The Assumption!

[JP_Marat]

How does the worlds greatest army drown in a swamp? And why would Solomon build his navy in the same swamp.

Both of these bodies of water are called the same thing in the Old Testament

RESPONSE:

"How does the worlds greatest army drown in a swamp? "

Where did you get that idea?

“And why would Solomon build his navy in the same swamp.”

Why not? Did he?

And is there some point you are trying to make? Why don’t you just state it?

 

[JP_Marat]

Sorry, friends, but I disagree with all here who say that Mary’s death is not infallibly declared in MD. MD is clearly the most authoritative source. Where does MD say, “It is not being infallibly declared that Mary died.”? It doesn’t. We can’t just blithely declare non-teaching that which is taught.

In my opinion, all here who deny that Mary died are denying the teaching of the Magisterium.

RESPONSE:

Where specifically does it say that Mary died?

From the Catholic Digest. By William Byron S.J.

“Your second question is one that has prompted theological speculation for centuries, but has not yet been answered in any definitive way. Some refer to the “blink” of death as Mary left this Earth and was assumed into heaven. Eastern Catholic liturgies refer to the “dormition” (“falling asleep”) of Mary. Th e Roman Church and Latin rites celebrate the Assumption but are silent on the question of whether she did in fact die, as we know death.”

In my opinion, all here who deny that Mary died are denying the teaching of the Magisterium.<<

Your opinion is only your own. Not the teaching of the “Magisterium”.

 

[twinc]

RESPONSE:

Where specifically does it say that Mary died?

From the Catholic Digest. By William Byron S.J.

“Your second question is one that has prompted theological speculation for centuries, but has not yet been answered in any definitive way. Some refer to the “blink” of death as Mary left this Earth and was assumed into heaven. Eastern Catholic liturgies refer to the “dormition” (“falling asleep”) of Mary. Th e Roman Church and Latin rites celebrate the Assumption but are silent on the question of whether she did in fact die, as we know death.”

In my opinion, all here who deny that Mary died are denying the teaching of the Magisterium.<<

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Your opinion is wrong.
The infallible declaration is on the Assumption of Mary and not whether she died first or not.

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF POPE PIUS XII

MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS

DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION

November 1, 1950

Oh, I get it! “Humanae Vitae,” “Of Human Life,” isn’t about artificial contraception!

Whew! For a minute there I thought that its words on that subject were binding!

You’re fooling yourself.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry, friends, but I disagree with all here who say that Mary’s death is not infallibly declared in MD. MD is clearly the most authoritative source. Where does MD say, “It is not being infallibly declared that Mary died.”? It doesn’t. We can’t just blithely declare non-teaching that which is taught.

In my opinion, all here who deny that Mary died are denying the teaching of the Magisterium.

Peter-

I read Munificentissimus Deus again last night just to double-check. The pope references Mary’s “body”, “death” and “tomb” several times in multiple paragraphs.

There can be little doubt that Pius XII thought that Mary had died and then was assumed shortly thereafter without experiencing corruption.

On the other hand, the document defines the ASSUMPTION infallibly - not whether Mary died or not - and in the key sentence of this document, it appears that the Holy Father left this question unresolved.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

There can be little doubt that Pius XII thought that Mary had died and then was assumed shortly thereafter without experiencing corruption.

Hi, Randy.

There can be little doubt that he taught that Mary died.

Or, are you saying that you believe that he erred in his encyclical.

Be clear! What do you believe?

 

[Robbinson]

Hi, Randy.

There can be little doubt that he taught that Mary died.

Or, are you saying that you believe that he erred in his encyclical.

Be clear! What do you believe?

I believe the distinction that is being drawn between an infallible proclamation/conclusion and personal belief of the Pope. The former is infallible (the doctrine of the assumption) the latter is not (this is why Pope’s have disagreed in many areas when not making an infallible proclamation).

Can you find a Catholic source, scholar or apologist who shares your interpretation of this encylical as standing for the proposition that the “death” of Mary was infallibly determined?

To be clear - I also think it is likely that she “died” - but believe the formal infallible teaching of the Church relates solely to the assumption and not to whether she died or not and this appears to be consistent with apologetic descriptions of, and teachings, of the doctrine of the Church. I understand you appear to disagree.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[JP_Marat]

Sorry, friends, but I disagree with all here who say that Mary’s death is not infallibly declared in MD. MD is clearly the most authoritative source. Where does MD say, ** “It is not being infallibly declared that Mary died.”? It doesn’t. ** We can’t just blithely declare non-teaching that which is taught.

In my opinion, all here who deny that Mary died are denying the teaching of the Magisterium.

RESPONSE:

Where does it say in any Church teaching, "It is **infallibly declared **that St. Peter didn’t really have a halo?

That would be the same type of error in reasoning.

JPM

 

[thistle]

Hi, Randy.

There can be little doubt that he taught that Mary died.

Or, are you saying that you believe that he erred in his encyclical.

Be clear! What do you believe?

The Church does NOT teach that Mary died before being assumed. You are simply wrong.
We are free to believe she died or not before the Assumption.

Have a look at the attached article from Father William G. Most at EWTN about the Dogma of the Assumption.
In particular read the last paragraph.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya5.htm

 

[NotWorthy]

RESPONSE:

No. I was surprised by the claim that Catholics were “allowed” to believe something. I thought that we were taught what we were to believe. That only works, by the way, if you believe that the person telling you knows what he is talking about. Or that he has some self-proclaimed “authority” no doubt from the Holy Spirit.

Not self-proclaimed “authority”, divinely inspired and scripturally supported “authority”!

But the Catholic teaching is not all-encompassing. For instance, what was the scriptural canon? There were varying opinions until the Canon was fixed.

And I’m afraid that if you consult Catholic teaching, you will find that anyone born without “original sin” still possesses his/her “preternatural” gifts among with is freedom from death. In short, they can’t die. Somebody in “authority” thought up that oneup too. You do believe all that, don’t you?

I’m not sure about that. That would mean that Mary entered heaven prior to her death. That’s cool! But I don’t spend too much time chasing that tail.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

RESPONSE:
Where specifically does it say that Mary died?

1. However, since the liturgy of the Church does not engender the Catholic faith, but rather springs from it, in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree, it follows that the holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ’s faithful. They presented it more clearly. They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

The Church does NOT teach that Mary died before being assumed. You are simply wrong.

1. However, since the liturgy of the Church does not engender the Catholic faith, but rather springs from it, in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree, it follows that the holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ’s faithful. They presented it more clearly. They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I believe the distinction that is being drawn between an infallible proclamation/conclusion and personal belief of the Pope. The former is infallible (the doctrine of the assumption) the latter is not (this is why Pope’s have disagreed in many areas when not making an infallible proclamation).

Can you find a Catholic source, scholar or apologist who shares your interpretation of this encylical as standing for the proposition that the “death” of Mary was infallibly determined?

To be clear - I also think it is likely that she “died” - but believe the formal infallible teaching of the Church relates solely to the assumption and not to whether she died or not and this appears to be consistent with apologetic descriptions of, and teachings, of the doctrine of the Church. I understand you appear to disagree.

Blessings,

Brian

I will ask Ratzinger to write the word “infallible” after every word.

Will that persuade you?

I’m sorry to be like this, but most of the Catholics in this website really are thumbing their noses at MD.

So, in other threads, do not thumb your noses at me when I ascribe to a non-literal interp of Genesis 1 to Genesis 3.

 

[thistle]

1. However, since the liturgy of the Church does not engender the Catholic faith, but rather springs from it, in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree, it follows that the holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ’s faithful. They presented it more clearly. They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.

You are wrong!
I refer again to my post #49. Para 20 is not an infallible declaration.
In the document MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS the infallible declaration is para 44 and not anything in the preamble that came before it. Why can’t you understand that?

I also refer you to the ewtn link in my post #68. I’ll give it again below. Please carefully read the last paragraph.
EWTN is the global Catholic tv channel and the article is broadcast by a priest on EWTN.
Are you seriously suggesting a priest would be permitted to broadcast something heretical?

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya5.htm

 

[JP_Marat]

Not self-proclaimed “authority”, divinely inspired and scripturally supported “authority”!

But the Catholic teaching is not all-encompassing. For instance, what was the scriptural canon? There were varying opinions until the Canon was fixed.

I’m not sure about that. That would mean that Mary entered heaven prior to her death. That’s cool! But I don’t spend too much time chasing that tail.

RESPONSE:

Not self-proclaimed “authority”, divinely inspired and scripturally supported “authority”! :<<

If you believe that then they do have “authority” over you. That’s the way it works.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

You are wrong!
I refer again to my post #49. Para 20 is not an infallible declaration.
In the document MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS the infallible declaration is para 44 and not anything in the preamble that came before it. Why can’t you understand that?

Even if we throw out everything but the bold-faced words of MD as the infallibly declared portion, tell me, what did Pius XII mean by the words set forth in blue…

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.

Answer: He meant the words set forth in red, did he not?

They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ

I.e., by ignoring the context, aren’t you really doing PRECISELY that which Pius XII expressly declared to be grounds for somebody being non-Catholic?..

45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

I.e., by declaring that Mary didn’t “die,” you are making yourself a non-Catholic.

 

[thistle]

Even if we throw out everything but the bold-faced words of MD as the infallibly declared portion, tell me, what did Pius XII mean by the words set forth in blue…

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.

Answer: He meant the words set forth in red, did he not?

They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ

I.e., by ignoring the context, aren’t you really doing PRECISELY that which Pius XII expressly declared to be grounds for somebody being non-Catholic?..

45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

I.e., by declaring that Mary didn’t “die,” you are making yourself a non-Catholic./

Not sure why I can’t see your comments in the quote box. Anyway that doesn’t matter. I must have pressed something in error.

First, you can’t make yourself a non-Catholic. Don’t be ridiculous!

Second, “having completed the course of her earthly life” were words carefully chosen by the Pope leaving it open as to whether Mary died before Assumption or did not die before Assumption.

That is also explained in the last para of the article I linked for you which you seem to be totally ignoring because it backs up my claim and shoots down yours. What is your comment on the article by the priest broadcasting from the global Catholic tv channel??

I repeat what other posters and I have said and that is MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS defined the Dogma of the Assumption and NOT whether Mary died first or not.

I also repeat that I happen to think Mary did die first but I am not obliged to believe that.

As for para 45 that applies to anyone refusing to believe in the Assumption of Mary and not if she died first or not.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

First, you can’t make yourself a non-Catholic. Don’t be ridiculous!

Sure you can! Read MD: “Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”

There you go!

Second, “having completed the course of her earthly life” were words carefully chosen by the Pope leaving it open as to whether Mary died before Assumption or did not die before Assumption.

Prove it.

You can’t.

Aren’t we morally required to believe that a pope expressly declaring dogma in an infallible fashion SAYS he means IN THE SAME DOCUMENT?

If not, why do any of his words mean anything specific at all? Why is the prior discussion there? Is it meaningless gibberish because you WANT it to be meaningless gibberish?

That is also explained in the last para of the article I linked for you which you seem to be totally ignoring because it backs up my claim and shoots down yours. What is your comment on the article by the priest broadcasting from the global Catholic tv channel??

The Catholic Church is JAMMED with people who ignore MD.

As for para 45 that applies to anyone refusing to believe in the Assumption of Mary and not if she died first or not.

You’re fooling yourself, friend.

 

[NotWorthy]

RESPONSE:

Not self-proclaimed “authority”, divinely inspired and scripturally supported “authority”! :<<

To love Christ is to love the Bride. To obey the Bride is to obey Christ.

That gives me the greatest freedom in the world! Alleluia!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi, Randy.

There can be little doubt that he taught that Mary died.

Or, are you saying that you believe that he erred in his encyclical.

Be clear! What do you believe?

Peter-

It doesn’t matter to me whether Mary died or not. What is important is that she was Assumed bodily into heaven.

My personal opinion is that she died, and Pius XII’s words seems to provide solid support for this position. However, it also seems curious that the Holy Father chose his words in such a manner as to leave the question of her death open to speculation. If the Church has clarified this somewhere, please let me know.

Of course, if the entire document is infallible, then the matter is settled. On the other hand, if only the sentence in question is infallible, then the matter is not settled. He wrote:

1. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; 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.

Why didn’t the Holy Father simply say, “having died”?