The Dormition of the Virgin

[theistgal]

Morning sister, so what do you say when people ask you how was Mary free of all sin if Her Son had yet to die on the Cross for all mans sin? Let me ask a thinker as yourself, isn’t this the same as the difference between the IC and Incarnation? Same argument no?

Well, no one has ever asked me “how was Mary free of all sin if Her Son had yet to die on the Cross for all mans sin?”

If they did, I would probably say, “What?”

 

[twf]

Well I think the issue occurs when theologies are mixed: if one considers the Byzantine concept of Ancestral Sin’s effects that result in bodily death and the Latin notion of Original Sin together then one must assume that Mary had Original Sin if she died, but since Latins claim Immaculate Conception then she must’ve never died since she did not have the cause of bodily death.

Not that my theological opinion was asked, but from a Syriac perspective if Mary was IC’d or not she would’ve died because mortality is inherent to physical flesh even if Adam hadn’t sinned. Adam’s expulsion was a mercy to prevent him from eating from the Tree of Life after transgressing God which would’ve led him to lead a life of eternal condemnation. When Christ came, He brought remission of condemnation and the Fruit of Life. Mary died physically because that is a quality of human flesh but did not/will not suffer the second death, which is what’s really consequential - believing in her not-death is a theologoumenon which I’m not particularly interested in.

Yet, as I have maintained throughout this thread, it IS the consistent teaching of the Latin Church that the Mother of God did indeed die in order to share in the resurrection of Her Son. There is no conflict here. The idea that the Mother of God did not die is a novel innovation that some of my Latin brothers and sisters have entertained. Pope Pius clearly taught Her death as other posters have demonstrated on this thread. How my brothers and sisters can read the dogmatic decree on Her assumption yet ignore the rest of the text of the late Holy Father’s encyclical is a mystery to me. My point throughout this thread has been simple: we are not bound by defined dogmas alone but also by the ordinary magisterium - that which the bishops and popes have consitently taught down through the centuries. Earlier I pointed out that there is no dogmatic decree condemning birth control - one poster jumped to assume that I was thus suggesting that the intrinsic immorality of birth control is up for grabs. Not at all! This was my point…there is no dogmatic decree, yet it is certain that birth control is immoral as this has been consistently taught by the Church down through the centuries. Women’s ordination comes to mind as well. Blessed John Paul reiterated what the Church has always taught but he did not formulate a new dogmatic decree. There is no dogma that defines that women cannot be ordained, yet we are certain that they cannot as this is what the Church has always taught. I believe this is also true of the Dormition of our Blessed Mother.

 

[GaryTaylor]

it IS the consistent teaching of the Latin Church that the Mother of God did indeed die in order to share in the resurrection of Her Son. There is no conflict here. The idea that the Mother of God did not die is a novel innovation that some of my Latin brothers and sisters have entertained. Pope Pius clearly taught Her death as other posters have demonstrated on this thread. How my brothers and sisters can read the dogmatic decree on Her assumption yet ignore the rest of the text of the late Holy Father’s encyclical is a mystery to me. My point throughout this thread has been simple: we are not bound by defined dogmas alone but also by the ordinary magisterium - that which the bishops and popes have consitently taught down through the centuries. .

Your conversation is circular.

We are on this point on this thread. Elijah and Enoch did not die, Therefore everyone does not have to die. Nor is mortality always corruptible. Thus Mary did not have to die.

Why is it you have no answer here?

The point I am debating is Mary did not have.to die. Your later tradition isn’t proof Mary had to die, understand that clearly. Nor does all that circular distraction do anything but avoid the point.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well I think the issue occurs when theologies are mixed: if one considers the Byzantine concept of Ancestral Sin’s effects that result in bodily death and the Latin notion of Original Sin together then one must assume that Mary had Original Sin if she died, but since Latins claim Immaculate Conception then she must’ve never died since she did not have the cause of bodily death.

Not that my theological opinion was asked, but from a Syriac perspective if Mary was IC’d or not she would’ve died because mortality is inherent to physical flesh even if Adam hadn’t sinned. Adam’s expulsion was a mercy to prevent him from eating from the Tree of Life after transgressing God which would’ve led him to lead a life of eternal condemnation. When Christ came, He brought remission of condemnation and the Fruit of Life. Mary died physically because that is a quality of human flesh but did not/will not suffer the second death, which is what’s really consequential - believing in her not-death is a theologoumenon which I’m not particularly interested in.

One point there is no need to address the rest, you said;" Mary died physically because that is a quality of human flesh"

Are you saying you have a different theology of Christology. Did Enoch and Elijah die in yours and where is this theology documented. Otherwise I don’t see your logic.

Everyone didn’t die in the Bible who has human flesh, thus you cannot conclude everyone has to die. Mary did not have to die.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, no one has ever asked me :

I did, what isn’t an answer, would you like me to rephrase the question or do actually have an answer or is “what” the answer?

“how was Mary free of all sin if Her Son had yet to die on the Cross for all mans sin?”

Not clear? Mary was sanctified of Ancestral sin from your view at the Incarnation? Why did Christ have to die on the Cross for Her if She was already cleansed of Ancestral Sin?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Your Dormition is very beautiful. But that’s not what the conversation is at this point, it is the theology of Christology now.

That is unless everyone conceded Mary did not have to die.

The first death is followed by the second, both are contingent on Gods grace, and both are redeemed by Christ, but the human corruptibility was not redeemed, thus it is most fitting Mary did die, but She did not have to die. Nor did a few of His prophets die[before the Cross, which they too may have chose death had they been at a later time]. Thus it is not the body but the corruptibility of the body which is the burden to the soul. There is no other place to go, unless I am missing something, and that could well be. Yet when we speak of corruptibility we see a clearer picture here of God and His holy family and possibility.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So let me ask?

the consequences of sin are 1) estrangement from God and 2) death. Since Mary was conceived without sin, she was free of 1), but because she was the obedient handmaid of the Lord and thus wanted to give us all an example of how to follow Him, she, like Jesus, accepted death.

If the consequences of sin are

1. estrangement from God and
2. death

OK? so, since Mary was conceived without “the consequence [my addition]” of sin, she was free of

1. estrangement from God and
2. death

but because she was the obedient handmaid of the Lord and thus wanted to give us all an example of how to follow Him, she, like Jesus, accepted death.

Just like Her Son.

S0oooooo…

Jesus assumes a human flesh-no sin

Mary-no sin.

Jesus dies on the Cross defeats death of the flesh, resurrected, and opens Heaven, death of the soul.

Heaven wasn’t open till Jesus resurrection, but death was defeated, and She had no stain of original sin and no sin, ever virgin.

And we all agree with the EO “no-guilt” we are only responsible for our “OWN” sins?

I don’t see any answers anywhere. You can’t circumvent the Bible with what you think occurred in a tradition but cannot prove. I’m not attacking your tradition, you don’t have to defend it. I’m saying it was most fitting Mary did die. It is not a fact she had to die.

I’m talking about the theology of Christology.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yet, as I have maintained throughout this thread, .

Is it most fitting Mary dies or did She have to die? That’s the question?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The final meaning of death is separation from God. Mortal, it means death. Mortal sins are deadly sins because they suppress and finally reject supernatural life, thus grace. We are talking, and by the Greek language. perfectly graced from my understanding.

So then we are talking mortal/corruptible and incorruptible/immortal, they are synonymous. Thus it is not the body but the corruptibility of the body which is the burden to the soul.

 

[GaryTaylor]

There seems to be confusion that we do not have to comply with the pope unless he speaks infallibly. This is not the argument since we are not talking about distracting from the tradition, we are talking about clarification of the tradition.

We are talking about the point which preceded the tradition (the Pope never said Mary had to die, obviously). Thus the sequence of events which finally led to the assumption of Mary’s body and soul into heaven/tradition.

The assumption/dormition is a body which was transformed from corruptible to incorruptible and from mortal to immortal.

The underlying premise to all of this is Gods powers are not limited to the physical understanding of mortality.

 

[MorEphrem]

One point there is no need to address the rest, you said;" Mary died physically because that is a quality of human flesh"

Are you saying you have a different theology of Christology. Did Enoch and Elijah die in yours and where is this theology documented. Otherwise I don’t see your logic.

Everyone didn’t die in the Bible who has human flesh, thus you cannot conclude everyone has to die. Mary did not have to die.

Perhaps it has been lost in Western Christianity, but in the East it is known everyone mortal will die physically. Even in Judaism it is still maintained that Elijah must return to die before the end of the world.

As for Enoch, he was taken without experiencing death, i.e. the righteous that pleased God were spared from the corruption of death that those who did not receive the promise experienced: that is were trapped in Sheol. However, his body did indeed die. Every mortal body must die.

Anyway, it is not “my” theology or Christology, it is the theology of the Syriac Fathers. I know I advertise this a lot on this forum, but if you’re interested in the Syriac perspective of mortality and the effects of the Fall, I suggest you read Mor Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis (there’s a PDF online - he is a doctor of the Universal Church so make sure not to dismiss what he says).

 

[spina1953]

I would like to put my two cents worth in. I do not know if Mary had to die or not. Christ became man to redeem mankind from its sins steming from Adam & Eve as God promised. Jesus rose from the dead because He is the Son of God, so it was in His power to do so, without Jesus’ resurrection, our faith would be useless. Now for our Blessed Mother, God could do what He wanted to, so if He decided to assume her Body and soul before she died He can do that. If God choose instead to assume her Body and soul after she died He could do that also. Nothing is impossible with God. So far as I know and understand, the tradtion that Mary died is something that became known about the 4th century AD in the East. For me whether Mary died or did not die is not important, what is important is that God choose to assume her body and soul into heaven; a very great honor that has so far as I know not been accorded to anyone else. As for her sinlessness, God made her the Mother of Jesus the Son of God and son of man, having two natures. Jesus was born without sin but took on human flesh. I think that God can by the Holy Spirit that overcame her could make her sinless that to me is not impossible for God to do. Any way one looks at it it is and will be a mystery.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Perhaps it has been lost in Western Christianity, but in the East it is known everyone mortal will die physically. Even in Judaism it is still maintained that Elijah must return to die before the end of the world.

There is no such thing as death. You contradict the very principle you believe in with a resurrected “body and soul”, There is no death. Perhaps its a new story with spin.

The event of Elijah’s death is not documented anywhere, very much the opposite. Sounds like another invented story after 300-AD.

As for Enoch, he was taken without experiencing death, i.e. the righteous that pleased God were spared from the corruption of death that those who did not receive the promise experienced: that is were trapped in Sheol. However, his body did indeed die. Every mortal body must die…

New Testament[edit]

The New Testament contains three references to Enoch.
The first is a brief mention in one of the genealogies of the ancestors of Jesus by Luke (Luke 3:37).
The second mention is in Hebrews 11: 5 (KJV) it says “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” suggesting he did not experience the mortal death ascribed to Adam’s other descendants and that he is still alive to this very day.
The third mention is in the Epistle of Jude (1:14-15) where the author attributes to “Enoch, the Seventh from Adam” a passage unknown in the Old Testament. The quotation is believed by most modern scholars to be taken from 1 Enoch 1:9 which exists in Greek, in Ethiopic, as part of the Ethiopian Orthodox canon, and also in Aramaic among the Dead Sea Scrolls.[7][8] Though the same scholars recognise that 1 Enoch 1:9 itself is a midrash of the words of Moses “he came from the ten thousands of holy ones” from Deuteronomy 33:2.[9][10][11][12][13] The introductory phrase “Enoch, the Seventh from Adam” is also found in 1 Enoch (1 En. 60:8), though not in the Old Testament.[14] In the New Testament this Enoch prophesies “to”[15] ungodly men, that God shall come with His holy ones to judge and convict them (Jude 1:14-15).[16]

No, jewish and christian traditions both hold that Enoch did not die which only proves my point. Look at the book of Hebrews. Hbr 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death;

Septuagint

The third-century translators who produced the Greek Septuagint rendered the phrase “God took him” with the Greek verb metatithemi (μετατίθημι)[5] meaning moving from one place to another.[6] The apocryphal Sirach 44:16, from about the same period, states that “Enoch pleased God and was translated into paradise that he may give repentance to the nations.” The Greek word used here for paradise, ‘paradeisos’ (παραδεισος), was derived from an ancient Persian word meaning “enclosed garden”,[citation needed] and was used in the Septuagint to describe the Garden of Eden. Later, however, the term became synonymous for heaven, as is the case here.[citation needed Wiki Pedia

Anyway, it is not “my” theology or Christology, it is the theology of the Syriac Fathers.

Post 300-AD as I said, that’s when he lived. . Earliest accounts. no one knows what occurred with Mary. That’s the fact.

And the fact is not everyone died in the Bible nor did they have to.

Earliest accounts do not exist pre-300 AD in fact they admit they do not know what occurred with Mary.

God can do anything, the mere statement that everyone must die contradicts the obvious.

Source? Where are the sources for your claims? You have none.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

QNDNNDQDCE-Lets be clear…I never said Mary could not have suffered death. In fact that is not what Michelle Arnold stated either. The conclusion from my finite comprehension is Mary did not “have to” die, She chose to die as it was most fitting. And I do agree.

If your stating she had to die, then please explain.

You can start with Death is the Consequence of Sin. That was defeated at the Cross, and as we see Mary had no-sin.

Suffering is a consequence of sin but it as not as if Mary was free from all suffering (e.g. Luke 2:35). It is not a denial of her immaculate conception to say that she died, not that tou said it was.

The question of whether she had to die requires clarification. Did Christ have to die on the Cross. No, in certain respects, but yes in other respects. Mary may not have had to die in an absolute sense, but she did have to die to be conformed to the image of her son.

As for your criticism of the historical record, the witness of the Church is clearer and more consistent regarding her Dormition than it is regarding her Immaculate Conception.

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

 

[GaryTaylor]

Suffering is a consequence of sin but it as not as if Mary was free from all suffering (e.g. Luke 2:35). It is not a denial of her immaculate conception to say that she died, not that tou said it was.

I’m confident I reduced this Death-mortal/Life-immortal, Corruptibility/Un-corruptibility, thus Gods Grace. As far as denial that She died it seems to me the jury is still out. When we have Jerome and other Saints accounting for giants mating with humans I’m only further convinced everyone agree’d…God can do “anything”…Grace=life!

Funny though the suffering is a consequence aspect, now that sounds more Western, I am definitely confused.

The question of whether she had to die requires clarification. .

It sure does, and from those who are actually convinced of this questionable concocted reality.

Did Christ have to die on the Cross. No, in certain respects, but yes in other respects. .

God didn’t “have to” do anything! See how that foreign language continues to come around. Its a new animal I never heard that love story.

Mary may not have had to die in an absolute sense, but she did have to die to be conformed to the image of her son.

I think its time we admit we don’t know, as the earliest accounts testify and continue to pray for intercession.

As for your criticism of the historical record, the witness of the Church is clearer and more consistent regarding her Dormition than it is regarding her Immaculate Conception.

I don’t have any criticism, I have my honest evaluation, and I agree with the Church “assumed body and soul” and clearly by now we know why they did exactly that.

More consistent what? Attempt to understand Gods Grace? I don’t think any collective effort by accident ever occurred in church history that tops the debates and arguments and contemplation that went into the Immaculate Conception, you see from the conversation its rock solid. In fact its claimed dogmatically…“most fitting”. Mary had to die…is not!

 

[MorEphrem]

GaryTaylor, I was simply having a nice discussion. You should work on your aggression, it’s very rude. I could provide sources but you seem to be only interested in championing your own ideas and not speaking with charity - I tried to explain myself but you’re very quick to dismiss.

Good bye, I’m refraining from this tired thread.

 

[patrick457]

1. 
   
   Just my two cents.
   
   First I’d like to remind people (particularly Western Christians here) that there is some difference in how the East and West views Tradition.
   
   In the West we have this idea of Sacred Tradition (or rather, our understanding of it) being something that could deepen and develop over time, while remaining identical in essence and substance (the ol’ ‘seed growing into a tree’ analogy). Plus we Latins tend to get caught up in trying to neatly distinguish between ‘big-T’ Tradition and ‘small-t’ traditions. (Partly because anti-Catgholics can’t seem to differentiate between the two.)
   
   From what I’ve observed of Eastern Christians, however, they usually tend to be less nitpicky than we legalistic Latins about whether something is big-T or small-t. Tradition is tradition: it doesn’t matter much whether it is a fundamental doctrine or a popular belief - tradition is something to be preserved at all costs. Plus (at least in Orthodoxy) Holy Tradition isn’t really viewed as something that ‘develops’: instead the idea is that Paradosis (the Greek term) had been and should be handed down ‘as it is’ through the ages without any ‘change’ whatsoever. (At worst, what we Latins call ‘development in our understanding of doctrine’ might for some Easterners be ‘radical innovation’.)
   
   (Of course this is just how I perceive things. I’d appreciate if an actual Easterner could correct me.)
   
   IMHO this is the same thing we have with the Dormition/Assumption. For a Westerner (or for me at least), one could invoke the idea of development along the lines of "well, the idea that Mary died was back then a popular belief, but as our understanding of the dogma deepens other possibilities (say, Mary was assumed alive) could perhaps not be unlikely.’ From an Eastern lens, however, that the Theotokos ‘fell asleep’ and was buried was a consensus and long-standing belief, enshrined in the liturgy, seems to be key. That’s unshakable paradosis, no matter how you try to classify it.
   
   Having come from the ends of the earth at an all-powerful command, the company of the Disciples is gathering to bury the Mother who gave birth to God.
   
   Verse: Arise, Lord, to your rest; you and the Ark of your sanctification.
   
   The Bride of God, the Queen and Virgin, the glory of the elect and pride of Virgins, is passing over to her Son.
   
   Verse: The Lord has sworn truth to David and will not annul it: Of the fruit of your womb I will place on your throne.
   
   The choir of Disciples has been marvellously gathered from the ends of the world to bury your divine and most pure body.
   
   P.S. Let me give an analogy. You know about the story of the leprous King Abgar of Edessa writing a letter to Jesus and how Jesus sends him a reply and a miraculously-formed image of His face? Eusebius, our earliest witness to the story, doesn’t mention the image but focuses only on the letter of Jesus to Abgar. Our earliest surviving source for an image of Jesus being linked to the Abgar story, the Doctrine of Addai, doesn’t say that the image of Jesus was an acheiropoietos (not made with hands) as later belief has it but a portrait painted from life by Abgar’s messenger using “choice paints.” But that wouldn’t stop Eastern Christians from commemorating the feast of the Holy Mandylion ‘not made by human hands’.

 

[GaryTaylor]

GaryTaylor, I was simply having a nice discussion. You should work on your aggression, it’s very rude. I could provide sources but you seem to be only interested in championing your own ideas and not speaking with charity - I tried to explain myself but you’re very quick to dismiss.

Good bye, I’m refraining from this tired thread.

Who were you having this nice discussion with?

You mean…

When you suggest I should read a Saint in regard when I already mentioned there is no history before 300-AD and then you refer me to a Saint who was born after 300-AD in the very next post? What does that have to do with the conversation?

When you suggest “Perhaps it has been lost in Western Christianity,” when the facts are it never existed in Christianity pre 300 being my point repetitively?

When you say even in Judaism it is still maintained that Elijah must return to die before the end of the world. Yet this is simply not true unless you want to quote the Jewish Christian polemical works?

When there are consistent double standards pointed out and it falls on deaf ears regardless?

When we have facts and theory and its suggested the theory 300 years later are the facts?

When we have Daniel walking into the furnace and dancing in the flames, or the lions den, Elijah in Flaming Chariots flying off into eternity alive, the dead raised, Enoch. Abraham, Sampson, Mose’s. Noah building an ark on dry land. the Incarnate Word of God, then we would conclude from the sequence of events God is limited to the narrow confines as suggest here, Jesus had to die and Mary had to die, everyone dies?

When we would say the West developed doctrine, yet I can’t see how this is not developed.

That nice discussion?

Thanks for your kind and charitable articulated response. :thankyou:

Bye Bye

 

[Alfonsus]

As that said, even the Latins can’t dismiss the possibility of Mary did die. We see that it is possible and compatible that Mary is immaculate yet die. The consequence of her immaculate conception is her assumption.

Pope John Paul II said thus (25 June 1997, General Audience):

It is true that in Revelation death is presented as a punishment for sin. However, the fact that the Church proclaims Mary free from original sin by a unique divine privilege does not lead to the conclusion that she also received physical immortality. The Mother is not superior to the Son who underwent death, giving it a new meaning and changing it into a means of salvation. Involved in Christ’s redemptive work and associated in his saving sacrifice, Mary was able to share in his suffering and death for the sake of humanity’s Redemption. What Severus of Antioch says about Christ also applies to her: “Without a preliminary death, how could the Resurrection have taken place?” (Antijulianistica, Beirut 1931, 194f.). To share in Christ’s Resurrection, Mary had first to share in his death. The New Testament provides no information on the circumstances of Mary’s death. This silence leads one to suppose that it happened naturally, with no detail particularly worthy of mention. If this were not the case, how could the information about it have remained hidden from her contemporaries and not have been passed down to us in some way? As to the cause of Mary’s death, the opinions that wish to exclude her from death by natural causes seem groundless. It is more important to look for the Blessed Virgin’s spiritual attitude at the moment of her departure from this world. In this regard, St Francis de Sales maintains that Mary’s death was due to a transport of love. He speaks of a dying “in love, from love and through love”, going so far as to say that the Mother of God died of love for her Son Jesus (Treatise on the Love of God, bk. 7, ch. XIII-XIV). Whatever from the physical point of view was the organic, biological cause of the end of her bodily life, it can be said that for Mary the passage from this life to the next was the full development of grace in glory, so that no death can ever be so fittingly described as a “dormition” as hers."

Benedict XVI (Angelus, 15 August 2008):

The last reference to her earthly life in the Bible is found at the beginning in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, which presents Mary gathered in prayer with the disciples in the Upper Room, waiting for the Holy Spirit (Acts 1: 14). Subsequently a double tradition - in Jerusalem and in Ephesus - attests to her “Dormition”, as Eastern-rite believers say, that is, her “falling asleep” in God. This was the event that preceded her passing from this earth to Heaven, professed by the uninterrupted faith of the Church. In the eighth century, by establishing a direct relationship between the “Dormition” of Mary and Jesus’ death, for example, John Damascene, renowned doctor of the Eastern Church, explicitly affirms the truth of her bodily assumption. In a famous homily he wrote: “She who nursed her Creator as an infant at her breast, had a right to be in the divine tabernacles” (Sermon II: On the Assumption, 14, PG 96, 741B). As is well known, this strong conviction of the Church culminated in the dogmatic definition of the Assumption affirmed by my venerable Predecessor Pius XII in the year 1950.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

The Tradition says that she fell asleep in the Lord…that is what Dormition means.

That is enough for me.