Our Lady's last days on Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter gakroeger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gakroeger

Guest
Does anyone have an opinion on where Our Blessed Mother spent her last days on Earth?
We are planning a cruise next summer and one of the stops will be near Ephesus in Turkey. I have been reading several books and articles on the debate about where Mary spent her last days. For many years people accepted that she was Assumed into Heaven from Jerusalem, however, there seems to be more and more evidence that she lived (died ?) and was Assumed into heaven from her home near Ephesus.
A man I used to work for in Lima Ohio (George B. Quatman) set up a foundation back in the 1950’s to restore what is believed to be her home near Ephesus. The Church has not taken a position on this issue or whether Mary was Assumed into Heaven while still alive or whether she died first. All these issues are left open for individual interpretation.
What is YOUR opinion?
 
I have no opinion or knowledge about her assumption.

If I were to seek out the last place on earth I would look to the last place she appeared (or at least one of them), Fattima, 1917, Lourdes 1858, these would be places she returned to rather than was assumed from.

Personally, it would be more meaningful to me.
 
Tradition favors Jerusalem and that Mary did indeed die. She did not die because of sin but because she wanted to be conformed to her son Jesus who gave his life for our salvation. Mary spent a great part of her later life in Ephesos with St John but I think she died in Jerusalem just like her onlybegotten son.

The Church has no need to define as dogma every single piece of truth in the lives of Our Lord and Our Lady.

If we love God everything is well and all things will be well.
 
Tradition favors Jerusalem and that Mary did indeed die. She did not die because of sin but because she wanted to be conformed to her son Jesus who gave his life for our salvation. Mary spent a great part of her later life in Ephesos with St John but I think she died in Jerusalem just like her onlybegotten son.

The Church has no need to define as dogma every single piece of truth in the lives of Our Lord and Our Lady.

If we love God everything is well and all things will be well.
Do you believe the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich and that the little house at Panaya Kapulu is indeed Mary’s home but that she returned to Jerusalem before she died?
 
Do you believe the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich and that the little house at Panaya Kapulu is indeed Mary’s home but that she returned to Jerusalem before she died?
I don’t believe the visions of Anne Emmerich.
 
The Church has not taken a position on this issue or whether Mary was Assumed into Heaven while still alive or whether she died first. All these issues are left open for individual interpretation.

**Hardly true.

The Church is VERY clear that the Theotokos, like her Son, suffered physical death.

This is emphasized in the liturgical texts of the Byzantine Churches. (Lex orandi, lex credendi.)

Furthermore, the Roman office of the Assumption promulgated by Pius XII at the time he declared it a dogma of faith has this in one of the Matins lessons (the fifth, to be exact), from a sermon by St. John of Damascus.

“But she yielded obedience to the law established by him to whom she had given birth, and, as the daughter of the old Adam, underwent the old sentence, which even her Son, who is the very Life Itself, had not refused [that is, physical death[/COLOR]] ; but, as the Mother of the living God, she was worthily taken by him unto himself.”"**
 
All these issues are left open for individual interpretation.
What is YOUR opinion?
Individual interpretation is hardly a guarantee that one can make a correct decision on a subject that has very, very little evidence to consult. My opinions is, we just don’t know.

I agree with ForMary; if I were going somewhere for a Marian devotion, I would choose either Lourdes or Fatima. Both are recognized by the Church and have become part of the Church’s Deposit of Faith.
 
Do you believe the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich and that the little house at Panaya Kapulu is indeed Mary’s home but that she returned to Jerusalem before she died?
Yes I think they are credible I don’t think the holy stigmatic woman was decieved by the demon. She is also a blessed today.
 
Individual interpretation is hardly a guarantee that one can make a correct decision on a subject that has very, very little evidence to consult. My opinions is, we just don’t know.

I agree with ForMary; if I were going somewhere for a Marian devotion, I would choose either Lourdes or Fatima. Both are recognized by the Church and have become part of the Church’s Deposit of Faith.
All things non-defined are not open to individual interpretation at all such a view on church teaching and truth is rather strage. As Catholics we follow the faith of the Apostles and Fathers of the Church not only the defined dogmas.
 
Maybe on Miami Beach, with a lot of other old Jewish ladies? :tiphat:
 
The Church has not taken a position on this issue or whether Mary was Assumed into Heaven while still alive or whether she died first. All these issues are left open for individual interpretation.

**Hardly true.

The Church is VERY clear that the Theotokos, like her Son, suffered physical death.

This is emphasized in the liturgical texts of the Byzantine Churches. (Lex orandi, lex credendi.)

Furthermore, the Roman office of the Assumption promulgated by Pius XII at the time he declared it a dogma of faith has this in one of the Matins lessons (the fifth, to be exact), from a sermon by St. John of Damascus.

“But she yielded obedience to the law established by him to whom she had given birth, and, as the daughter of the old Adam, underwent the old sentence, which even her Son, who is the very Life Itself, had not refused [that is, physical death[/COLOR]] ; but, as the Mother of the living God, she was worthily taken by him unto himself.”"**

I agree with bpbasilphx. His quote from the Roman Office is noteworthy, and moreso, the ancient traditions of the Eastern Church on this matter. These are not traditions that have their origin in the schism either. 🙂

I also agree with eelpis that Mary died in Jerusalem. In fact, I personally believe St. John did not go off to Ephesus until after the Dormition of the BVM, and stayed in Jersusalem with her the whole time. 🙂
 
The Church has not taken a position on this issue or whether Mary was Assumed into Heaven while still alive or whether she died first. All these issues are left open for individual interpretation.

**Hardly true.

The Church is VERY clear that the Theotokos, like her Son, suffered physical death.

This is emphasized in the liturgical texts of the Byzantine Churches. (Lex orandi, lex credendi.)

Furthermore, the Roman office of the Assumption promulgated by Pius XII at the time he declared it a dogma of faith has this in one of the Matins lessons (the fifth, to be exact), from a sermon by St. John of Damascus.

“But she yielded obedience to the law established by him to whom she had given birth, and, as the daughter of the old Adam, underwent the old sentence, which even her Son, who is the very Life Itself, had not refused [that is, physical death[/COLOR]] ; but, as the Mother of the living God, she was worthily taken by him unto himself.”"**

The following was written by Robert Haddad

Robert Haddad has been actively involved in catechetical and apologetical work since 1990.

After receiving over 85 000 petitions from Religious and Clergy, and over 8 000 000 from the lay faithful, Pope Pius XII infallibly proclaimed and defined the Dogma of the Virgin Mary’s assumption on November 1, 1950:

"The Immaculate Mother of God, Mary Ever-Virgin, after her life on earth, was assumed, body and soul, into heavenly glory."27

This Definition, though, left open the question as to whether the Virgin Mary died before being assumed into heaven. Prima facie, as the Virgin Mary was free from Original Sin due to being immaculately conceived, She would also have been free from all its consequences, death being one of them. There are a number of great saints and theologians, however, such as St. Louis de Montfort, who hold that the Virgin Mary did die before being assumed due to Her wishing to be more conformed to Her Son who died for all humanity. Yet, this death was not accompanied by pain and suffering but rather, according to St. Francis de Sales, was a death of love, with Her soul leaving Her body out of Her great desire to be re-united with Christ.

The theological reasoning for belief in the assumption of the Virgin Mary is as follows: Christ, by His glorious death, resurrection and ascension, gained a perfect victory over the devil, sin and death. The Virgin Mary, as the immaculately conceived Mother of God and the New Eve, is most intimately associated with Christ’s perfect victory (Gen. 3, 15). If there was no assumption of the Virgin Mary, She would have been vanquished by death and Her parallelism with Christ would therefore be destroyed.28

No one can reasonably doubt that the Virgin Mary’s soul is now in heaven; Jesus Christ would not have it otherwise: “A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars…And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev. 12, 1-5). The doctrine of the Virgin Mary’s assumption is not contained explicitly in Scripture, but the fact that Scripture does not record an event is no absolute argument against it. The Bible does not record the death of St. Joseph either, but all believe this must have happened.29

Belief in the Virgin Mary’s assumption can be traced back to the earliest days of the Church. A first century work attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite entitled the “Books of Divine Names” records a funeral panegyric pronounced by a said Hierotheus, who purported that the Apostles had been divinely warned of the impending death of the Virgin Mary. All, except St. Thomas, managed to return in time for Her death and funeral. For three days the Apostles and other faithful kept up a vigil at the Virgin’s tomb, where they heard at times the distinct sound of heavenly music. When St. Thomas finally arrived, he requested to see the body of the Virgin Mary. To everyone’s surprise, when the tomb was opened Her body was not there, only flowers and Her burial shroud being left in the sepulchre.30

As early as the fifth century Catholics were celebrating a “memorial of Mary.” This primitive celebration eventually evolved into the Feast of the Dormition (falling asleep) of the Virgin. Also in the fifth century St. Augustine would write:

"This venerable day has dawned, the day that surpasses all the festivals of the saints, this most exalted and most solemn day on which the Blessed Virgin was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. On this day the queenly Virgin was exalted to the very throne of God the Father, and elevated to such a height that the angelic spirits are in admiration."31

Further homilies on the Assumption appeared during the 6th century. In the 8th century the following prayer was written for August 15:

"On this day the Holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but could not be held fast by the bonds of death, who gave birth to Our Lord made flesh."32

The bodies of the glorious Apostles, the Martyrs who shed their blood for Christ, men and women noted for their holiness, have been carefully preserved and venerated in the Church from the beginning of Christianity. While the remains of St. Peter and St. Paul are jealously possessed in Rome, no Christian city or centre has ever claimed to possess the bodily remains of the Virgin Mary. No doubt relics of the Virgin Mary would have been regarded of greater value than those of other Apostles or Saints, so close She was to Christ.

Continued in next post
 
Of the Mother of God no relics were to remain. The Immaculate Conception, formed by the Holy Spirit, and which formed the body of Christ, would not be allowed to see corruption. In Her assumption, the Virgin Mary shows forth the fullness of redemption, and is an example of "the future lot of all the just"33; "(t)he Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians."34 On that last day all the Just, beholding the great glory of the Virgin Mary which will then be fully revealed, will unanimously declare unto Her, “thou art the glory of Jerusalem, the joy of Israel, the honour of our people.”
 
All things non-defined are not open to individual interpretation at all such a view on church teaching and truth is rather strage. As Catholics we follow the faith of the Apostles and Fathers of the Church not only the defined dogmas.
I am not sure what you mean by “all things”, can you give an example of something that is not defined by the Church that we must believe? In cases of things (such as whether or not Mary died prior to her assumption) are believe both ways by Church Fathers; so which one do you have to believe.
 
I know someone in RCIA who is struggling with the fact that the Pope invoked his infallibilty in declaring the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. To a Protestant, who is coming to accept apostolic succession adn the he authority of the Pope, it seems very mind boggling that this doctrine, was selected to declare as infallible. Why is it so important to declare as infallibly true? The actual invocation of infallibilty is rare in papal declarations.

I think it’s simply the link back to Jesus. If she was assumed, it shows that she was most honored by her human motherhood of Christ and living a saintly life. Assumption gives credence to Christ as being the real Messiah. But what if the church believed she died a regular death and went to heaven like any other saint? She could still be the Virgin Mary we venerate, couldn’t she? Why is the Assumption doctrine in itself so theologically important?
 
I know someone in RCIA who is struggling with the fact that the Pope invoked his infallibilty in declaring the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. To a Protestant, who is coming to accept apostolic succession adn the he authority of the Pope, it seems very mind boggling that this doctrine, was selected to declare as infallible. Why is it so important to declare as infallibly true? The actual invocation of infallibilty is rare in papal declarations.

I think it’s simply the link back to Jesus. If she was assumed, it shows that she was most honored by her human motherhood of Christ and living a saintly life. Assumption gives credence to Christ as being the real Messiah. But what if the church believed she died a regular death and went to heaven like any other saint? She could still be the Virgin Mary we venerate, couldn’t she? Why is the Assumption doctrine in itself so theologically important?
I don’t believe it is theologically important. To me it is only of historical interest. The majority opinion seems to be that the Blessed Virgin did die prior to her Assumption; however, as you state, it makes no difference theologically. I only mention this issue as an aside to emphasize the debate on the site of the Assumption. For many years the faithful have accepted that the Virgin Mary was Assumed into Heaven from Jerusalem, however, for the past 100 plus years the Ephesus site is gaining more and more support.
 
I know someone in RCIA who is struggling with the fact that the Pope invoked his infallibilty in declaring the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. To a Protestant, who is coming to accept apostolic succession adn the he authority of the Pope, it seems very mind boggling that this doctrine, was selected to declare as infallible.
It does present a difficulty of sorts. However, a Catholic Protestant should have little difficulty accepting the infallibility of the Church, and therefore the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ. Why this or that is “selected” for infallible declaration can seem problematic though. It was also difficult to understand why Vatican I felt it necessary to define papal infallibility as an infallible dogma. But one can safely believe it to be true and genuine. But I suppose the real problem is that it is a required belief. Still there is no need to fear, or doubt the Church’s unity with her divine Head, or guidance by her Paraclete.

Anyhow both doctrines were always a part of Catholicism, just never declared infallibly before.

If a Protestant does not believe in a Catholic Church with the Apostolic Succession, then this is a more fundamental issue that needs to be addressed.
 
I am not sure what you mean by “all things”, can you give an example of something that is not defined by the Church that we must believe? In cases of things (such as whether or not Mary died prior to her assumption) are believe both ways by Church Fathers; so which one do you have to believe.
All the Church Fathers believed that Mary died.

Dogma-onlyism is a modern sorry consequence of the pope’s infallibiblity. “If it’s not defined infallibly I won’t believe it.” I don’t think the fathers of Vatican I had that in mind. Card. Newman did.

My argument is that the faith is broader than just the defined dogmas, it’s a whole, and it’s a relationship with living persons Jesus, Mary and the Saints, you know them by loving them and being in contact with them not just throught defined teachings about them.

That God exists is not defined by the Church in any way yet it’s quite necessary to believe. 🙂
 
All the Church Fathers believed that Mary died.

Dogma-onlyism is a modern sorry consequence of the pope’s infallibiblity. “If it’s not defined infallibly I won’t believe it.” I don’t think the fathers of Vatican I had that in mind. Card. Newman did.

My argument is that the faith is broader than just the defined dogmas, it’s a whole, and it’s a relationship with living persons Jesus, Mary and the Saints, you know them by loving them and being in contact with them not just throught defined teachings about them.

That God exists is not defined by the Church in any way yet it’s quite necessary to believe. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top