P
prodromos
Guest
Which to the best of my knowledge was not even in dispute. I think the Pope simply wanted to exercise his newly minted ‘infallibility’.
- Status
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
I think that would be a gross misreading of the circumstances. Pius did not define it unilaterally by his own initiative. My understanding is that even though there was not a widespread denial of the Assumption, there was apparently a widespread clamor among the faithful at the time for its dogmatization, and it was declared after consulting with the bishops. If anything, it was a case of excessive fondness for “dogmatism” on the part of the Roman Church, but not papal excess. Was it necessary? Probably not. Was it wrong for the Church to do what it did? I don’t think so.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The IC was debated in the Church for centuries, the reformation created a breach in the veneration in the Saints and questioned the elevation of Mary in the order of Grace, thus the reality of the Communion of Saints. The hypostatic union became illusive. If you listen closely to the conversations below, basic Christian doctrine of the Incarnation is not understood. That’s 4th ecumenical council. Listen, below that point we don’t even consider you “Christian” anymore. While they bark out sola scripture verse and tell “us” they don’t believe what we do…“we” agree.
It is the matter of degree of honor given to Mary, as the Mother of the Lord, that Protestant Reformers were concerned with, and apparently some still are, and therefore the practical implications for Mariology are still a matter of debate.
The Church takes the higher road in all these debates. That’s of course less one would like to take the side where your insisting “SHE DIED”: and we know it?
Or when would we like to conclude She was by a singular act of grace preserved?
Lets see, the Incarnation? the Annunciation? sometime slightly before? Or how about the IC is most fitting?
Her death, the “fact” is no one “KNOWS IT”. No one knows when She passed on. They do not know the date nor do they have a witness documented.
They have mystics and visionaries, why would we believe that? Is that part of the deposit of faith? What does the EO say about mystics, visionaries and private revelation? Sounds like a purification fires and toll booth debate to me.
And frankly the Church was pre-occupied with the “Divinity of Jesus Christ”. Its no surprise they remained quiet on this area.
Tradition doesn’t distract or vary from the teaching, it draws you in to the deeper understanding. Less you want to go with “She died and we know it”.
This is the Queen of Heaven we are talking about, the same one who in these “Traditional” hymns we are talking about is above the Seraphim and Cherubim
P
prodromos
Guest
Evidence?
The church knows it. For a time the knowledge was guarded by the church at Jerusalem, but after the request was made for Mary’s relics to be transfered to a church built in her honour, the knowledge became widespread. There is one relic, the sash she wore around her waist which she passed on to Thomas. It is the source of innumerable miracles.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Gary, it is not at all clear what you are trying to say. We do know that Mary died. Do you want to say that we cannot know it as a fact simply because Pius XII did not include it in his definition of the Assumption? How can you say that it is a matter of speculation when the saints, the popes (including Pius XII) and the liturgies of the Church all teach it? Where can a denial of the Dormition substantiate itself in the Tradition of the universal Church? Our faith does not wait for the definitions of the pope. If you agree that Mary died why are you causing us all grief for no reason?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Read the history of the Church.
Its apocryphal and Tradition. Its not binding on the faithful. Innumerable miracles which are private revelation?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
You do not know Mary died. You believe She died because you believe Tradition.
Everyone does not believe Mary died, and its not a required belief of the CC. And all those who do not believe She died present a very good case.
What grief? Read the Assumption in Wiki-Pedia. Its a fact many of the faithful do not believe She died and they have the right to believe that. Does that cause you grief? It becomes an understanding of what “death” meant for Mary.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
"Many Catholics also believe that Mary first died before being assumed, but they add that she was miraculously resurrected before being assumed, while others believe she was assumed bodily into Heaven without first passing through death.[29][30] As mentioned earlier, this aspect of the Assumption is not authoritatively defined in Catholic theology, and either understanding may be legitimately held by Catholics.
Eastern Catholics observe the Feast as the Dormition. Many theologians note by way of comparison that in the Catholic Church, the Assumption is dogmatically defined, while in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Dormition is less dogmatically than liturgically and mystically defined.
Such differences spring from a larger pattern in the two traditions, wherein Catholic teachings are often dogmatically and authoritatively defined – in part because of the more centralized structure of the Catholic Church– while in Eastern Orthodoxy, many doctrines are less authoritative"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary
There have been canon lawyers here and well learned Catholics who do not believe Mary died and they have that right. I can’t see painting a picture that this is not true. And the idea that everyone who actually understands Catholicism should believe She died is not true.
And that is the truth.
Eastern Catholics observe the Feast as the Dormition. Many theologians note by way of comparison that in the Catholic Church, the Assumption is dogmatically defined, while in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Dormition is less dogmatically than liturgically and mystically defined.
Such differences spring from a larger pattern in the two traditions, wherein Catholic teachings are often dogmatically and authoritatively defined – in part because of the more centralized structure of the Catholic Church– while in Eastern Orthodoxy, many doctrines are less authoritative"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary
There have been canon lawyers here and well learned Catholics who do not believe Mary died and they have that right. I can’t see painting a picture that this is not true. And the idea that everyone who actually understands Catholicism should believe She died is not true.
And that is the truth.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
I could have said virtually the same thing about the Assumption prior to Munificentissimus Deus. I believe that Christ rose from the dead because I believe Tradition. The teaching that she did not die is absurd. The only reason to suppose that she did not die is that she was not strictly subject to the penalties of original sin. But she did experience the temporal penalties of original sin, and there’s no reason that she would not die. Why would Mary, the greatest of all Christians, not be conformed to the death of her son?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Could have said what same thing? Christ raising from the dead is a binding teaching, its Gospel not Apocrypha.
Absurd is your “opinion” and its narrow-minded to slight other very good Catholics who obviously disagree with you. And there is no “teaching” that She did not die.
She did not experience sin itself. She was human with a human nature. There was no reason? Really, then by that logic there was no reason She didn’t experience birth pains, no reason She didn’t suffer pain at death.
When you say why would Mary not conform, suggests in itself the argument from Wiki-Pedia that Mary did not “have to” suffer death as a consequence of sin. Thus if She in fact did die it would be to conform as he said “most fitting”.
Why did Mary have to die what consequence of sin was She required to die for?
Absurd is your “opinion” and its narrow-minded to slight other very good Catholics who obviously disagree with you. And there is no “teaching” that She did not die.
She did not experience sin itself. She was human with a human nature. There was no reason? Really, then by that logic there was no reason She didn’t experience birth pains, no reason She didn’t suffer pain at death.
When you say why would Mary not conform, suggests in itself the argument from Wiki-Pedia that Mary did not “have to” suffer death as a consequence of sin. Thus if She in fact did die it would be to conform as he said “most fitting”.
Why did Mary have to die what consequence of sin was She required to die for?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The questions are this…
Did Mary have to die and why?
Why would Mary’s death be anything as we would “think” when She gave painless birth to the Word of God, then remained ever-virgin, no spot or stain, perfectly graced, the New Eve and didn’t suffer the pain of death according to St Maximus.
The problem I see is we are attempting to fit the Mother of God into our narrow definition and understanding of death, instead of thinking in terms of the further progress of divinization.
I can’t understand under these circumstance’s which make claim that Mary was just like us, and died, just like we will. That just doesn’t stand to reason.
Its not a matter that I follow “Tradition” its a matter of better understanding.
If Mary is the New Eve, and Eve only had to die after the disobedience which Mary did not have. How do we quantify this?
To say Tradition said, does not clarify the greater theological issues.
Did Mary have to die and why?
Why would Mary’s death be anything as we would “think” when She gave painless birth to the Word of God, then remained ever-virgin, no spot or stain, perfectly graced, the New Eve and didn’t suffer the pain of death according to St Maximus.
The problem I see is we are attempting to fit the Mother of God into our narrow definition and understanding of death, instead of thinking in terms of the further progress of divinization.
I can’t understand under these circumstance’s which make claim that Mary was just like us, and died, just like we will. That just doesn’t stand to reason.
Its not a matter that I follow “Tradition” its a matter of better understanding.
If Mary is the New Eve, and Eve only had to die after the disobedience which Mary did not have. How do we quantify this?
To say Tradition said, does not clarify the greater theological issues.
P
prodromos
Guest
Did that, but my eyes were glazing over for quite a bit of it and I appear to have missed it. Could you perhaps direct me to some specific areas to narrow the amount of reading I need to do? I find it hard to maintain concentration over large tracts of text.
We seem to have quite different understandings of what Tradition means. For the Orthodox Church, Tradition is an organic whole encompassing the Scriptures, the Liturgy, the councils, the patristic consensus. It is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. As such it is truth and it is, to use your terms, binding on the faithful. Apparently this is not, in your opinion, the case in the Catholic Church.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
You didn’t look very hard for you would have came across Bl Duns Scotus and and on-going debate in the Catholic Church which lasted “centuries”.
No we don’t, are you saying your Tradition of Toll Booths in heaven is infallible? Are you saying private revelation is infallible. What are you saying? Are the Saints infallible? Apocryphal? Private Revelations and visions? Is that your binding truth? And apparently if it is binding to you then its infallible. When did the EO proclaim all this as infallible?
Prove to me its binding, where was it declared at an Ecumenical Council Mary died? And where is this an infallible teaching?
The only thing “binding” on the Catholic Church in regards to the Assumption is “Assumed body and soul into heaven”
P
prodromos
Guest
Thanks! You could have saved my eyes by telling me that in the first place.
You are confusing Holy Tradition with tradition.
Orthodoxy doesn’t work like that, and I can appreciate that it must drive people like you nuts. There doesn’t need to be any council declaration, it is in our Liturgy and our icons. We pray what we believe and we believe what we pray.
Do you know that the feast day was originally named the “Dormition of the Theotokos” in the West?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
“in spite of a statement by Saint Epiphanius of Salamis in AD 377 that no one knew whether Mary had died or not,[7] apocryphal accounts of the assumption of Mary into heaven have circulated since at least the 4th century.” Wiki Pedia
Why don’t you believe the above Saint, or the other Saints as mentioned? Infallible truth? What is the truth, apocryphal accounts?
Why don’t you believe the above Saint, or the other Saints as mentioned? Infallible truth? What is the truth, apocryphal accounts?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I’m not confused at all, in fact I have it well in perspective. You answer, is no answer, for the truth is you do not have one. Unless you want to go with apocryphal accounts. various statements by the various Saints, and various hymns which indicate various understandings.
Which Council did you say?
You are talking about private revelation and Mary’s belt then conclude what?
The bottom line is death obviously is nothing like anyone here living has ever witnessed, according to what in fact we do have to believe.
M
Memaw
Guest
If Adam and Eve had never sinned and lost Sanctifying Grace, they never would have died. And neither would we!.In Pius XII’s dogmatic statement, the phrase “having completed the course of her earthly life,” leaves open the question of whether the Virgin Mary died before her assumption or whether she was assumed before death; both possibilities are allowed. Mary’s assumption is said to have been a divine gift to her as the ‘Mother of God’. Ludwig Ott’s view is that, as Mary completed her life as a shining example to the human race, the perspective of the gift of assumption is offered to the whole human race.[26]
"In Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma he states that “the fact of her death is almost generally accepted by the Fathers and Theologians, and is expressly affirmed in the Liturgy of the Church”, to which he adduces a number of helpful citations, and concludes that “for Mary, death, in consequence of her freedom from original sin and from personal sin, was not a consequence of punishment of sin.[27] However, it seems fitting that Mary’s body, which was by nature mortal, should be, in conformity with that of her Divine Son, subject to the general law of death”.[27]
The point of her bodily death has not been infallibly defined, and many believe that she did not die at all, but was assumed directly into Heaven. The dogmatic definition within the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus which, according to Roman Catholic dogma, infallibly proclaims the doctrine of the Assumption leaves open the question whether, in connection with her departure, Mary underwent bodily death; that is, it does not dogmatically define the point one way or the other, as shown by the words “having completed the course of her earthly life”.[20]" Wiki Pedia
This is my understanding. As to what I believe, the Tradition. Nevertheless I was not there, as far as I see here on earth, all die. As to what God can do? Anything.
But they did sin and they did loose the Gift of Sanctifying Grace and the punishment was death. And so we must die also.
Our Blessed Mother was concieved Immaculate, “Full of Grace”, The second Eve. She never sinned! She was not under the penality of death. The Church has never infallibly stated she died. I believe the moment of her Assumption is sooo sacred, God has not givin us a detailed discription of it. We are not even actually sure there was anyone else there when it took place. I will know for sure when I get there. God Bless, Memaw
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Well, this is the point in understanding I believe we all need to focus, the Incarnation forward is where all the issues reside. For the arguments as I have proposed on the other thread EO and Eastern Rite, still are the same, be it moment of conception, Annunciation or Incarnation forward.
In other words the EO claims the IC makes it that Mary did not have to die. Its the same argument at the Incarnation forward. I fail to see the difference.
Follow my thinking? Watch both threads and read through the other. We are having this same circular argument.
I believe as you, this is a great mystery and surely not a simple human death as we know it. I don’t see where it distracts from Tradition.
I have thought like that before and had this very debate with others who indeed believe She never died. I can’t see how their argument can be easily dismissed.
M
Memaw
Guest
I am 77 years old and a Catholic all my life and I don’t recall ever being taught that Mary died. It has always been “opinions” as to what took place at that monent. God Bless, Memaw.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Well, here again we are talking Tradition as opposed to tradition. One is the deposit of faith the other is not.
- Status