway to immortality. O Most Blessed, truly blessed art thou! (Second Homily on the Dormition of Mary, 10:8)
He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).
Origen (AD 244)
This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).
St. Ephraim the Syrian (AD 361)
You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).
“My Lady Most Holy, All-Pure, All-Immaculate, All-Stainless, All-Undefiled, All-Incorrupt, All-Inviolate …Spotless Robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment …Flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone Most Immaculate.” (ibid.)
St. Ambrose of Milan (AD 387)
Come, then, and search out Your sheep, not through Your servants or hired men, but do it Yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain of sin (ut incorrupta sit virgo, sed virgo per gratium ab omni integra labe peccati)." (Commentary on Psalm 118, 22-30 [A.D. 387])
Gregory Nazianzen
He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).
St. Augustine (ca. AD 415)
Having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins,—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear Him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say again, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer? …if they had been so questioned, would they not have declared with a single voice: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us!”? (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).
Theodotus of Ancrya
A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).
Proclus of Constantinople
As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1 [ante A.D. 446]).
St. Andrew of Crete (AD 660 – AD 740)
Today, O Savior, You have give to pious Anne fruitful offspring of her womb, Your Immaculate Mother… (Canon on the Nativity of the Blessed Mother – Ode 4)
O Virgin undefiled, undefiled is your birth… (Canon on the Nativity of the Blessed Mother – Ode 5)
St. John Damascene (ca. AD 645 – ca. AD 749)
We had closed Paradise; you opened again the entryway to the tree of life. We turned joys into sorrow; you turned sorrow back into the greatest of joys for us. And how would you, the Immaculate, taste of death? You are the bridge to life, you are the staircase to heaven; and [for you] death will be but a passageway to immortality. O Most Blessed, truly blessed art thou! (Second Homily on the Dormition of Mary, 10:8)
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
BTW its not only EO who present these questions but Catholics also and on tradition.
Now some would propose as we see.
I would only humbly suggest they should come here and explain the above paragraph. For sure Mary didn’t have to die and she willed Gods will, and of how other men die, well as Gab stated above, no clue what they are talking about and especially after talking about sinless supernatural births and Elijah wanting to die in which case that was ignored by His most Holy. Firm affirmation, His will is done, no other.
Course then the appeal is to the most wonderful scripture and the mysteries on the Church, but no verse just debatable opinion based on tradition, especially in relation to body and soul. I can think of no reason as to why per scripture Marys body and soul did not journey together. Let alone the undefined understanding of the last judgement body and soul.
Which is resolved here and correct aside from the explicit leaning on tradition which no-one denies, yet we still have the same revelation, mystery, not yet revealed in relation to the questions proposed.
Now some would propose as we see.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fchristianity.stackexchange.com%2Fquestions%2F16465%2Fhow-could-a-sinless-mary-die&ei=YUWPVM78FMyrgwSbuoLwBA&usg=AFQjCNEEsvWhXNZ-X3Z4PVU9vx8E82WVjg
I would only humbly suggest they should come here and explain the above paragraph. For sure Mary didn’t have to die and she willed Gods will, and of how other men die, well as Gab stated above, no clue what they are talking about and especially after talking about sinless supernatural births and Elijah wanting to die in which case that was ignored by His most Holy. Firm affirmation, His will is done, no other.
Course then the appeal is to the most wonderful scripture and the mysteries on the Church, but no verse just debatable opinion based on tradition, especially in relation to body and soul. I can think of no reason as to why per scripture Marys body and soul did not journey together. Let alone the undefined understanding of the last judgement body and soul.
Which is resolved here and correct aside from the explicit leaning on tradition which no-one denies, yet we still have the same revelation, mystery, not yet revealed in relation to the questions proposed.
Absolutely, but so as not to slight the EO, fair is fair?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
And then, imagine this now, then, there are those other pesky Catholics who actually want to know and understand the claims being made.
Objections
Catholics consider Jesus and Mary equal because they believe that both of them ascended into heaven.
Mary did not ascend into heaven; she was assumed into heaven. Jesus ascended by His own power, Mary was taken up into heaven by God. The Assumption is essentially the same as what Evangelicals call the “rapture”; we could even say that Mary was “raptured” into heaven at the end of her life.
But the Bible does not say that she was raptured into heaven.
The Bible is also silent on how the lives of most of Jesus’ disciples ended. Many Evangelicals accept the witness of Church history that Saint Peter was crucified upside-down in Rome, that Paul was beheaded, etc., even though Scripture does not record these events. Why then do they refuse to believe, as the early Christians did, that Jesus raptured Mary into heaven at the end of her life on earth?
But Mary is dead.
Where does the Bible say that? Nowhere. That’s an unbiblical assertion.
Do Catholics believe that Mary died?
Some do, some don’t. Scripture is silent on how Mary’s life ended, and the Church has never declared whether she died and was raised or was raptured up without ever dying. So Catholics are free to believe either one.
Doesn’t I Corinthians 15:23 disprove the Assumption?
Not necessarily. First of all, it refers to those who have died in Christ. If Mary did not die, then this verse would not apply to her. Second, there is a chance that Mary was still alive when Saint Paul wrote this epistle (some say she lived to the age of seventy-two!). So Paul may not have known of God’s plan to rapture her up early, and since Mary herself surely did not know, it would not have been appropriate to reveal it in the Epistle.
The fact that there are two tombs believed to be Mary’s shows that no one really knows where she is buried. Maybe her real tomb is elsewhere - and not vacant!
Seems I’ve heard a similar argument before regarding Jesus’ resurrection - the “wrong tomb” theory. (Incidentally, there are also two tombs in the Holy Land believed to be those of Christ: the one at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the “Garden Tomb”.) Strange how some Evangelical arguments against Mary actually parallel arguments used by skeptics against Jesus.
The argument is pure speculation. The fact remains that all these tombs are empty, and that no one ever claimed to have Mary’s relics. Though not a conclusive proof of Mary’s Assumption, it does point in that direction.
Why would God take Mary into heaven like that?
Why not? He took Enoch and Elijah into heaven without them ever tasting death (2 Kings 2:11; Hebrews 11:5); he raised many righteous Jews from the dead at Jesus’ resurrection (Mt 27:52-53), and He has promised to rapture up both living and dead believers at the end of time (1 Thess 4:16-17). Why wouldn’t Jesus do the same for His Mother, the woman whom He is bound to honor by His own Law? As we have seen, Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Why would God allow this sacred Ark to rot in the grave? It is not fitting that the body which was sanctified to bear God Incarnate should see corruption. So God took the New Ark into heaven, where we see her in Revelations 11:19-12:1.
maryimmaculate.tripod.com/marian8.html
Objections
Catholics consider Jesus and Mary equal because they believe that both of them ascended into heaven.
Mary did not ascend into heaven; she was assumed into heaven. Jesus ascended by His own power, Mary was taken up into heaven by God. The Assumption is essentially the same as what Evangelicals call the “rapture”; we could even say that Mary was “raptured” into heaven at the end of her life.
But the Bible does not say that she was raptured into heaven.
The Bible is also silent on how the lives of most of Jesus’ disciples ended. Many Evangelicals accept the witness of Church history that Saint Peter was crucified upside-down in Rome, that Paul was beheaded, etc., even though Scripture does not record these events. Why then do they refuse to believe, as the early Christians did, that Jesus raptured Mary into heaven at the end of her life on earth?
But Mary is dead.
Where does the Bible say that? Nowhere. That’s an unbiblical assertion.
Do Catholics believe that Mary died?
Some do, some don’t. Scripture is silent on how Mary’s life ended, and the Church has never declared whether she died and was raised or was raptured up without ever dying. So Catholics are free to believe either one.
Doesn’t I Corinthians 15:23 disprove the Assumption?
Not necessarily. First of all, it refers to those who have died in Christ. If Mary did not die, then this verse would not apply to her. Second, there is a chance that Mary was still alive when Saint Paul wrote this epistle (some say she lived to the age of seventy-two!). So Paul may not have known of God’s plan to rapture her up early, and since Mary herself surely did not know, it would not have been appropriate to reveal it in the Epistle.
The fact that there are two tombs believed to be Mary’s shows that no one really knows where she is buried. Maybe her real tomb is elsewhere - and not vacant!
Seems I’ve heard a similar argument before regarding Jesus’ resurrection - the “wrong tomb” theory. (Incidentally, there are also two tombs in the Holy Land believed to be those of Christ: the one at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the “Garden Tomb”.) Strange how some Evangelical arguments against Mary actually parallel arguments used by skeptics against Jesus.
The argument is pure speculation. The fact remains that all these tombs are empty, and that no one ever claimed to have Mary’s relics. Though not a conclusive proof of Mary’s Assumption, it does point in that direction.
Why would God take Mary into heaven like that?
Why not? He took Enoch and Elijah into heaven without them ever tasting death (2 Kings 2:11; Hebrews 11:5); he raised many righteous Jews from the dead at Jesus’ resurrection (Mt 27:52-53), and He has promised to rapture up both living and dead believers at the end of time (1 Thess 4:16-17). Why wouldn’t Jesus do the same for His Mother, the woman whom He is bound to honor by His own Law? As we have seen, Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. Why would God allow this sacred Ark to rot in the grave? It is not fitting that the body which was sanctified to bear God Incarnate should see corruption. So God took the New Ark into heaven, where we see her in Revelations 11:19-12:1.
maryimmaculate.tripod.com/marian8.html
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
We should also consider the point of the often cited document of which there are “two” accounts. Interesting is the Valley of Jehoshaphat -the final judgement.
Mary suffered a temporal death. (Sent. communior.)
Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven. (De fide.)
However the temporal death doesn’t negate that the she was assumed body and soul, nor does its explain death as above suggests
All the dead will rise again on the last day with their bodies. (De fide.)
The bodies of the just will be re-modeled and transfigured to the pattern of the risen Christ. (Sent. certa.)
Transitus Mariae, which is included by Pope Gelasius in his list of condemned apocryphal. It seems likely that some germ of popular tradition preceded the invention of the extravagant details of the narrative itself.
Further “In a later passage, he [Epiphanius] says that she [Mary] may have died and been buried, or been killed–as a martyr. ‘Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires; for her end no one knows.’” Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 135
This is the oldest account and is a mystical vision, and apocryphal
The problem as I see is Catholics reading of Otto Ludwig which is relied on in their assertions.
Mary suffered a temporal death. (Sent. communior.)
Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven. (De fide.)
However the temporal death doesn’t negate that the she was assumed body and soul, nor does its explain death as above suggests
At the end of the world Christ will come again in glory to pronounce judgment. (De fide.)
The time of Jesus’ second coming is unknown to men. (Sent. certa.)
All the dead will rise again on the last day with their bodies. (De fide.)
The bodies of the just will be re-modeled and transfigured to the pattern of the risen Christ. (Sent. certa.)
The vision was of Mary transfigured, not a historical factual documented account of death.
- Dogmas - This is De Fide - This is infallible
- Doctrines - This is Sent. Certa - This is infallible but has not been formally elevated yet to the level of De Fide
- Teachings - Includes Sent. Communis, Sent. pia et probabilis, Sent. communior, and Sent. probabilior - These have varying degrees of certainty and are widely believed. However, they do not rise to the same level as Sent. Certa or De Fide and are therefore not infallible.
Transitus Mariae, which is included by Pope Gelasius in his list of condemned apocryphal. It seems likely that some germ of popular tradition preceded the invention of the extravagant details of the narrative itself.
Further “In a later passage, he [Epiphanius] says that she [Mary] may have died and been buried, or been killed–as a martyr. ‘Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires; for her end no one knows.’” Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 135
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Also one more points as some are addressed above and as you read this sight
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seetheholyland.net%2Fchurch-of-the-dormition%2F&ei=qhqQVMKlOoqVNpSbgdAE&usg=AFQjCNGYOB2eZ8ktddrkfS43fIFDx7eFgQ&bvm=bv.81828268,d.eXY
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seetheholyland.net%2Fchurch-of-the-dormition%2F&ei=qhqQVMKlOoqVNpSbgdAE&usg=AFQjCNGYOB2eZ8ktddrkfS43fIFDx7eFgQ&bvm=bv.81828268,d.eXY
She bore a son at age 12, making her 45 at the Cross.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
My apology as I didn’t add two links to my quotes.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAssumption_of_Mary&ei=NSOQVOjoKoLcggSpg4GwAQ&usg=AFQjCNFEpnnqiUMCwaMIr8U23zz6-sFuKQ
and
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newworldencyclopedia.org%2Fentry%2FAssumption_of_Mary&ei=uCOQVI-ZN8LXgwSH6ICwDg&usg=AFQjCNH-spvK_r5_1wQfMOhpLVdLylBGYg
Thanks
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAssumption_of_Mary&ei=NSOQVOjoKoLcggSpg4GwAQ&usg=AFQjCNFEpnnqiUMCwaMIr8U23zz6-sFuKQ
and
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newworldencyclopedia.org%2Fentry%2FAssumption_of_Mary&ei=uCOQVI-ZN8LXgwSH6ICwDg&usg=AFQjCNH-spvK_r5_1wQfMOhpLVdLylBGYg
Nevertheless as explained and to get back to the continuity of the “Immaculate Conception” to the “Assumption” I contend its most fitting Mary was Assumed Body and Soul, and not Soul then Body. And to what this means as to mortal-immortal thus transfigured.we can only see through the mystics and revealed through further revelation. Mary was not subject to the law of death, that she desired to die in like fashion as the Christ, while plausible be it that it conforms to “His Will” for “Her” being the contingent and unknown, further if indeed its most fitting of the IC then too its most fitting being assumed body and soul and transfigured in the process. It appears to fit the actual “dogma” more accurately also. And certainly is in conformity of tradition which is the teaching of the Church. Its body and soul, not soul then body. Those who propose tradition and death, always fail to address this point as I see it. And to state as was started, my thinking is actually biblical, as no-where is it stated Mary died and tradition and scripture absolutely must conform.
Thanks
N
Nektarios_Lady
Guest
The “average Orthodox Christian”, not a Metropolitan, not an Father of the Church, not a Theologian.
I’m average Orthodox Christian. Here are my answers to your questions.
- The Panagia (All Holy) is a human being. She was created the same way we all were after Adam & Eve fell into sin. Unlike the rest of us, except her Son of course, the Theotokos (God-bearer), with the same Grace poured out on all of us, by her own choice never sinned. Every human, created & born, have the same choice and ability through Greece (lol Freudian “auto-correct” mistake - the word should be GRACE), to do the same but the rest of us fail. There are some who also died after a life of never having sinned, like babies and those who lack mental capacity, yet unlike them, the Panagia had the ability to sin, but chose not to.
- The Immaculate Conception doctrine as defined by the Pope in the 1800s is considered a false teaching because it specifically says that Mary “by singular Grace was created” that she was created differently than the rest of us. For Orthodox, what makes her so honored and spectacular is that she is exactly like us, but chose to never sin - the perfect human being, our authentic example.
- This dogma didn’t need to be officially defined and it’s a shame that when it was, it was inaccurately defined by a Catholic Pope and required by all Catholics to be believes as defined because that just furthered the split between our Churches; thereby, making it even harder to hope for a future reconciliation.
- Yes, it is a mistake. I’m not sure how the Catholic Church can back themselves out of it without at the same time backing out of other mistakes, like Papal Infallibility & Papal Supremacy. It seems like those three mistakes would need to be addressed at the same time. But if they were to back themselves out of those, and the Filioque at the same time, then Unity would be absolutely eminent!!!
- The Panagia is the most honored above all creation. Not even the Angels can compare with her glory. She wasn’t created differently than the rest of humanity. She is truly one of our very own. The difference isn’t in the Grace given, but simply in how she chose to respond to it. She is the only one who chose to not fall into sin.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Oh I would say thats the expected usual take, which ignores the Creed, Baptism and the remission of sin, scripture. Fails to realize the singular act of grace applies to any point of the Incarnation and is taken into consideration whats defined per council of Christs Nature and doctrine of the Mother of God. And…
So the two points are Christs redemption and resurrection and exemplified through Mary.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholic.com%2Ftracts%2Fresurrection-of-the-body&ei=wluQVKr7O5CFgwTyzIHwDA&usg=AFQjCNHDRNd9DsWe_F2YhE3-wp-I7oR_Mw
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F12792a.htm&ei=wluQVKr7O5CFgwTyzIHwDA&usg=AFQjCNFBhXurU7wNpzz7XnSPWy90W-OWAQ
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Ffaith%2Fteachings%2Frboda1.htm&ei=wluQVKr7O5CFgwTyzIHwDA&usg=AFQjCNFEfVGJtN5e_C6PGRhn9OP9urjgnQ
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDUQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Flibrary%2FANSWERS%2FIRRIRR.HTM&ei=s1-QVL6MKYGmgwTssYHYDw&usg=AFQjCNEu723J0IsL_MENv737fKgMzaRRQQ
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFsQFjAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.therealpresence.org%2Farchives%2FSpiritual_Exercises%2FSpiritual_Exercises_001.htm&ei=s1-QVL6MKYGmgwTssYHYDw&usg=AFQjCNE7Wpt0JUM86Jd9m4u1Kv0V41YxeA
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Farchive%2Fccc_css%2Farchive%2Fcatechism%2Fp122a3p2.htm&ei=qo6QVJSZCIiUNtDPgpgE&usg=AFQjCNFfUIODUKmewLCk7lAgVy8TOxZpKA
Mary of course was human and her nature of course was like ours, but of course only she was chosen as the God bearer and sanctified and from all eternity predestined as we see the point illuminates the redemption and the Assumption the Resurrection. As the Saint states “Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.” and Luke- And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. Nevertheless God didn’t decide to sanctify Mary and die on the Cross the day it occured. “He knew” from all eternity. And it is most fitting as declared.
So the two points are Christs redemption and resurrection and exemplified through Mary.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholic.com%2Ftracts%2Fresurrection-of-the-body&ei=wluQVKr7O5CFgwTyzIHwDA&usg=AFQjCNHDRNd9DsWe_F2YhE3-wp-I7oR_Mw
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F12792a.htm&ei=wluQVKr7O5CFgwTyzIHwDA&usg=AFQjCNFBhXurU7wNpzz7XnSPWy90W-OWAQ
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Ffaith%2Fteachings%2Frboda1.htm&ei=wluQVKr7O5CFgwTyzIHwDA&usg=AFQjCNFEfVGJtN5e_C6PGRhn9OP9urjgnQ
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDUQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Flibrary%2FANSWERS%2FIRRIRR.HTM&ei=s1-QVL6MKYGmgwTssYHYDw&usg=AFQjCNEu723J0IsL_MENv737fKgMzaRRQQ
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFsQFjAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.therealpresence.org%2Farchives%2FSpiritual_Exercises%2FSpiritual_Exercises_001.htm&ei=s1-QVL6MKYGmgwTssYHYDw&usg=AFQjCNE7Wpt0JUM86Jd9m4u1Kv0V41YxeA
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Further the real false teachings are addressed by our severed brothers. But they assumed the CC was using the same condemned teaching of the EO and further misunderstood the Catholics quoted. Most I already addressed ironically. But their research should be noted.
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christiantruth.com%2Farticles%2Fassumption.html&ei=HkSQVIWgEoGNgwTX8ICoAw&usg=AFQjCNH0WPXg2wnMkaFAeBhWmEn17tluDQ
“This is truly an amazing dogma, yet there is no Scriptural proof for it, and even the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it …’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p.”
Historical evidence isn’t required and scriptural is supplied[think EO on both]. It is agree’d on the contemned writings which only serve to add mystical context to divinization. Further Epiphanius in 377 A.D. is acknowledged and used in my understanding of history and dogma. Assertion …
“In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts…Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).”
First he misunderstands Ms Carol, and the others and second the agreement above exists with Epiphanius and a long list of others. What played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’is revelation of scripture, and history points to the truth revealed and yet to be revealed. Of course from here …
“How then did this teaching come to have such prominence in the Church that eventually led it to be declared an issue of dogma in 1950?”
Goes on to elaborate on what is conceded while completely missing the point over and over, should be no secret. Point (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154)." is misunderstood. Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian, of cousre she does she is understanding the entire content/context as I have also explained.
Thus a complete argument build on false presumptions mostly promoted by the EO. Though some research should be noted
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christiantruth.com%2Farticles%2Fassumption.html&ei=HkSQVIWgEoGNgwTX8ICoAw&usg=AFQjCNH0WPXg2wnMkaFAeBhWmEn17tluDQ
“This is truly an amazing dogma, yet there is no Scriptural proof for it, and even the Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it …’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p.”
Historical evidence isn’t required and scriptural is supplied[think EO on both]. It is agree’d on the contemned writings which only serve to add mystical context to divinization. Further Epiphanius in 377 A.D. is acknowledged and used in my understanding of history and dogma. Assertion …
“In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts…Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).”
First he misunderstands Ms Carol, and the others and second the agreement above exists with Epiphanius and a long list of others. What played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’is revelation of scripture, and history points to the truth revealed and yet to be revealed. Of course from here …
“How then did this teaching come to have such prominence in the Church that eventually led it to be declared an issue of dogma in 1950?”
Goes on to elaborate on what is conceded while completely missing the point over and over, should be no secret. Point (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154)." is misunderstood. Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian, of cousre she does she is understanding the entire content/context as I have also explained.
Thus a complete argument build on false presumptions mostly promoted by the EO. Though some research should be noted
P
pablope
Guest
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Fair is fair as mentioned, its many areas speaking contrary to what the Holy Father is saying through the Church. Which is why its imperative his thinking is seriously researched without presumption. Perfect example of the teaching authority imho.
Our nature has been raised to heaven by the assumption and translation of Mary, from the mortal to the immortal, of the holy Virgin, by her most Holy Son our Savior. By the Ascension of Her Son in which He redeemed man most importantly, She is now more exalted than the cherubim and seraphim, more exalted than all the other body less creatures and all of Gods creation, . All generations will call Her blessed because she is Eves correction sent by God, and She is all-holy immaculate Mother and venerated by all powers and principles not only in this world but the one which is to come where She is now Queen of Heaven, now and when the Kingdom is fulfilled. A devote human being and most holy soul to the Incarnate God, and everything the Lord willed, He did in Heaven and on earth. He said; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven!
Our nature has been raised to heaven by the assumption and translation of Mary, from the mortal to the immortal, of the holy Virgin, by her most Holy Son our Savior. By the Ascension of Her Son in which He redeemed man most importantly, She is now more exalted than the cherubim and seraphim, more exalted than all the other body less creatures and all of Gods creation, . All generations will call Her blessed because she is Eves correction sent by God, and She is all-holy immaculate Mother and venerated by all powers and principles not only in this world but the one which is to come where She is now Queen of Heaven, now and when the Kingdom is fulfilled. A devote human being and most holy soul to the Incarnate God, and everything the Lord willed, He did in Heaven and on earth. He said; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven!
N
Nektarios_Lady
Guest
What has been handed down to us is what we know to be authentic teaching. When you’re full immersed in truth, it’s really easy to notice what’s been changed, whether added to or removed.
No Bishop has the authority to change the Truth. What Jesus gave, they protect and teach.
When Bishop Arius began teaching a new idea as truth, the Church followed the example of the Apostles and the Emperor Constantine convened a Council for all the Bishops to come together to discover clearly what Bishop Arius’ new teaching was and to condemn it & him.
If any Bishop in the Orthodox Church did invent some new teaching, like Arius did, it & he would be condemned.
There doesn’t need to be a formal definition. Tradition is clear that the Theotokos, a human being and is Panagia.
The blatant error in the Pope’s definition is claiming the Panagia isn’t human like us, but by “singular grace” was created as a unique creature alone not affected by Ancestral Sin passed down from Adam & Eve, not a human being like us. We know this idea is not true because a. It’s a new teaching b. Facts get in the way - Mary suffered while on earth and we know she died prior to being taken bodily by Christ 3 days later And both of these things, suffering and death, are proof she inherited Ancestral Sin
No. The Orthodox Church never changed the Truth. History shows it was the Catholic Pope, in the 1800s, that made the change in the belief about the Theotokos.
- Status