So I hear You All Know Something About the Assumption/Dormition

[dvdjs]

You are missing my point. The Roman Catholic POV is that Mary did not die at all. She did not shed her mortal body to transcend into the immortal life. If you haven’t been paying attention, there is discussion of her being assumed into heaven like Enoch or Elijah. I’m contending that the longstanding tradition she passed first. Many, because of the creative and confusing language used in the dogmatization of the Assumption, now believe she did not die at all. That she was assumed 1 sec or 1 minute or 1 day or whatever time BEFORE death, not AFTER.

I am not “missing” your point.

There are some in the RC who hold that Mary did not “die” at all. But this is “a”, not “the”, RC POV. And it is only a POV. It is not theology. Similarly, there is a tradition in the East about her falling asleep in the Lord which includes the idea of a separation of soul and body. The story evolved over time, with much elaboration in pious legends. If you would like to talk about tradition and priority, then you have some heavy lifting to do - to develop a time-line and to separate recieved tradition from pious legend - which you have not done in this or the other thread.

My question is: why bother? If the idea is to criticize the Latins for creative language, there is, in fact, much creative language that could be criticized on all sides. If the idea is to show significant divergence between East and West, then I am in opposition: why try to underscore division when on the key theological points there is unity? If the idea is to elevate points of pious legend to dogma, then I am, again, in opposition: why is there a necessity of a dogmatic finding about her death? Especially in light of the reality that we affirm about her, and our, immortality in the risen Christ. The very idea of debating this point seems dissonant with our faith. That, IMO, is the point that needs to be made.