The Assumption!

[Robbinson]

Sure! Pope Pius XII! Read Verse 20 of MD.

Or do you think that Pope Pius XII erred in MD?

And then there was St. John Damascene; St. Francis de Sales; St. Alphonsus Ligouri.

You are opposed to all of these, in addition to being opposed to Pope Pius XII.

Peter - I can’t tell if you are intentionally avoiding this question, so I apologize if I was not clear. I’m not asking whether other early Fathers or others today believe that Mary died (I believe this as well), I’m asking whether you are aware of any other apologist who believes, as you do, that MD should be interpreted as infallibly defining her “death” rather than merely her “assumption”.

Do you see the distinction in that question? I’ve looked and found none - but rather have found numerous apologetic interpretations saying that the assumption is infallibly defined but “not” whether Mary died or not based upon MD.

So the straight forward question is - other than your own opinion - are you aware of other interpretations of MD as having infallibly defined Mary’s death?

Brian

 

[thistle]

I did this for the benefit of Peter Dawson so he may better understand what MD is about.

I wrote to Father Oscar Lukefahr on this topic as I have communicated with him on a number of issues and found him extremely helpful. I came across him through the Catholic Home Study website. If you want his biography check here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Lukefahr

Like me he feels Mary did die but confirms this is not official doctrine.

I quote his reply to me in full (and yes my real name is Jim!):

Jim,
I presume that the reason that **the Church has not made a dogmatic definition of the fact that Mary died **is that there is no reason to do so. The important thing is that Mary was assumed into heaven. Whether she died or not before being assumed into heaven really changes nothing about her eternal destiny. Having said that, I do believe that Mary died.
With regard to Mary’s assumption: As you said, the official doctrine of the Church does not decide the issue of whether Mary died or not. Most theologians today seem to feel that she died, as her son Jesus did. Pope Pius XII, in his apostolic constitution expressing the Church’s teaching on Mary’s assumption, seems to accept the fact of Mary’s death. He quotes Saint John Damascene as an authority: “It was necessary that she (Mary) who had preserved her virginity inviolate in childbirth should also have her body kept free from all corruption after death.” Pope Pius quotes another unnamed early writer as saying that Jesus “raised her from the tomb and took her up to himself in a way he along can tell.” Finally, the pope says that Mary was preserved from the corruption of the tomb and was privileged "like her Son, when death had been conquered, to be carried up body and soul to the exalted glory of heaven, there to sit in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the ages.
The Church does teach as dogma that by the Assumption Mary shares bodily in the Resurrection and experiences complete union with Jesus. I understand the doctrine to mean that Jesus caused her physical body, after death, to be transformed into the spiritual body we will all have in Heaven (see 1 Cor 15:42-44), and to be glorified in the way our bodies will be glorified only at the end of time. Our physical body is subject to corruption, whereas Mary’s physical body was not subject to corruption. Why? Because Mary’s body was the “ark” which bore the body of Jesus for nine months. Because Mary was Jesus’ Mother, and as such, would have been welcomed into Heaven by her Son with all the grace and power Jesus could have shared with His beloved Mother. (Would we do any less for our own mother if we were in Jesus’ place?)
Another way of looking at the Assumption is to compare it with the phenomenon described in 1 Thess 4:16-17. Some teachers and theologians describe Mary’s Assumption in these very terms. They say that Mary has already experienced fully what we will experience fully only at the end of time.
The Assumption seems to have been taken for granted by Catholics as far back as the historical records go. While the Bible carries no description of Mary’s actual Assumption, it does describe Mary, after her Assumption, as exalted in heaven. I am referring to John’s vision in Revelation 12 of the woman “clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” This picture of Mary provides scriptural basis for the belief given to the Church by the Holy Spirit that Mary was assumed into heaven. Scott Hahn, a former anti-Catholic minister who converted to Catholicism in 1986, notes that in the Book of Revelation only Jesus and Mary are described as having bodies now; all the other saints are described as “spirits” or “souls.”
May God bless you and Mary watch over you.
Fr Oscar Lukefahr

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Peter - I can’t tell if you are intentionally avoiding this question, so I apologize if I was not clear. I’m not asking whether other early Fathers or others today believe that Mary died (I believe this as well), I’m asking whether you are aware of any other apologist who believes, as you do, that MD should be interpreted as infallibly defining her “death” rather than merely her “assumption”.

Pope Pius XII, friend. He didn’t include Paragraph 20 to make sure that you DIDN’T believe Paragraph 20.

In fact, most modern Catholics and most modern apologists regularly infer that Paragraph 20 of MD is “error,” and without calling attention to the fact they infer that their teaching is superior to that of Pius XII.

When they claim that Pope Pius XII implicitly “hedged” on the death question, they are, in my view, lying to make theology fit their druthers.

They pound the Catholic drums, and cite passages in Church decrees imposing anathemas – UNTIL The Faith disagrees with them.

And then they say, “Oh, the Pope was hedging.”

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I did this for the benefit of Peter Dawson so he may better understand what MD is about.

I wrote to Father Oscar Lukefahr on this topic as I have communicated with him on a number of issues and found him extremely helpful. I came across him through the Catholic Home Study website. If you want his biography check here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Lukefahr

Like me he feels Mary did die but confirms this is not official doctrine.

I quote his reply to me in full (and yes my real name is Jim!):

Jim,
I presume that the reason that **the Church has not made a dogmatic definition of the fact that Mary died **is that there is no reason to do so. The important thing is that Mary was assumed into heaven. Whether she died or not before being assumed into heaven really changes nothing about her eternal destiny. Having said that, I do believe that Mary died.
With regard to Mary’s assumption: As you said, the official doctrine of the Church does not decide the issue of whether Mary died or not. Most theologians today seem to feel that she died, as her son Jesus did. Pope Pius XII, in his apostolic constitution expressing the Church’s teaching on Mary’s assumption, seems to accept the fact of Mary’s death. He quotes Saint John Damascene as an authority: “It was necessary that she (Mary) who had preserved her virginity inviolate in childbirth should also have her body kept free from all corruption after death.” Pope Pius quotes another unnamed early writer as saying that Jesus “raised her from the tomb and took her up to himself in a way he along can tell.” Finally, the pope says that Mary was preserved from the corruption of the tomb and was privileged "like her Son, when death had been conquered, to be carried up body and soul to the exalted glory of heaven, there to sit in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the ages.
The Church does teach as dogma that by the Assumption Mary shares bodily in the Resurrection and experiences complete union with Jesus. I understand the doctrine to mean that Jesus caused her physical body, after death, to be transformed into the spiritual body we will all have in Heaven (see 1 Cor 15:42-44), and to be glorified in the way our bodies will be glorified only at the end of time. Our physical body is subject to corruption, whereas Mary’s physical body was not subject to corruption. Why? Because Mary’s body was the “ark” which bore the body of Jesus for nine months. Because Mary was Jesus’ Mother, and as such, would have been welcomed into Heaven by her Son with all the grace and power Jesus could have shared with His beloved Mother. (Would we do any less for our own mother if we were in Jesus’ place?)
Another way of looking at the Assumption is to compare it with the phenomenon described in 1 Thess 4:16-17. Some teachers and theologians describe Mary’s Assumption in these very terms. They say that Mary has already experienced fully what we will experience fully only at the end of time.
The Assumption seems to have been taken for granted by Catholics as far back as the historical records go. While the Bible carries no description of Mary’s actual Assumption, it does describe Mary, after her Assumption, as exalted in heaven. I am referring to John’s vision in Revelation 12 of the woman “clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” This picture of Mary provides scriptural basis for the belief given to the Church by the Holy Spirit that Mary was assumed into heaven. Scott Hahn, a former anti-Catholic minister who converted to Catholicism in 1986, notes that in the Book of Revelation only Jesus and Mary are described as having bodies now; all the other saints are described as “spirits” or “souls.”
May God bless you and Mary watch over you.
Fr Oscar Lukefahr

I squarely disagree with Father’s boldfaced assumption on the official doctrine of the Church.

 

[JP_Marat]

Without ascribing to your limitation on the rights of the Magisterium to declare dogma, in fact the Assumption IS, in my opinion, covered in Scipture.

In Revelation 12:14, it is said that the “woman” – Mary’s title in John – was given “the two wings of an eagle.” I believe that this is a reference to the Assumption, using Bible typology.

RESPONSE:

If one has a very fertile imagination one can find a scriptural basis for just about anything one wants to believe.

Yes. There are ridiculous claims that the Assumption is mentioned in scripture.

But if you read MD, Pope Pius XII himself couldn’t, but he did poke some fun at people such as yourself who tried.

"26. Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers, **have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture **to explain their belief in the Assumption. Thus, to mention only a few of the texts rather frequently cited in this fashion, some have employed the words of the psalmist: “Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified.”

If you like, I can cite scripture which “in my opinion” demonstrates that Jesus is flying around the universe in a UFO. I’m sure that the “Magisterium” will recognize my interpretation of scripture some day.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

RESPONSE:

If one has a very fertile imagination one can find a scriptural basis for just about anything one wants to believe.

Yes. There are ridiculous claims that the Assumption is mentioned in scripture.

But if you read MD, Pope Pius XII himself couldn’t, but he did poke some fun at people such as yourself who tried.

"26. Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers, **have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture **to explain their belief in the Assumption. Thus, to mention only a few of the texts rather frequently cited in this fashion, some have employed the words of the psalmist: “Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified.”

If you like, I can cite scripture which “in my opinion” demonstrates that Jesus is flying around the universe in a UFO. I’m sure that the “Magisterium” will recognize my interpretation of scripture some day.

I can do a good job explaining the conclusion. It is the conclusion of one of my published articles.

 

[JP_Marat]

I can do a good job explaining the conclusion. It is the conclusion of one of my published articles.

RESPONSE:

It is not a good thing to disseminate misinformation.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

RESPONSE:

It is not a good thing to disseminate misinformation.

Precisely.

 

[Robbinson]

Pope Pius XII, friend. He didn’t include Paragraph 20 to make sure that you DIDN’T believe Paragraph 20.

In fact, most modern Catholics and most modern apologists regularly infer that Paragraph 20 of MD is “error,” and without calling attention to the fact they infer that their teaching is superior to that of Pius XII.

When they claim that Pope Pius XII implicitly “hedged” on the death question, they are, in my view, lying to make theology fit their druthers.

They pound the Catholic drums, and cite passages in Church decrees imposing anathemas – UNTIL The Faith disagrees with them.

And then they say, “Oh, the Pope was hedging.”

Thanks Peter, for explaining your interpretation. I don’t think ifs fair, or appropriate, however, to suggest that another sincere Catholic (particularly a professional apologist from Catholic Answers or EWTN) is “lying” to support their views. Presumably they are sincerely interpreting the MD as they understand it and I’m not even sure what the “motivation” would be for “lying” as you suggest, as most of these apologists (and most on this thread who have agreed wtih them on the issue of what is infallibly defined in MD) expresss their personal view that they believe Mary died. This is solely a question of what the “infallible proclamation is”.

I guess we can celebrate our mutual belief in the assumption - and mutual belief in the death of Mary before the assumption, and agree to disagree on whether the latter (her death) is an infallible teaching of the Church.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[thistle]

I squarely disagree with Father’s boldfaced assumption on the official doctrine of the Church.

Interesting! So far you know better than all other posters AND the two priests I have quoted to you. Doesn’t that say something about you? These priests know Church doctrine better than you.
Father Lukefahr is in fact a well-known and respected Catholic EDUCATOR. Something you obviously need.
Many in these forums are familiar with him.

I’d like to quote something St John of the Cross said which seems to apply to you:

“Some souls suffer from another kind of spiritual anger. They watch over others with a kind of restless fervour, perpetually annoyed by the transgressions they perceive. The impulse arises to reprove the other souls in an angry way. Sometimes they even indulge this nasty urge,** elevating themselves as masters of virtue**. This is all quite contrary to spiritual meekness.”

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Interesting! So far you know better than all other posters AND the two priests I have quoted to you. Doesn’t that say something about you? These priests know Church doctrine better than you.
Father Lukefahr is in fact a well-known and respected Catholic EDUCATOR. Something you obviously need.
Many in these forums are familiar with him.

I’d like to quote something St John of the Cross said which seems to apply to you:

“Some souls suffer from another kind of spiritual anger. They watch over others with a kind of restless fervour, perpetually annoyed by the transgressions they perceive. The impulse arises to reprove the other souls in an angry way. Sometimes they even indulge this nasty urge,** elevating themselves as masters of virtue**. This is all quite contrary to spiritual meekness.”

Do you think that Thomas More and Bishop Fisher and the one or two other holdouts in the English Reformation were guilty of the same sin? They claimed knowledge superior to all other Englishmen and Bishops! What does that say about them?

Are you sure that these two sentences are about me, and not about someone else you know?: “Some souls suffer from another kind of spiritual anger. They watch over others with a kind of restless fervour, perpetually annoyed by the transgressions they perceive.”

Relax, friend.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You achieve that result by combining two verses, one that says that he “died,” Genesis 9:29; and the other that says of him, like it says of Enoch, that he “halak’d,” “walked with God,” Genesis 6:9.

Enoch did not die; God took him.
Elijah did not die; he caught a chariot into heaven.
Moses died; he was buried but may have been assumed like Mary.

“Walked with God” means that they were close to God; this does not mean that they were assumed into heaven.

Noah? I don’t think so.

 

[Randy_Carson]

RESPONSE

Are you aware that Pope Pius XII’s declaration of the Assumption as dogma **violates **the earlier “infallible” teaching of Vatican I (1866) that the pope **could not pronounce “new” dogma **anything not found in scripture or transmitted by the apostles, ie. the "deposit of faith."

I’m with Peter Dawson on this one. Here’s why:

The Bereans and the Virgin Mary

When Paul preached the gospel to the Bereans, scripture records that “the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). It can be argued that the Bereans did not practice sola scriptura as did the Thessalonians who actually rejected the gospel, but for the purposes of this discussion, the point will be conceded.

The Bereans searched the scriptures, but they would have searched forever without finding the name of Jesus of Nazareth connected in any way with the messiah whose advent was foretold in the Old Testament prophecies. In order to help the Bereans understand his gospel message, Paul referenced and interpreted the Old Testament passages which supported his teaching and made the necessary connection between the prophecies and the actual events in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul’s authoritative interpretation of the scriptures was required in order for the Bereans to correctly understand that Jesus was the messiah foretold in the Old Testament.

In light of this, is it really so different when the Catholic Church authoritatively teaches that Mary was assumed into heaven or that she is the Queen of Heaven? Like the Bereans, we can search in vain for explicit references to these things, and yet the Church, by virtue of its Apostolic Authority, has infallibly defined the doctrine of the Assumption by interpreting scripture. The verse, of course, is Revelation 12:1 which reads: “A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.” Here, the Church finds a clear reference to Mary, her bodily Assumption and her position as Queen of Heaven.

It is the authoritative Apostolic interpretation of the Catholic Church which helps us to see the truths in scripture that we, like the Bereans, may not find if left to our own devices.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Pope Pius XII, friend. He didn’t include Paragraph 20 to make sure that you DIDN’T believe Paragraph 20.

In fact, most modern Catholics and most modern apologists regularly infer that Paragraph 20 of MD is “error,” and without calling attention to the fact they infer that their teaching is superior to that of Pius XII.

When they claim that Pope Pius XII implicitly “hedged” on the death question, they are, in my view, lying to make theology fit their druthers.

They pound the Catholic drums, and cite passages in Church decrees imposing anathemas – UNTIL The Faith disagrees with them.

And then they say, “Oh, the Pope was hedging.”

I’ve read a fair number of Catholic Apologetics books and articles, and I can’t recall reading a single passage in which a Catholic Apologist cites MD 20 as proof that Mary died.

So far, you apparently can’t recall any, either.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I can do a good job explaining the conclusion. It is the conclusion of one of my published articles.

Where were these published? A quick Google turned up nothing…unless your name isn’t really Peter Dawson…

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Enoch did not die; God took him.
Elijah did not die; he caught a chariot into heaven.
Moses died; he was buried but may have been assumed like Mary.

“Walked with God” means that they were close to God; this does not mean that they were assumed into heaven.

Noah? I don’t think so.

If “halak” means only that Enoch was close to God, why do you say that he didn’t die?

“Walk with God” means that he was assumed. Because he sure ain’t here.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Where were these published? A quick Google turned up nothing…unless your name isn’t really Peter Dawson…

Hi, Randy.

Sorry. That’s my real name.

Alas, even the web forgets. All that’s left in Google is a reference to an article on contraception, here…

google.com/search?q=%22Peter+J.+Dawson%22+%22The+Catholic+Answer%22&hl=en&sa=2

The Assumption article was also published in another issue of that magazine, The Catholic Answer, July/August 2000.

 

[thistle]

Do you think that Thomas More and Bishop Fisher and the one or two other holdouts in the English Reformation were guilty of the same sin? They claimed knowledge superior to all other Englishmen and Bishops! What does that say about them?

Are you sure that these two sentences are about me, and not about someone else you know?: “Some souls suffer from another kind of spiritual anger. They watch over others with a kind of restless fervour, perpetually annoyed by the transgressions they perceive.”

Relax, friend.

It applies to whoever is trying to push down our throats the mistaken claim that it is Church doctrine that Mary died before her Assumption. Read through the thread and decide who that is.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If “halak” means only that Enoch was close to God, why do you say that he didn’t die?

“Walk with God” means that he was assumed. Because he sure ain’t here.

Not at all.

Genesis 5:24 (New International Version)
Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away

Enoch was close to God in this life, and then he “was no more” because God took him.

God assumed Enoch into heaven before he died because Enoch had walked with God.

Your interpretation would read as follows:

Genesis 5:24 (Peter Dawson Version)
Enoch was assumed; then he was no more, because God took him away

Kinda redundant, don’t you think?

 

[adrift]

Evidence for the Assumption by Father William G. Most

“There had been a problem of how the Pope could define the Assumption. There seemed to be nothing in Scripture on it, and what things there were in the Tradition of the Fathers seemed to come not from an apostolic origin, but from some apocryphal stories that circulated chiefly beginning in the fourth century.”

This misrepresents what Father Most article is.
Also from the article

Pius XII next said he had asked the opinions of all the Bishops of the world on the Assumption. Their response was almost unanimous in the affirmative. The universal teaching of the authorities of the Church by itself, he tells us, **gives us a proof **(Cf. Lumen gentium ## 25 and 12).He next reviewed some of the outstanding statements of Tradition throughout all the centuries. This teaching is found at a very early date in the liturgical books.

This part is relevant to the discussion

Pius XII carefully refrained from saying in his own words at any point that she died. Some, even a few of the Fathers, had denied that she ever died, basing this on the fact that death was the result of original sin, which she lacked. However, because as Pius XII also said, she was “always sharing His lot,” for this reason, likeness to Him, it seems much more probable that she did die.