T
twinc
Guest
The question is did Mary die ? - twinc
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
My thoughts are “probably”.The question is did Mary die ? - twinc
But what does that have to do with the title of the thread?
E
Eileen_T
Guest
I don’t think that has ever been questioned by the Church. From what I recall, when she died her soul was reunited to her body which was then “assumed” into Heaven.The question is did Mary die ? - twinc
B
bethndanny
Guest
My understanding is that the Church has not said with certainty that she died or that she did not die. catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
N
NotWorthy
Guest
This is correct. She either was assumed into heaven prior to death or assumed following her death and before her body could deteriorate.My understanding is that the Church has not said with certainty that she died or that she did not die. catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
J
JP_Marat
Guest
The Assumption of Mary into Heaven
by Father William G. Most
Evidence for the Assumption
“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.”
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya5.htm
Catholic Encyclopedia - Assumption
"The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the **apocryphal treatise **De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, **falsely ascribed **to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a **spurious letter **attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem: "
“Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he **knew nothing **definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11).”
newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm
Summary: A legend started in the fourth or fifth century which became popular in the seventh century. The Church historiam, Epiphanius knew nothing about it in the early fifth century.
Later on it became a “pious belief” and in 1950 an “infallible” dogma.
JPM
by Father William G. Most
Evidence for the Assumption
“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.”
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya5.htm
Catholic Encyclopedia - Assumption
"The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the **apocryphal treatise **De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, **falsely ascribed **to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a **spurious letter **attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem: "
“Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he **knew nothing **definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11).”
newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm
Summary: A legend started in the fourth or fifth century which became popular in the seventh century. The Church historiam, Epiphanius knew nothing about it in the early fifth century.
Later on it became a “pious belief” and in 1950 an “infallible” dogma.
JPM
L
Lutheranteach
Guest
The protestant point of view. Yep. Died like everyone else has and will and returned to the dust.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Please re-state this. Ephiphanius said he knew nothing “definite” about it. That’s a far different claim then knowing “nothing about it”.Summary: A legend started in the fourth or fifth century which became popular in the seventh century. The Church historiam, Epiphanius knew nothing about it in the early fifth century.
Which the Church has the divine authority to do. I’ve got no problem with the last statement.Later on it became a “pious belief” and in 1950 an “infallible” dogma.
JPM
But, I’ve got a problem with your implication that “Apochryphal” means its not true or that its spurious. There’s a huge difference in the two. Apochryphal (with means “revealing” doesn’t it?) can be completely true. It just means its not divinely inspired Scripture.
I also have a problem with someone claiming to be Catholic, knowing that it mistakenly leads others to think he’s a part of the Catholic Church.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
While I hold that this is the common Protestant belief today, I do find it interesting that the original Protestants believed that Mary was Assumed Bodily into heaven.The protestant point of view. Yep. Died like everyone else has and will and returned to the dust.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Yes.The question is did Mary die ? - twinc
All of the Eastern Churches, including those in communion with Rome, make it clear that Our Lady did die. The Icon of the Dormition of the Theotokos, showing the Savior receiving His Mother’s soul into His arms, illustrates this truth.
Furthermore, in the Roman office for the feast promulgated in 1950 when Pius XII dogmatized the Assumption, the fifth Matins lesson, quoting St. John of Damascus, says “But she yielded obedience to the law established by him to whom she had given birth, and, as the daughter of the old Adam, underwent the old sentence, which even her Son, who is the very Life Itself, had not refused.” [That is, physical death, the separation of the soul from the body.] Lex orandi, lex credendi. If it’s in the liturgical formularies of the Church, it’s the teaching of the church.
Finally, in a teaching about this subject. beloved John Paul the Great said that the idea that the Theotokos had not died was never heard of until the 17th century. He quoted St. Alphonsus, saying that the Virgin yielded her soul into the arms of her Son and God not because of physical illness or infirmities of age, but in a transport of love in her eagerness to be united with Him.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The Church does not specify this, but the general thinking seems to be that she did.The question is did Mary die ? - twinc
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Oh, my Heavens! This again!The question is did Mary die ? - twinc
The 1950 Encyclical on the Assumption says that Mary died. Many here choose to ignore the Encyclical (and then they call me a “heretic” on another Mary issue).
E
Eucharisted
Guest
The Apostolic Constitution MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS dose mention Mary died.
T
thistle
Guest
She probably did but it is irrelevant.The question is did Mary die ? - twinc
Her Assumption is the important thing and not whether she died first or was assumed before death.
R
Robbinson
Guest
Was assumed bodily - that is the infallible teaching of the Church. Whether this happened before or after death is not infallibly defined.
Blessings,
Brian
Blessings,
Brian
J
JP_Marat
Guest
RESPONSE:The protestant point of view. Yep. Died like everyone else has and will and returned to the dust.
Yep. It happens to everyone, legends not withstanding.
R
Robbinson
Guest
That’s an interesting response. What about Melchezedik (no record of death), Enoch (walked with God - no record of death) and Elijah (carried up in a chariot of fire - no record of death?).RESPONSE:
Yep. It happens to everyone, legends not withstanding.
As to Mary - its not stated or defined by Church doctrine - so not sure of your certainty on that either - but happy to understand more your thinking.
Blessings,
Brian
J
JP_Marat
Guest
RESPONSE:Please re-state this. Ephiphanius said he knew nothing “definite” about it. That’s a far different claim then knowing “nothing about it”.
Which the Church has the divine authority to do. I’ve got no problem with the last statement.
But, I’ve got a problem with your implication that “Apochryphal” means its not true or that its spurious. There’s a huge difference in the two. Apochryphal (with means “revealing” doesn’t it?) can be completely true. It just means its not divinely inspired Scripture.
I also have a problem with someone claiming to be Catholic, knowing that it mistakenly leads others to think he’s a part of the Catholic Church.
If you check the Ephiphanius reference the Catholic Encyclopedia cites, you will find that Ephiphanius claims he didn’t know what happened to Mary because scripture doesn’t say anything about it. He makes no reference to any Assumption. The CE use of the word “definite” is to soften the blow. He did not say “I don’t knoiw anything about the Assumption.”
What you meant to say is that the Church claims to have divine authority to say whatever it wants.
The writings described also were not written by the persons asribed to them. In short, they are forgeries. Or spurious writings as the CE calls some of them. None existed before the 4th century nor are part of the"deposit of faith" handed down by the apostles as required for any valid papal ex cathedra teaching (See the Decrees of Vatican I, 4th Session)
You need to consult a manual of theology and canon law. Once baptized a Catholic, the person has an indelible character and remains Catholic.
Officially, there is no Catholic requirement to be gullible. But it’s strongly encouraged.
However, increasingly Catholics are beginning to check out the facts. The documents found on the internet are a great help in this. But one has to be willing to honestly face the evidence.
JPM
N
NotWorthy
Guest
It seems that The Church does claim that. I agree. It seems whether the Church is correct in that claim is where we may digress. Its odd that you point out the lack of Scripture as proof of no Assumption, but then ignore the Scripture that gives the Church the divine authority.RESPONSE:
If you check the Ephiphanius reference the Catholic Encyclopedia cites, you will find that Ephiphanous claims he didn’t know what happened to her because scripture doesn’t say anything about it. He makes no reference to any Assumption. The CE use of the word “definite” is to soften the blow. He did not say “I don’t knoiw anything about the Assumption.”
What you meant to say is that the Church claims to have divine authority to say whatever it wants.
No. That was not uncommon in those times. It didn’t make something false or spurious.The writings described also were not written by the names asribed to them. In short, they are forgeries. Or spurious writings as the CE calls some of them.
I understand and agree. But I don’t see any Born and Baptized Catholics who leave the Church and join another Church (for example Baptist) and then continue to resort to Canon Law and claim they are Catholic. Such a person is intentionally misleading others because they know what mistaken perceptions those people will make - “Dude calls himself Catholic, so he must be a Catholic”. You know that people are mistakenly assuming this with you.You need to consult a manual of theology and canon law. Once baptized a Catholic, the person has an indelible character and remains Catholic.
Spoken like a true Ex-Catholic.Officially, there is no Catholic requirement to be gullible. But it’s strongly encouraged.
However, increasingly Catholics are beginning to check out the facts. The documents found on the internet are a great help in this. But one has to be willing to honestly face the evidence.
JPM
J
JP_Marat
Guest
RESPONSE:Yes.
All of the Eastern Churches, including those in communion with Rome, make it clear that Our Lady did die. The Icon of the Dormition of the Theotokos, showing the Savior receiving His Mother’s soul into His arms, illustrates this truth.
Furthermore, in the Roman office for the feast promulgated in 1950 when Pius XII dogmatized the Assumption, the fifth Matins lesson, quoting St. John of Damascus, says “But she yielded obedience to the law established by him to whom she had given birth, and, as the daughter of the old Adam, underwent the old sentence, which even her Son, who is the very Life Itself, had not refused.” [That is, physical death, the separation of the soul from the body.] Lex orandi, lex credendi. If it’s in the liturgical formularies of the Church, it’s the teaching of the church.
Finally, in a teaching about this subject. beloved John Paul the Great said that the idea that the Theotokos had not died was never heard of until the 17th century. He quoted St. Alphonsus, saying that the Virgin yielded her soul into the arms of her Son and God not because of physical illness or infirmities of age, but in a transport of love in her eagerness to be united with Him.
These seem to be claims made hundreds of years after the fact. Is there any evidence?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.