Pope Pius XII's taught the Mother of God's Dormition (falling asleep)

[Zekariya]

Most Catholics quote Pope Pius’ definition of Mary’s assumption from Munificentissimus Deus as leaving it open as to whether or not she actually died a physical death.

1. …] by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Pope Pius XII taught in continuity with the Church Fathers that Mary did die before her assumption in the same document, Munificentissimus Deus Here are some sections from it that illustrates Mary’s natural death before her assumption:

1. In the liturgical books which deal with the feast either of the dormition or of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin there are expressions that agree in testifying that, when the Virgin Mother of God passed from this earthly exile to heaven, what happened to her sacred body was, by the decree of divine Providence, in keeping with the dignity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate, and with the other privileges she had been accorded. Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: “Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.”
2. What is here indicated in that sobriety characteristic of the Roman liturgy is presented more clearly and completely in other ancient liturgical books. To take one as an example, the Gallican sacramentary designates this privilege of Mary’s as “an ineffable mystery all the more worthy of praise as the Virgin’s Assumption is something unique among men.” And, in the Byzantine liturgy, not only is the Virgin Mary’s bodily Assumption connected time and time again with the dignity of the Mother of God, but also with the other privileges, and in particular with the virginal motherhood granted her by a singular decree of God’s Providence. “God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.”

Pope Pius XII sounds very Byzantine in this part:
42. …] Finally it is our hope that belief in Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven will make our belief in our own resurrection stronger and render it more effective.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Latins who teach that she never died just annoy me.

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Yes she did die. I have no idea where people got the idea that the Church “left the question open” as to whether or not she died. When the same document that declares her Assumption, declares also that she fell asleep.

 

[Neofight]

Could she have died a martyr (Luke 2:35)?

 

[ChrisRedfield47]

Could she have died a martyr (Luke 2:35)?

Most ancient accounts say that she simply died and on the third day she was raised. You can read these ancient accounts here:
newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm

While they are somewhat different on some events, neither of them has her being martyred. The reference in Luke 2:35 probably refers to what she felt when she saw all of what Jesus was going through in his trial until his death on the Cross. I’ll quote this:

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 35. And thy own soul a sword shall pierce. These words, which figuratively express the grief of the blessed Virgin mother, when present at the death of her Son, are to be taken by way of a parenthesis. — That out of many hearts thoughts may be revealed, and these are to be joined with what went before; to wit, that child shall be a sign of contradiction, set unto the fall and resurrection of many, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed and disclosed; when some shall believe, and others remain in their obstinacy. (Witham) — Ven. Bede, and many others, understand this of the sharp sorrow, which wounded the soul of the blessed Virgin Mary, at the time of Christ’s passion. (Barradius) — Carthusianus [Denis the Carthusian?] and Jansenius explain this passage as follows: Behold, this child is placed for a sign that shall be contradicted, which as a sword of most poignant grief will pierce thy soul, O Virgin! But Christ shall be contradicted, that the thoughts of the Jews may be revealed from many hearts, and it may appear who among them are good, and who are wicked and hypocrites. (Barradius)

 

[Zekariya]

Yes she did die. I have no idea where people got the idea that the Church “left the question open” as to whether or not she died. When the same document that declares her Assumption, declares also that she fell asleep.

Maybe because he didn't use the correct infallible declaration formula for that part. If he doesn't say, "we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma", it is not validly declared.
I agree with you.

 

[twf]

Yes, this has long irritated me as well. Even some Latin priests will say that then Church gives us no definitive answer to whether Our Lady died. What a shame to think that the Mother of God would be deprived a share in the resurrection of her son! The problem is that some Latins seem to buy into the error that we are bound only by defined dogmas… That is far from the truth. As far as I know there has never been a dogmatic decree on the sinful nature of birth control…but if you use that excuse the act remains a grave sin.

 

[Nine_Two]

I was discussing this with someone in the Non-Catholic Religions forum, and pointed out those quotes in the document, didn’t change the persons mind. He still insisted she must never have died due to the part about never having seen corruption.

This is one of those places where the teachings East and West are identical but the emphasis is entirely different, and while I do know Orthodox Christians who deny the assumption, there are far less of them, and they are far less vocal than those in the West who proclaim she never died.

 

[Zekariya]

I was discussing this with someone in the Non-Catholic Religions forum, and pointed out those quotes in the document, didn’t change the persons mind. He still insisted she must never have died due to the part about never having seen corruption.

This is one of those places where the teachings East and West are identical but the emphasis is entirely different, and while I do know Orthodox Christians who deny the assumption, there are far less of them, and they are far less vocal than those in the West who proclaim she never died.

Christ never saw corruption either.

Acts 2:27 For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.

 

[wynd]

Maybe because he didn't use the correct infallible declaration formula for that part. If he doesn't say, "we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma", it is not validly declared.

You say this sarcastically, but I’ve seen more than a few people on this forum valiantly defend their belief use this exact reasoning.

 

[MorEphrem]

This is one of those places where the teachings East and West are identical but the emphasis is entirely different, and while I do know Orthodox Christians who deny the assumption, there are far less of them, and they are far less vocal than those in the West who proclaim she never died.

Alas, I feel Latins who adamantly deny the Virgin’s death because of the lack of corruption do so in ignorance to the culture these things were said. It goes without saying that the majority of the EC Forum regulars probably know that corruption sets in on the 4th day of death according to Jewish tradition and prior to that the soul kind of just lingers over the body to my understanding (hence why the resurrection of Lazarus was so miraculous). I would venture to say perhaps 10% of people who deny Mary’s death know that.

 

[mark_a]

Most Catholics quote Pope Pius’ definition of Mary’s assumption from Munificentissimus Deus as leaving it open as to whether or not she actually died a physical death.

Dang!!!

I answered this question in exactly this way yesterday!!!

 

[ealfred]

I personally do not see the difference. If she died or not, it will never change the fact of the Assumption. Sometimes we disagree on technical terms and forget about the important issue.

 

[Zekariya]

I personally do not see the difference. If she died or not, it will never change the fact of the Assumption. Sometimes we disagree on technical terms and forget about the important issue.

The Church has always taught even in the West (until the 20th century) that Mary physically died. The ancient liturgy of the Byzantine Rite has always had hymns about her death. Our holy icons/images depict her funeral service with Christ in heaven holding her soul. One can’t pick out one paragraph of Pope Pius XII out of many and then say that she did not die. The East sees her death and resurrection as a a further example of our own resurrection. Pope Pius XII says this well:

1. …] Finally it is our hope that belief in Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven will make our belief in our own resurrection stronger and render it more effective.

 

[tdgesq]

The Church has always taught even in the West (until the 20th century) that Mary physically died. The ancient liturgy of the Byzantine Rite has always had hymns about her death. Our holy icons/images depict her funeral service with Christ in heaven holding her soul. One can’t pick out one paragraph of Pope Pius XII out of many and then say that she did not die. The East sees her death and resurrection as a a further example of our own resurrection. Pope Pius XII says this well:

1. …] Finally it is our hope that belief in Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven will make our belief in our own resurrection stronger and render it more effective.

While I agree with your conclusion, there is another side to this story. The best explanation I’ve seen comes from the [The Marian Library/International Marian Research](Institute http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/faq/faq24.html):

The dogma of the Assumption has a narrow scope. It defines that Mary “was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory” (Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus (1950); DS 3903; LG 59; cf. Rev. 19:16). She was exalted by the Lord “as Queen over all things” in the sense that she “might be the more fully conformed to her Son” who is lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death. She shares in the glory of her son; she is also the “eschatological icon” anticipating the resurrection of all members of Christ’s body. And as Paul VI says: “We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in Heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ” (Paul VI, Solemn profession of Faith, June 30, 1968, #15). These are the various elements of the dogma of the Assumption and some of its doctrinal consequences.

Concerning Mary’s death the dogma is non-committal. It says only: “when the course of her earthly life was completed.” This somewhat evasive formulation points to two things: (1) At the time of the discussions and subsequent definition there was no unanimity regarding the end of Mary’s life. Due largely to M. Jugie’s expertise and influence, the question of Mary’s death was therefore removed from the scope of the dogma. The dogma does not say that she died, and Vatican II adopted the same position (LG 59). A considerable literature on this issue grew up between 1950 and 1964, but very little has appeared since the Council. (2) It did not seem possible to establish a solid historical tradition favoring either Mary’s death or her immortality. Evidence from Scripture does not exist, and the Fathers have little to say about this theme. Gregory of Nyssa and Epiphanius are both inconclusive. Timothy of Jerusalem (ca. fifth-eighth centuries), on the other hand, was explicit: “…the virgin is immortal…he who dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption” (PG 86, 245C.

During the following centuries the death of Mary was taken for granted. Ideas favoring her immortality emerged only as reflection on the Immaculate Conception progressed. Nonetheless, we know of only few positive opinions on her immortality in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The situation changed after the declaration of 1854 and voices in favor of her immortality became more numerous after the dogmatization of the assumption (for example, Gallus, Roschini). Others, like Balic, opposed the immortality thesis. Recent excavations at the site of the Gethsemani Church in Jerusalem seem to corroborate the presence of a chamber hewn in the rock traditionally called Mary’s tomb (Bagatti, 1972). More recent attempts to explain Mary’s assumption with the help of the theory of the so-called “intermediary eschatology,” and its refutation, take as their point of departure the actual death of Mary.

As it stands now, both opinions are acceptable and accepted: Mary’s death, resurrection and glorification as well as glorification at the end of her life without death. However, the majority of theologians seem to admit Mary’s death. Pros and cons are based on the following lines of argumentation:

1. The immortality of Mary is derived from the meaning of Mary’s privilege of the Immaculate Conception. She is sinless in a sinful world, thus exempted from certain effects of sin. Would therefore the exemption from death not be logical?
2. The death of Mary seems equally logical for those who insist on her perfect Christoformity. Mary was Christ’s first disciple and perfect associate. She participated in a real but subordinate role in his salvific work. Would therefore the participation in his death through her own death not be logical?

Contemporary Marian studies seem to favor the latter position. Vatican II presented us with a figure of Mary akin to that of the early centuries of Christianity: closely related to the Church, its eminent member and model, and pilgrim of faith. She is highlighted as faithful follower of Christ and our sister. If the incarnation sets her apart to warrant the divine origin of our redeemer (through her Immaculate Conception), her participation in Christ’s work draws her into his suffering and death (through her death) to express its fully human realization.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Interestingly, Blessed JPII tried to clarify the matter in this teaching, although it is not a dogmatic teaching. If you look at that second part of the first paragraph, he even notes that this notion of the Blessed Mother not dying was unheard of until the 17th century. I have fought this battle a few times on this forum and I guess that if it isn’t dogmatically defined, some people will just never change their minds on the subject. They firmly believe that because of the Immaculate Conception, Mary COULDN’T die. Then again, most protestants think the Immaculate Conception COULDN’T have happened because ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’. When are people going to learn-- All things are possible with God.

To me, it is a discredit to Our Lady to suggest that she would not follow her Son in physical death. I guess I’m with the “Christoformity” camp mentioned in a previous post.

Additionally, the history matters a great deal to me. In fact, one might say that it was historical documentation that moved me into the Church as much as Scripture–early Church Fathers, archaeological finds, etc. If it is not part of historical record prior to the 17th century, it is hard to justify the belief. Sort of like sola scriptura, non liturgical worship, symbolic “bread and wine” and the “rapture”. These things were not believed by the people who lived closer to the time of Jesus and the Apostles, just like the non-dying Virgin Mary was not a part of their belief.

 

[Aramis]

It’s worth noting that the 5th and 6th century Byzantine liturgies are still fundamentally in use, and some of the oldest known propers are those for Dormition and for the Arrival of St. Thomas to find the empty tomb.

The Thomas and the Empty Tomb bit is a wonderful mirror to the women disciples and the empty tomb of Christ.

 

[Nine_Two]

It’s worth noting that the 5th and 6th century Byzantine liturgies are still fundamentally in use, and some of the oldest known propers are those for Dormition and for the Arrival of St. Thomas to find the empty tomb.

The Thomas and the Empty Tomb bit is a wonderful mirror to the women disciples and the empty tomb of Christ.

Tradition holds that St. Thomas was late (coming from India and all). Those same liturgies also mention her bodily death.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Interestingly, Blessed JPII tried to clarify the matter in this teaching, although it is not a dogmatic teaching. If you look at that second part of the first paragraph, he even notes that this notion of the Blessed Mother not dying was unheard of until the 17th century. I have fought this battle a few times on this forum and I guess that if it isn’t dogmatically defined, some people will just never change their minds on the subject. They firmly believe that because of the Immaculate Conception, Mary COULDN’T die. Then again, most protestants think the Immaculate Conception COULDN’T have happened because ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’. When are people going to learn-- All things are possible with God.

To me, it is a discredit to Our Lady to suggest that she would not follow her Son in physical death. I guess I’m with the “Christoformity” camp mentioned in a previous post.

Additionally, the history matters a great deal to me. In fact, one might say that it was historical documentation that moved me into the Church as much as Scripture–early Church Fathers, archaeological finds, etc. If it is not part of historical record prior to the 17th century, it is hard to justify the belief. Sort of like sola scriptura, non liturgical worship, symbolic “bread and wine” and the “rapture”. These things were not believed by the people who lived closer to the time of Jesus and the Apostles, just like the non-dying Virgin Mary was not a part of their belief.

I’ve always wondered–is the Assumption of Mary a revealed doctrine, or an historical event? That is, is it a matter of history, such as the crucifixion, and history has simply passed along this fact?

Also, are there traditions (history) as to when and where Mary died?

 

[SyroMalankara]

I’ve been there too, it is quite a pious and interesting place. I would still give first importance to Jerusalem, however, as that has been the site recognized by all the Churches since the time of the Apostles without question.

Fr. Deacon Sabbatino reviews this in this talk on the Assumption/Dormition:
instituteofcatholicculture.org/body-and-soul-a-study-of-the-feast-of-the-assumption/

He also discusses the main topic and sides with Pope Pius teaching the the Holy Virgin did in fact die a natural death.