The Dormition of the Virgin

[GaryTaylor]

I am trying to figure out how

Me too Sister, that’s why I have come back to pick your mind. I been thinking about what you said. its been swimming around in my mind. 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?

Help me out, how/s it looking above?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Oh and one more question which doesn’t seem to be answered, since the below is indeed Tradition, and tradition why is it a devotion such as the Rosary is critically viewed by the EO? I mean to say since we are critically viewing the teachings.

And the repetitive historic reality…

"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.

 

[GaryTaylor]

No Guilt? Right?

“The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is the Our Lady was born free of original sin. According to Orthodox doctrine, original sin or as we prefer to call it, ancestral sin is the inheritance of the consequences of Adam’s sin which is mortality, not the guilt. We are guilty of our own sins. Our Lady died. Therefore she was born in ancestral sin. Fr. John”

You’ll all have to clarify. as I see it you are using a double standard in the EO here. Your are indeed claiming, that which in fact you accuse the West of from my above reading?

 

[prodromos]

You’ll all have to clarify. as I see it you are using a double standard in the EO here. Your are indeed claiming, that which in fact you accuse the West of from my above reading?

I’m afraid you are going to have to help me to understand your mindset, so that I am able to comprehend why you perceive a double standard.
I’m just not seeing what you’re seeing

 

[GaryTaylor]

Mary did not as you say, have to “suffer” any consequence of A or O sin [A-O doesn’t make a difference but in the minds of some people, I don’t think in regards to either] . Mary was completely human and as stated, She chose to die as it was most fitting as the sister stated above. Mary did not “have to” die because of any contingent relating to Adam and Eve, She was purified of this and as well as scripture states “perfectly Graced”.

Nor as relation to the other thread did Enoch or Elijah die. But they couldn’t obtain heaven since it was closed till the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Gary Taylor, you are assuming faulty premises. Death is a consequence of original sin, but that does not mean that Mary could not have suffered death just because we say say she was free from original sin. Even Christ suffered some of its consequences. St. Paul says in Hebrews, he himself hath suffered being tempted, and, we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death. Christ did not have to die pf absolute necessity, but he said, No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. Then why couldn’t Mary die and why wouldn’t she die in conformity with her son? Does it make sense that every man would die, including Christ, but Mary would never die?

St. Thomas Aquinas says, "Thomas Aquinas says, “Death and such like penalties do not of themselves incline us to sin. Wherefore though Christ assumed them, He did not assume the fomes. Consequently in order that the Blessed Virgin might be conformed to her Son, from “whose fulness” her grace was derived, the fomes was at first fettered and afterwards taken away: while she was not freed from death and other such penalties.” (ST, III, 27, 3)

Let’s look at what the Tradition of the Church says rather than what Michelle Arnold says.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Thomas Aquinas says, “Death and such like penalties do not of themselves incline us to sin. Wherefore though Christ assumed them, He did not assume the fomes. Consequently in order that the Blessed Virgin might be conformed to her Son, from “whose fulness” her grace was derived, the fomes was at first fettered and afterwards taken away: while she was not freed from death and other such penalties.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary Taylor, you are assuming faulty premises. Death is a consequence of original sin, but that does not mean that Mary could not have suffered death just .

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.

Either this is true or not true? So let us start there.

Assumed body and soul? Dogma

True or not true?

No Ecumenical Council -Dormition

True of not true?

Are you saying Michelle Arnold is not following tradition and I am not either?

True or not true?

 

[Memaw]

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.

Either this is true or not true? So let us start there.

Assumed body and soul? Dogma

True or not true?

No Ecumenical Council -Dormition

True of not true?

Are you saying Michelle Arnold is not following tradition and I am not either?

True or not true?

Jesus came to die, for OUR sins. Mary was concieved Immaculate to bring LIFE, Her son. She did NOT come to die, she was not under the penality of death. There is no proff she died at all. Why would she??? We should focus on Her life and Her Assumption, not over something we can’t prove. God Bless. Memaw

 

[Memaw]

No Guilt? Right?

“The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is the Our Lady was born free of original sin. According to Orthodox doctrine, original sin or as we prefer to call it, ancestral sin is the inheritance of the consequences of Adam’s sin which is mortality, not the guilt. We are guilty of our own sins. Our Lady died. Therefore she was born in ancestral sin. Fr. John”

You’ll all have to clarify. as I see it you are using a double standard in the EO here. Your are indeed claiming, that which in fact you accuse the West of from my above reading?

I never heard of any of this before, Who is Fr. John?? God Bless, Memaw

 

[GaryTaylor]

I never heard of any of this before, Who is Fr. John?? God Bless, Memaw

Hi,

He’s the Father above who has been on this thread.

From the on-going conversation, is it me, or is there confusion over Christology and the understanding of mortality from outside to inside of Christianity?

I feel like I missing something here that everyone else knows?

 

[SyroMalankara]

The typical Eastern view is that she did indeed die. She may or may not have HAD to die, but she did, and is Assumed into heaven. All our Liturgical prayers say she died and is assumed. These prayers are found in Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and even Latin texts. The Papal statement in regard to the IC even points to her death. While it’s a pious opinion that she did not die, there doesn’t seem to be much weight for that view except for very recent limited theological opinion and some Franciscans who held that in the 1400s. Everyone else presumed that the Holy Theotokos passed and then is assumed into heaven by her Son.

Here’s a bit more detailed study on the matter:
devotionsandprayers.blogspot.com/2009/08/dormition-and-assumption-of-virgin-mary.html

 

[GaryTaylor]

The typical Eastern view is that she did indeed die. She may or may not have HAD to die, but she did, and is Assumed into heaven. All our Liturgical prayers say she died and is assumed. These prayers are found in Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and even Latin texts. The Papal statement in regard to the IC even points to her death. While it’s a pious opinion that she did not die, there doesn’t seem to be much weight for that view except for very recent limited theological opinion and some Franciscans who held that in the 1400s. Everyone else presumed that the Holy Theotokos passed and then is assumed into heaven by her Son.

I follow what your saying. If we are to say; " in the day that though eatest of the fruit thou shall surely die" .

The threat in progression includes both deaths, death of the body, death of the soul, this includes whatever death there is, all death. 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.

btw, its very likely when the Churchs unite the Dormition may well indeed be proclaimed by ecumenical council. Its no different than Mother of all Grace or whatever the title is proposed. Both are ancient traditions, just not defined.

 

[Memaw]

The typical Eastern view is that she did indeed die. She may or may not have HAD to die, but she did, and is Assumed into heaven. All our Liturgical prayers say she died and is assumed. These prayers are found in Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and even Latin texts. The Papal statement in regard to the IC even points to her death. While it’s a pious opinion that she did not die, there doesn’t seem to be much weight for that view except for very recent limited theological opinion and some Franciscans who held that in the 1400s. Everyone else presumed that the Holy Theotokos passed and then is assumed into heaven by her Son.

Here’s a bit more detailed study on the matter:
devotionsandprayers.blogspot.com/2009/08/dormition-and-assumption-of-virgin-mary.html

It’s also a pious opinion that she did die, so who’s right? Me thinks its safer to just wait till we can ask her ourselves. God Bless. Memaw

 

[Memaw]

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.

Birth Control is not up for opinons. It’s sinful, the Churches teaches that it is, and we don’t have the right to question that. The same with abortion. God Bless, Memaw

 

[theistgal]

Birth Control is not up for opinons. It’s sinful, the Churches teaches that it is, and we don’t have the right to question that. The same with abortion. God Bless, Memaw

Calm down, no one said it’s up for opinion. They’re saying it’s not been dogmatically defined as a matter of theology.

 

[theistgal]

Jesus came to die, for OUR sins. Mary was concieved Immaculate to bring LIFE, Her son. She did NOT come to die, she was not under the penality of death. There is no proff she died at all. Why would she??? We should focus on Her life and Her Assumption, not over something we can’t prove. God Bless. Memaw

I never have understood this reluctance on the part of some Catholics to say that the Theotokos died. Why wouldn’t Mary, who followed her Son through every moment of His life, choose to die, just as her Son chose to die? After all, Christ didn’t “have” to die, either, but He did - to show us His love.

We’re all going to die! But what is so wonderful about Mary’s Dormition and Assumption is that she was the first Christian to be raised from the dead, showing us how it will be for us. So now we don’t have to fear death.

( Nor do we have to fear thinking that Mary died. )

 

[GaryTaylor]

I never have understood this reluctance on the part of some

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?

 

[MorEphrem]

I never have understood this reluctance on the part of some Catholics to say that the Theotokos died. Why wouldn’t Mary, who followed her Son through every moment of His life, choose to die, just as her Son chose to die? After all, Christ didn’t “have” to die, either, but He did - to show us His love.

We’re all going to die! But what is so wonderful about Mary’s Dormition and Assumption is that she was the first Christian to be raised from the dead, showing us how it will be for us. So now we don’t have to fear death.

( Nor do we have to fear thinking that Mary died. )

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.

 

[spina1953]

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.

I agree with the issue occurs when theologies are mixed. For me it is not importand whether or not our Blessed Mother died or not die as she was assumed into heaven body and soul. That being said I think that God can do however He wants as nothing is impossible for God. My understanding of the tradition tat Mary died is from the 4th century, however, it seems that there is nothing before that one way or the other. The Church does not say one way of theother as far as belief goes but we as Catholic’s are to believe that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven, which is what I believe. It also seems to me that it is important to some that she died while to others she did not. In the end it is a mystery that we humans do not really understand in human terms.