The Dormition of the Virgin

[twf]

Once again…the death of Our Lady is the consistent teaching of the Church down through the centuries both East and West. If you go to the great basilica of St Mary in Rome, the most important Marian church in Latin Christendom, you will see a large, beautiful and prominent depiction of Her Dormition. Our Lady died and then shared in Her Son’s resurrection. This is our faith! This is our Tradition. Pope Pius taught it in the very same document in which he promulgated the dogma of Her assumption. So what if the dogma itself doesn’t define her death? We are not limited by dogma - our faith is much more than that. There is no dogma defining that birth control is sinful, yet we are certainly not free to reject that teaching. The liturgy, the consistent teaching of the bishops and popes - this forms the ordinary magisterium which is also infallible and binding even if not dogmatic. The idea that Our Lady was deprived of the glory of the resurrection is an insult to Her in my opinion - to suggest that she and she alone would be deprived of that grea privilege of being confirmed to Her Son’s death and resurrection. Mary is a type of the Church - if the members of the Church are to die and rise again in Christ, it is fitting that our Mother would lead the way. The idea that She didnt die is very novel.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Once again Tradition/tradition. We are not bound by tradition. Its that simple. We are bound by the Deposit of Faith/Tradition.

 

[twf]

What makes you so certain this is a matter of small-t tradition? Pope Pius taught it. We are not bound only by dogmatic decrees. Do you believe that we are bound to believe that artificial birth control is immoral? Of course we are bound - yet there is NO dogma defining such - just the consistent teaching of the bishops and popes down through the centuries. The same is true for many other important components of our faith. Dogmas are only promulgated rarely and as necessarily. There is much more to Tradition than dogmatic decrees.

A better example. Do you believe that we are bound by the teaching that holy orders can only be conferred upon men and not upon women? Of course we are bound, yet once again there is no dogmatic decree stating such. When asked if Blessed John Paul’s teaching on the matter is infallible, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarified that no the Pope did not infallibly define a dogma, but yes the teaching is infallible by virtue of being consistently taught by the ordinary magisterium - the popes and bishops down through the centuries. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that in every time and place the witness of the Church in her liturgy, in her icons, in the teaching of her bishops and popes is clear: the Mother of God died and then rose again. We cannot take these witnesses lightly. The liturgy in particular…the law of prayer is the law of faith. Do we not believe what we pray?

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Catherine_Grant:

Debate Guidelines for Eastern Catholicism

No direct or implied you statements unless it is genuine praise.

• You said…
• You need to…
• You don’t get it.
• Why don’t you…
• If only you…
• It is you who…
• You are wrong.
• You misunderstood.
• I’m not the one who…
• Some people here…

No indication of what the other needs to do unless it is genuine praise.

• You need to…
• Why don’t you…
• If you’d only…
• Those of us who have…

Use non-controversial words which have meanings everyone can agree on whenever possible.
Spend your time discussing the substance of the topic and not arguing tangents on words that instigate or inflame the other side.

Use bolds, underlines, font size increases, or other emphases very sparingly.

No hyperbole and no sarcasm in a debate.

• This conversation always…
• Every single time this comes up…
• Aren’t you a saint?
  
  Praise
• When you agree with a part of what someone said, tell them. It doesn’t hurt your position to agree with some part of an opposing argument. In fact, it lets others know that you are listening.

What to look for in your post before you press submit:

• Is the post civil and charitable?
• Does the post challenge those to whom it is directed or does it bash them?
• And remember: always, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Pope did not declare Marys death binding. Its really that simple. There is one paragraph which indeed is infallible. Chapter 17 for example alludes to tradition. This is not binding as it cannot be.

 

[Alfonsus]

There are still art works created after the dogmatic pronouncement of assumption that showed the dormition in the Latin Church. One of them is the Door of Death in St. Peter Basilica. It is called thus because the door is used for funeral procession. The door depicts in its panels, side by side, the death of Mary and the Crucifixion.

Also from Munificentissimus Deus, emphasis mine:

1. Christ’s faithful, through the teaching and the leadership of their pastors, have learned from the sacred books that the Virgin Mary, throughout the course of her earthly pilgrimage, led a life troubled by cares, hardships, and sorrows, and that, moreover, what the holy old man Simeon had foretold actually came to pass, that is, that a terribly sharp sword pierced her heart as she stood under the cross of her divine Son, our Redeemer. In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only begotten Son, had actually passed from this life. But this in no way prevented them from believing and from professing openly that her sacred body had never been subject to the corruption of the tomb, and that the august tabernacle of the Divine Word had never been reduced to dust and ashes. Actually, enlightened by divine grace and moved by affection for her, God’s Mother and our own dearest Mother, they have contemplated in an ever clearer light the wonderful harmony and order of those privileges which the most provident God has lavished upon this loving associate of our Redeemer, privileges which reach such an exalted plane that, except for her, nothing created by God other than the human nature of Jesus Christ has ever reached this level.

1. This belief of the sacred pastors and of Christ’s faithful is universally manifested still more splendidly by the fact that, since ancient times, there have been both in the East and in the West solemn liturgical offices commemorating this privilege. The holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church have never failed to draw enlightenment from this fact since, as everyone knows, the sacred liturgy, “because it is the profession, subject to the supreme teaching authority within the Church, of heavenly truths, can supply proofs and testimonies of no small value for deciding a particular point of Christian doctrine” (The encyclical Mediator Dei).

1. In the liturgical books which deal with the feast either of the dormition or of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin there are expressions that agree in testifying that, when the Virgin Mother of God passed from this earthly exile to heaven, what happened to her sacred body was, by the decree of divine Providence, in keeping with the dignity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate, and with the other privileges she had been accorded. Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: “Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself”(Sacramentarium Gregorianum).

1. What is here indicated in that sobriety characteristic of the Roman liturgy is presented more clearly and completely in other ancient liturgical books. To take one as an example, the Gallican sacramentary designates this privilege of Mary’s as “an ineffable mystery all the more worthy of praise as the Virgin’s Assumption is something unique among men.” And, in the Byzantine liturgy, not only is the Virgin Mary’s bodily Assumption connected time and time again with the dignity of the Mother of God, but also with the other privileges, and in particular with the virginal motherhood granted her by a singular decree of God’s Providence. “God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb” (Menaei Totius Anni.)

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.

At least from the constitution Munificentissimus Deus it cites and give credibility to the prevailing tradition of the Dormition as established.
You can read the rest online.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What makes you so certain this is a matter of small-t tradition? Pope Pius taught it. We are not bound only by dogmatic decrees.

Pope Pius did not proclaim tradition infallible. He proclaimed “assumed body and soul into heaven” infallible.

Do you believe that we are bound to believe that artificial birth control is immoral? Of course we are bound - yet there is NO dogma defining such - just the consistent teaching of the bishops and popes down through the centuries…

“The Church also, fulfilling the role given it by Christ as the identifier and interpreter of apostolic Scripture and apostolic tradition, has constantly condemned contraception as gravely sinful.”

catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

The same is true for many other important components of our faith. Dogmas are only promulgated rarely and as necessarily. There is much more to Tradition than dogmatic decrees…

But that’s what we are talking about. Dogma.

A better example. Do you believe that we are bound by the teaching that holy orders can only be conferred upon men and not upon women? Of course we are bound, yet once again there is no dogmatic decree stating such…

The Church does not have the authority as it is the Deposit of Faith.

catholic.com/quickquestions/why-cant-women-be-ordained-priests-within-the-catholic-church

When asked if Blessed John Paul’s teaching on the matter is infallible, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarified that no the Pope did not infallibly define a dogma, but yes the teaching is infallible by virtue of being consistently taught by the ordinary magisterium - the popes and bishops down through the centuries. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that in every time and place the witness of the Church in her liturgy, in her icons, in the teaching of her bishops and popes is clear: the Mother of God died and then rose again. We cannot take these witnesses lightly. The liturgy in particular…the law of prayer is the law of faith. Do we not believe what we pray?

Your still coming back to Tradition/tradition. Its not a matter of right and wrong, nor is it with understanding this Dogma.

Nevertheless I’m seeking the larger truth here. Not debating Marys death. Namely the incarnation forward.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s a cut and paste from Michelle Arnold on the very question from Ask an Apologist 04.

"Although many theologians accept that Mary did die, the Church has not made a decision on the matter. Note the careful wording of Munificentissimus Deus, in which Pius XII promulgated the dogma of her Assumption:

“**y 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” (emphasis added).

Complete freedom from sin meant that Mary was not subject to sin’s consequence of death, but it would have been fitting for her to experience physical death as did her Son who was also not subject to death but chose to accept it. In the Eastern rites of the Church, and in Eastern Orthodox churches, Mary’s death (or “falling asleep”), resurrection, and glorification is called the Dormition. "

So the second paragraph is the infallible dogma. The Tradition/tradition remains intact.

She touch’s on the very point we are progressing to in her third paragraph. Which is what I contend.

I disagree that this understanding of death can be understood in the context/content of our understanding of Death today. I offered St Maximus as an example.**

 

[GaryTaylor]

Just to clarify

"Then the Lord held forth His right hand, Blessed His Mother and said to Her; “Let your heart rejoice and be glad, O Mary Blessed among women, for every Grace and Gift has been given to you by my heavenly Father, and every soul that calls on your name with holiness, will not be put to shame, but will find mercy and comfort both in this life and the age to come” "

St Maximus the Confessor; Life of the Virgin, pg136 chp 110. His Life of the Virgin is thought to be the earliest complete biography of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

So we can conclude since private revelation isn’t binding, and since the above is tradition, then certainly it must be a good thing the Catholics have these Marion devotions? You know, like the Rosary?

 

[Memaw]

Here’s a cut and paste from Michelle Arnold on the very question from Ask an Apologist 04.

"Although many theologians accept that Mary did die, the Church has not made a decision on the matter. Note the careful wording of Munificentissimus Deus, in which Pius XII promulgated the dogma of her Assumption:

“**y 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” (emphasis added).

Complete freedom from sin meant that Mary was not subject to sin’s consequence of death, but it would have been fitting for her to experience physical death as did her Son who was also not subject to death but chose to accept it. In the Eastern rites of the Church, and in Eastern Orthodox churches, Mary’s death (or “falling asleep”), resurrection, and glorification is called the Dormition. "

So the second paragraph is the infallible dogma. The Tradition/tradition remains intact.

She touch’s on the very point we are progressing to in her third paragraph. Which is what I contend.

I disagree that this understanding of death can be understood in the context/content of our understanding of Death today. I offered St Maximus as an example.**

Her is another Cut and Paste from Fr. Charles Grondin

Did Mary die?

---

Is the Church 100% sure that Mary died, as we know death, before she was Assumed into Heaven, If so, why was that necessary since she was Immaculate?

#2 Sep 17, '13, 7:46 am
Fr. Charles Grondin
Apologist Join Date: July 6, 2012
Posts: 683
Religion: Catholic

Re: Did Mary die?

---

Munificentissimus Deus:

Quote:
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.

Note the Pius XII only declared that Mary had completed her earthly life. There is no mention as to if this meant death (as we know it) or if Mary was assumed while still alive. Catholics are thus free to hold either opinion.

 

[twf]

Pope Pius did not proclaim tradition infallible. He proclaimed “assumed body and soul into heaven” infallible.

“The Church also, fulfilling the role given it by Christ as the identifier and interpreter of apostolic Scripture and apostolic tradition, has constantly condemned contraception as gravely sinful.”

catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

But that’s what we are talking about. Dogma.

The Church does not have the authority as it is the Deposit of Faith.

catholic.com/quickquestions/why-cant-women-be-ordained-priests-within-the-catholic-church

Your still coming back to Tradition/tradition. Its not a matter of right and wrong, nor is it with understanding this Dogma.

Nevertheless I’m seeking the larger truth here. Not debating Marys death. Namely the incarnation forward.

Gary,
We are not only talking about dogma. That was my point. The deposit of faith is more than just dogmatic decrees. Yes the Church has always taught that birth control is sinful, and thus we are bound to accept this as truth, yet there is no dogmatic decree on birth control. Your quote simply states what I said earlier - the consistent teaching of the Church condemns birth control - a dogmatic decree was never issued not required because we are bound by the ordinary magisterium not just the extraordinary magisterium (dogmas). Pope Pius clearly teaches Our Lady’s death as did the popes and bishops before him- the entire dogma is based upon the tradition of the Dormition - without the Dormition there would be no tradition of the Assumption. I stand by my position unless someone can show me that our faith is limited to dogmatic decrees - but I know that it is not. Dogmatic decrees simply clarify what is already taught and known. Pope Pius also taught that the liturgy cannot be ignored - it is a sure witness to the faith. The liturgical traditions of East and West testify that Our Lady died. Is her death a dogma? No - but that doesn’t mean it isn’t part of the deposit of faith in the same way that birth control’s intrinsic immorality has never been dogmatically defined yet is certainly part of the faith.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary,
We are not only talking about dogma. That was my point. The deposit of faith is more than just dogmatic decrees. Yes the Church has always taught that birth control is sinful, and thus we are bound to accept this as truth, yet there is no dogmatic decree on birth control. Your quote simply states what I said earlier - the consistent teaching of the Church condemns birth control - a dogmatic decree was never issued not required because we are bound by the ordinary magisterium not just the extraordinary magisterium (dogmas). Pope Pius clearly teaches Our Lady’s death as did the popes and bishops before him- the entire dogma is based upon the tradition of the Dormition - without the Dormition there would be no tradition of the Assumption. I stand by my position unless someone can show me that our faith is limited to dogmatic decrees - but I know that it is not. Dogmatic decrees simply clarify what is already taught and known. Pope Pius also taught that the liturgy cannot be ignored - it is a sure witness to the faith. The liturgical traditions of East and West testify that Our Lady died. Is her death a dogma? No - but that doesn’t mean it isn’t part of the deposit of faith in the same way that birth control’s intrinsic immorality has never been dogmatically defined yet is certainly part of the faith.

Michelle Arnold on the very question from Ask an Apologist 04.

"Although many theologians accept that Mary did die, the Church has not made a decision on the matter. Note the careful wording of Munificentissimus Deus, in which Pius XII promulgated the dogma of her Assumption:

“**y 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” (emphasis added).

Complete freedom from sin meant that Mary was not subject to sin’s consequence of death, but it would have been fitting for her to experience physical death as did her Son who was also not subject to death but chose to accept it. In the Eastern rites of the Church, and in Eastern Orthodox churches, Mary’s death (or “falling asleep”), resurrection, and glorification is called the Dormition. "

Point is are we in agreement till here; “I stand by my position unless someone can show me that our faith is limited to dogmatic decrees - but I know that it is not.”

Nobody said that. I’m saying this; “Although many theologians accept that Mary did die, the Church has not made a decision on the matter. Note the careful wording of Munificentissimus Deus”,

And its a fact these people exist. Nevertheless I’m much more interested in this part; “Complete freedom from sin meant that Mary was not subject to sin’s consequence of death”**

 

[spina1953]

There seems to be two Traditions concerning our Blessed Mother. The date and the place of the death of the Virgin Mary are debatable. Since the fourth century, there was a very strong traditiion that she went with John the Apostle to Ephesus and died there. Nicephorus in Ecclesiastical History, 2,2, says the Apostle John stayed in Jerusalem and cared for Mary like a son until the day of her death. So what I am saying then is that there are at least two traditions concerning Mary and her death. However, personally It does not matter to me whether she actually died or not. What is to me important is that she was assumed into Heaven body and soul. How that was done is a mystery. There are many things we believe that cannot be proved one way or the other. For example: one cannot prove God really exists or not, nor can we prove that Jesus is the Christ being both the son of man and the Son of God, but we believe. We believe that our Blessed Mother was assumed into heaven body and soul, whether she actually died or not is really not the important issue, but her assumption into heaven body and soul.

 

[prodromos]

Nevertheless I’m much more interested in this part; “Complete freedom from sin meant that Mary was not subject to sin’s consequence of death”

The one does not follow the other. Simply by being a descendant of Adam, Mary still suffers the consequence of Adam’s sin, though she commited no sin herself.

Since the Pope has not used the proper form to declare people as saints infallibly, does that mean you are free to accept or deny the sainthood of those recently declared as saints?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The one does not follow the other. Simply by being a descendant of Adam, Mary still suffers the consequence of Adam’s sin, though she commited no sin herself.

Since the Pope has not used the proper form to declare people as saints infallibly, does that mean you are free to accept or deny the sainthood of those recently declared as saints?

So your saying She is guilty of the consequence of Adams sin? But She was sanctified at least at the Incarnation. So Jesus had no sin, it follows Mary didn’t either. So what was She dying from of which She was sanctified from? Why did you say She was resurrected and nobody else was?

 

[theistgal]

So your saying She is guilty of the consequence of Adams sin? But She was sanctified at least at the Incarnation. So Jesus had no sin, it follows Mary didn’t either. So what was She dying from of which She was sanctified from? Why did you say She was resurrected and nobody else was?

I am trying to figure out how to answer your question, but I’m not sure I understand what it is.

Anyway, 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.

At least that’s my story and I’m sticking to it!

Also, here’s a question: how would knowing whether or not Mary actually died or not make you a better follower of Jesus Christ?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am trying to figure out how to answer your question, but I’m not sure I understand what it is.

Anyway, 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.

At least that’s my story and I’m sticking to it!

Also, here’s a question: how would knowing whether or not Mary actually died or not make you a better follower of Jesus Christ?

Amen, the mysteries of the Church would be my answer. “most fitting”

 

[prodromos]

So your saying She is guilty of the consequence of Adams sin?

No. No one is guilty of the consequences of Adams sin. What a ridiculous concept.

Everyone, however, suffers the consequences of Adam’s sin.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Mary still suffers the consequence of Adam’s sin, though she commited no sin herself.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, the East is teaching there is no guilt.

You agree here?

“Anyway, 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.” theistgal

 

[dvdjs]

No. No one is guilty of the consequences of Adams sin. What a ridiculous concept.

Everyone, however, suffers the consequences of Adam’s sin.

Just as ridiculous, really. But as Metropolitan Hilarion, says:

From a rational point of view, to punish the entire human race for Adam’s sin is an injustice. But not a single Christian dogma has ever been fully comprehended by reason. Religion within the bounds of reason is not religion but naked rationalism, for religion is supra-rational, supra-logical. The doctrine of original sin is disclosed in the light of divine revelation and acquires meaning with reference to the dogma of the atonement of humanitas sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life throy through the New Adam, Christ: ‘…As one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous… so that, ugh Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Rom.5:18-21).