Site of Mary's Assumption

[coco2]

I was watching Dateline last week, and there was something about Marian devotions. Anyway, they showed the places that RC believe Mary was assumed into heaven and where the Orthodox think it happened and talked about the pilgrimages to each. Why are we not in agreement on this? Which church first chose a spot and which church moved it? I should think we should agree on this at least. I would think this would have been determined early on. Anyone know?

 

[followingtheway]

Because Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians have different opinions on this. Roman Catholics believe in the “Assumption of Mary” which teaches that Mary went up, body and soul, into Heaven instead of dying.

Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in the “Dormition of Mary” which teaches that Mary died and her soul went up to Heaven and 3 days later her body went up to Heaven.

Hope this helps, God bless :byzsoc:

David

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Because Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians have different opinions on this. Roman Catholics believe in the “Assumption of Mary” which teaches that Mary went up, body and soul, into Heaven instead of dying.

Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in the “Dormition of Mary” which teaches that Mary died and her soul went up to Heaven and 3 days later her body went up to Heaven.

Hope this helps, God bless :byzsoc:

David

The dogma of the Assumption only states 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.”

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

Whether Mary actually died before this Assumption has not been defined, but in the early Church the idea of the assumption of Mary into heaven was passed on in the context of the story of the dormition.

A Catholic may believe in the Dormition of Mary or disbelieve it, while he or she must believe in the Assumption of Mary (presumably immediately following her Dormition, if you believe in both).

 

[Jim_Roberts]

Mary is completely human as we are; she is not some sort of demi-god that would place her somewhere between God and man.

The doctrine of the Assumption in no way detracts from that trotal humanity. It simply says that after she finished her life on this earth she was taken BODY and SOUL.

This does not imply that she was not toally human, any more than our own final resurrection will mean that we are not fully human.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Because Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians have different opinions on this. Roman Catholics believe in the “Assumption of Mary” which teaches that Mary went up, body and soul, into Heaven instead of dying.

Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in the “Dormition of Mary” which teaches that Mary died and her soul went up to Heaven and 3 days later her body went up to Heaven.

Hope this helps, God bless :byzsoc:

David

Actually, the RC belief is a bit non-committal. They teach that the Theotokos has completed her earthly life, but wouldn’t really say if the died or not. The language can suggest either, depending on the reader. The Eastern tradition meanwhile do conclusively say that she had a dormition, or light falling asleep. It is akin to dying but because of her being filled with grace, she wasn’t made to suffer the same kind of death we did, although to put it simply she did die.

The dogma of the Assumption only states 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.”

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

Whether Mary actually died before this Assumption has not been defined, but in the early Church the idea of the assumption of Mary into heaven was passed on in the context of the story of the dormition.

A Catholic may believe in the Dormition of Mary or disbelieve it, while he or she must believe in the Assumption of Mary (presumably immediately following her Dormition, if you believe in both).

The Dormition doesn’t take away anything from the Assumption. It doesn’t end with Mary’s falling asleep. She was indeed assumed into heaven shortly afterwards (3 days according to tradition). And of course there is the empty tomb she left behind.

Mary is completely human as we are; she is not some sort of demi-god that would place her somewhere between God and man.

The doctrine of the Assumption in no way detracts from that trotal humanity. It simply says that after she finished her life on this earth she was taken BODY and SOUL.

This does not imply that she was not toally human, any more than our own final resurrection will mean that we are not fully human.

Of course! Elijah and Enoch were both assumed into heaven as well, they surely were never viewed as demi-gods.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

And St John the Evangelist was likewise taken up into heaven bodily, according to tradition which is celebrated by the Eastern Church on his feastday.

In defining the Assumption of the Mother of God, the Roman Catholic Church was faced with a bit of a quandry.

Having proclaimd her to have been conceived immaculately in the 19th century, that is to say, that she did not have the stain of Original Sin, then how could she have been said to have died, death being the punishment for sin and Original Sin especially?

The Christian East, on the other hand, affirms the Theotokos Virgin’s total holiness and sinlessness from her Conception onwards as it considers Original Sin to consist entirely in the impact that sin has on the human nature we have inherited from Adam.

The superabundance of Grace in Mary did not prevent her from dying, therefore. Her death was a very light, sweet experience, a true “falling asleep” or “dormition.”

This is why the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary were never defined in the East - their pith and substance were always affirmed by the Church from the beginning.

After Mary’s assumption, body and soul, into heaven, she appeared to the Apostles when they were having supper. At that time, she told them of her constant intercession for them and for all members of the Church, the Body of Christ and indicated to them a prayer of intercession that she will always hear when they said it: Most Holy Theotokos, help us!

Daily in all Orthodox and (traditional) EC monasteries, there is the special Panaghia service before the main meal of the day that calls to mind this appearance of the Mother of God to the Apostles where the prayer above is repeated. The Panaghia service is a very early apostolic witness to the Church’s belief in our Lady’s bodily assumption.

When Roman Catholics see Orthodox Christians reject their later dogmas, defined from within a Latin theological context, they sometimes (quite wrongly and ignorantly) blame them for rejecting Mary’s total sinlessness and bodily assumption into heaven.

That is most unfortunate.

Alex

 

[coco2]

I understand that we differ on if Mary died or not, but my question is…why are there two different places where each say she was assumed into heaven. We all agree on that point, that she was assumed, alive or not alive, but why does one church say it happened here, and another say it happened there. I would think that the earliest spot that was picked would be the correct one. Which one is it?

 

[thomas_jd]

Actually, the RC belief is a bit non-committal. They teach that the Theotokos has completed her earthly life, but wouldn’t really say if the died or not. The language can suggest either, depending on the reader. The Eastern tradition meanwhile do conclusively say that she had a dormition, or light falling asleep. It is akin to dying but because of her being filled with grace, she wasn’t made to suffer the same kind of death we did, although to put it simply she did die.

The Dormition doesn’t take away anything from the Assumption. It doesn’t end with Mary’s falling asleep. She was indeed assumed into heaven shortly afterwards (3 days according to tradition). And of course there is the empty tomb she left behind.

Of course! Elijah and Enoch were both assumed into heaven as well, they surely were never viewed as demi-gods.

Neither Elijah nor Enoch were assumed into heaven. The gates of heaven were closed until the Resurrection.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I understand that we differ on if Mary died or not, but my question is…why are there two different places where each say she was assumed into heaven. We all agree on that point, that she was assumed, alive or not alive, but why does one church say it happened here, and another say it happened there. I would think that the earliest spot that was picked would be the correct one. Which one is it?

When the persecution broke out in Jerusalem, Mary went to Ephesus with John and lived there for some time. Some believe she went to Heaven from there, while others believe that she returned to Jerusalem and was assumed into Heaven from there. I don’t think that the Catholic Church has a definitive teaching on where she died; don’t know about the Orthodox. As ConstantineTG notes the Catholic Church also has no definitive teaching on whether she died before being assumed into Heaven.

Both of these items are interesting sidelights on her life, but neither is critical to ones salvation; so I doubt that the Church will expend much effort on clarifying them. he Church’s mission is to save souls; so She is strict on teaching what is necessary for that. She leaves one free to speculate on all else.

 

[Hesychios]

Jerusalem.

 

[ConstantineTG]

As ConstantineTG notes the Catholic Church also has no definitive teaching on whether she died before being assumed into Heaven.

I think you misunderstood my statement. The Tradition of the East is shared by (Eastern) Catholics and Orthodox alike.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Neither Elijah nor Enoch were assumed into heaven. The gates of heaven were closed until the Resurrection.

2 Kings 2:1
And it came to pass, when the Lord would take up Elias into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elias and Eliseus were going from Galgal.

2 Kings 2:11
And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold a fiery chariot, and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Sirach 44:16
Henoch pleased God, and was translated into paradise, that he may give repentance to the nations.

 

[thomas_jd]

2 Kings 2:1
And it came to pass, when the Lord would take up Elias into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elias and Eliseus were going from Galgal.

2 Kings 2:11
And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold a fiery chariot, and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Sirach 44:16
Henoch pleased God, and was translated into paradise, that he may give repentance to the nations.

Genesis:1:6
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of of the waters, and let it seperate the waters from the waters.And God made the firmament…And God called the firmament Heaven.

Heaven described is the cosmos in your quotes.
The gates of heaven were closed until the Resurrection.

Also paradise means Garden, the only word in the bible from “Farsi”
Luke23:43 “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

This is not the first time someone has applied the quotes to disapprove that "Heavens Gates "were closed. Jesus death on the cross enabled mankind to enter heaven.
Prior to his death souls waited in “limbo”,/ Purgatory, shut out from heaven until the Ultimate Sacrifice was made!

 

[onyuka]

A church mate once shared with me the story of Mary’s assumption but not the site. Her narration was from a mini book called “Glories of Mary”. We can browse for specifics but the story goes that she died at around 87 yrs and buried in a tomb. Doubting Thomas who was away came and insisted on viewing Mother’s body to believe. When the grave was opened they found angels airborne if form of babies preparing her body for assumption. Her body was assumed and before entry into heaven it joined her soul and mother left Thomas her blue sash for him to hold on to in order to believe.

 

[Vico]

I was watching Dateline last week, and there was something about Marian devotions. Anyway, they showed the places that RC believe Mary was assumed into heaven and where the Orthodox think it happened and talked about the pilgrimages to each. Why are we not in agreement on this? Which church first chose a spot and which church moved it? I should think we should agree on this at least. I would think this would have been determined early on. Anyone know?

Bl. Pope John Paul II, the dogma wording does not define her death, even though it is a major belief that she died:

1. Following the Bull *Munificentissimus Deus of my venerable Predecessor Pius XII, the Second Vatican Council affirms that the Immaculate Virgin “was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over” (Lumen gentium, *n. 59).

The Council Fathers wished to stress that Mary, unlike Christians who die in God’s grace, was taken up into the glory of heaven with her body. This age-old old belief is expressed in a long iconographical tradition which shows Mary “entering” heaven with her body.

1. On 1 November 1950, in defining the dogma of the Assumption, Pius XII avoided using the term “resurrection” and did not take a position on the question of the Blessed Virgin’s death as a truth of faith. The Bull *Munificentissimus Deus *limits itself to affirming the elevation of Mary’s body to heavenly glory, declaring this truth a “divinely revealed dogma”.
   vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_02071997_en.html

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The tradition of Mary’s Dormition and Assumption in the East is older than any other. It was never defined because it was always believed liturgically i.e. lex orandi, lex credendi.

As to the place from whence she was assumed into heaven, there is also a dispute over where the Place of the Skull really was.

It should not be a problem.

Alex

 

[Hesychios]

Bl. Pope John Paul II, the dogma wording does not define her death, even though it is a major belief that she died:

1. Following the Bull Munificentissimus Deus of my venerable Predecessor Pius XII, the Second Vatican Council affirms that the Immaculate Virgin “was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over” (Lumen gentium, n. 59).

The Council Fathers wished to stress that Mary, unlike Christians who die in God’s grace, was taken up into the glory of heaven with her body. This age-old old belief is expressed in a long iconographical tradition which shows Mary “entering” heaven with her body.

1. On 1 November 1950, in defining the dogma of the Assumption, Pius XII avoided using the term “resurrection” and did not take a position on the question of the Blessed Virgin’s death as a truth of faith. The Bull Munificentissimus Deus limits itself to affirming the elevation of Mary’s body to heavenly glory, declaring this truth a “divinely revealed dogma”.
   vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_02071997_en.html

I don’t understand this, why would he or anyone want to distance this event from the resurrection?

Theologically her death and resurrection are traditionally considered among the ‘first fruits’ of the coming general resurrection. It is this understanding that gives the event importance to early Christians.

Are people trying to make room for some other interpretation of the event, an importance of some other sort?

 

[Hesychios]

I was watching Dateline last week, and there was something about Marian devotions. Anyway, they showed the places that RC believe Mary was assumed into heaven and where the Orthodox think it happened and talked about the pilgrimages to each. Why are we not in agreement on this? Which church first chose a spot and which church moved it? I should think we should agree on this at least. I would think this would have been determined early on. Anyone know?

I don’t know what most Roman Catholics think, or what city most of them think the Assumption happened in, but I suspect that has something to do with the visions of a recent (within a few centuries) visionary, probably Anne Catherine Emmerich, who lived at the beginning of the 19th century.

However, the church’s knowledge of her assumption comes from Jerusalem. Everything points back to that church. The dogma of the Assumption is traceable to the legend of her death, burial and resurrection in Jerusalem.

So then, for anyone to divorce the assumption from the death and burial, and then to place the assumption event into another city because of some western European visionary’s dream would be criminal abuse of tradition, if that is what happened.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I don’t understand this, why would he or anyone want to distance this event from the resurrection?

Theologically her death and resurrection are traditionally considered among the ‘first fruits’ of the coming general resurrection. It is this understanding that gives the event importance to early Christians.

Are people trying to make room for some other interpretation of the event, an importance of some other sort?

Because “resurrection” would imply that the Mother of God did actually die and Rome didn’t want to imply that.

You are right in what you say, Pillar of Orthodoxy!

Alex

 

[Vico]

I don’t understand this, why would he or anyone want to distance this event from the resurrection?

Theologically her death and resurrection are traditionally considered among the ‘first fruits’ of the coming general resurrection. It is this understanding that gives the event importance to early Christians.

Are people trying to make room for some other interpretation of the event, an importance of some other sort?

I believe it is because the resurrection term used in the Latin Church, other than for Our Lord, generally refers to the end of the world.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1001 When? Definitively “at the last day,” “at the end of the world.” [555] Indeed, the resurrection of the dead is closely associated with Christ’s Parousia: For the Lord himself will descend from heaven, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. [556]