The Dormition of the Virgin

[GaryTaylor]

Me too.

 

[Simca]

Thanks everyone. I’ve learned something from you all.

 

[spina1953]

Patrich457 Forum Master: I agree with you and your post speaks words of wisdom. I do think tradition is important to those who look to it. I see nothing wrong in believing that Mary died, nor do I have any problem with the idea that Mary did not die. It is a complete mystery that we will never know; at least here on earth. I also think that making arguments one way or the other is fine as long as it does not push a belief on the other who does not agree. I also think that one needs to respect each others beliefs. That being said, It seems to me that Mary our Blessed Mother, was and is a very special person whom God choose to be the Mother of our Savior Jesus the Christ. That in itself is a mystery as to how that was done. How Mary became sinless is another mystery. In the end it is do we believe or not? Defining a mystery is and will be a hard thing to do as we do not know the ways of God. God’s ways are not mans ways and mans ways are not God’s ways. What I do know is that God gave Mary a very great honor and we need to do the same.

 

[theistgal]

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?

Yes, Gary, it would help a lot if you would rephrase your question, and perhaps check your punctuation and grammar to make it more clear. I’m trying to be as polite as I can here, but I do have a lot of difficulty understanding what you are saying.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, Gary, it would help a lot if you would rephrase your question, and perhaps check your punctuation and grammar to make it more clear. I’m trying to be as polite as I can here, but I do have a lot of difficulty understanding what you are saying.

I don’t have the energy. But, that’s what I’m saying! Perhaps that is the dilemma, and I used the infamous word’s…“have to die”! And the language…is foreign.

So, no one had to die, only us, are we guilty? Never mind, saved for the next time.

Bye, have a nice weekend, peace, and God Bless You! And may He bring you to everlasting life!:aok:

 

[Cavaradossi]

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

But what are the punishments inflicted upon the human race for Adam’s sin, if not the very consequences of his sin? Metropolitan Hilarion in that passage does not seem to indicate that he believes that we are guilty of Adam’s sin, but that we suffer the punishment for it. As Dositheos teaches in his confession, original sin is in no way indicative of moral fault as is the case with actual sin, but is the common punishment of Adam’s transgression, “such as sweats in labor, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in child-bearing, and, finally, while on our pilgrimage, to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily death.”

 

[Tomdstone]

There is no such thing as death.

That is difficult to believe. If so, why are there so many cemeteries?

 

[dvdjs]

But what are the punishments inflicted upon the human race for Adam’s sin, if not the very consequences of his sin? Metropolitan Hilarion in that passage does not seem to indicate that he believes that we are guilty of Adam’s sin, but that we suffer the punishment for it. As Dositheos teaches in his confession, original sin is in no way indicative of moral fault as is the case with actual sin, but is the common punishment of Adam’s transgression, “such as sweats in labor, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in child-bearing, and, finally, while on our pilgrimage, to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily death.”

And as Met Hiliaron points out:

From a rational point of view, to punish the entire human race for Adam’s sin is an injustice.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

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.

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

…

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!

Christ’s passion can be called necessary even if it was not necessary in an absolute sense because “necessary” can signify multiple things.

newadvent.org/summa/4046.htm#article1

In the same way, Mary’s death may not have been necessary absolutely but it was necessary if we make certain suppositions.

Now, think about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. When was the dogma first clearly expressed in writing? You may find it is later than you think. Nor does its being expressed mean that it is the universal consensus of the Church.

But what are the punishments inflicted upon the human race for Adam’s sin, if not the very consequences of his sin? Metropolitan Hilarion in that passage does not seem to indicate that he believes that we are guilty of Adam’s sin, but that we suffer the punishment for it. As Dositheos teaches in his confession, original sin is in no way indicative of moral fault as is the case with actual sin, but is the common punishment of Adam’s transgression, “such as sweats in labor, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in child-bearing, and, finally, while on our pilgrimage, to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily death.”

What is guilt other than to be liable to punishment?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Christ’s passion can be called necessary even if it was not necessary in an absolute sense because “necessary” can signify multiple things.

First and most important, if you count the things God had to do you wouldn’t be here. Jesus Christ didn’t have to die, He chose to die, and He chose the where, when, and how. And He didn’t do that for Himself, but for you…US and in HIs love for US.

Let me know if you are in agreement here. True or not True?

In the same way, Mary’s death may not have been necessary absolutely but it was necessary if we make certain suppositions.

I only see one and I find it is most fitting. That’s OK with you, or is this where you insist on your double standard? If you want to believe Mary had to die, then by all means I will listen to your elaboration in respect. But I must forewarn you I do not believe that, so please don’t cop an attitude if I should disagree.

You see the other double standard is the East would have you believe they focus more on the divinization than on the penance suffering aspect which they attribute to Rome. In fact I mentioned this with you and you didn’t respond, I assumed you understood my point.

Yet here by this very conversation what we see is yet another double standard. Who is talking divinization here, and who is talking about a very human suffering thus penance where we “have to die”. In fact those were your words “suffering” in your last post.

Now, think about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. When was the dogma first clearly expressed in writing? You may find it is later than you think. Nor does its being expressed mean that it is the universal consensus of the Church.

Now think about the not dogma of the Dormition and apply all your same words of the above paragraph. Now, do you see clearly how double standards apply? Now think about the intercession of St Mary, and again we reach another double standard in Universal consensus.

So let me ask, why should anyone cop an attitude when the shoe is on the other foot?

I could be mistaken, but I believe this is the point, and I thank you for helping me make it.

What is guilt other than to be liable to punishment

Iniquity-Injustice, one of the three understandings, and least favorite is we are guilty of an injustice. There is no personal guilt being the basis of the correct argument. dvdjs hit on the point right above your post.

We have been though all this on the other thread. Here let me use your words in relation to death and suffering. Odd you see the complexity above but not here. Look allow me…

Death and Suffering …" can be called necessary even if it was not necessary in an absolute sense because “necessary” can signify multiple things."

Is this another double standard? I’m confused now, help me understand all this.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

First and most important, if you count the things God had to do you wouldn’t be here. Jesus Christ didn’t have to die, He chose to die, and He chose the where, when, and how. And He didn’t do that for Himself, but for you…US and in HIs love for US.

Let me know if you are in agreement here. True or not True?

Christ’s sacrifice was not necessary in the sense that it could not have been otherwise, it was not necessary in the sense that he was compelled to do so, and it was not necessary in the sense that God could not have redeemed man in some other way. However, it was necessary in the sense that God predestinated it and determined that it was most fitting as his will and foreknowledge cannot be frustrated. If you read the link I posted, you’ll see this treated in more detail.

I think with regards to Mary’s death, we ought to take a similar tack. Was it necessary for Mary to die? Not absolutely. Could she have been glorified in some other way? Of course. Did she experience death freely? Yes. But was it necessary so that she could be conformed to Christ? It would not be at all fitting if

You see the other double standard is the East would have you believe they focus more on the divinization than on the penance suffering aspect which they attribute to Rome. In fact I mentioned this with you and you didn’t respond, I assumed you understood my point.

I’m don’t understand what your argument is. I agree that penance is a bigger focus in the West than in the East. What is the double standard? Is it that Western Christians ought to be the ones that support the Dormition and the Eastern Christians the ones that deny it? Well, the Dormition is the common and traditional belief of Western Christians even if we emphasize her Assumption. Moreover, the firm belief of Eastern Christians in her Dormition if they have less reason to teach it ought to be regarded as a more significant witness if anything. Correct me if I have misunderstood what you are trying to say.

Now think about the not dogma of the Dormition and apply all your same words of the above paragraph. Now, do you see clearly how double standards apply? Now think about the intercession of St Mary, and again we reach another double standard in Universal consensus.

So let me ask, why should anyone cop an attitude when the shoe is on the other foot?

My point isn’t that something is not an important teaching if it is not expressed in extant writings from the First Century and universally accepted by the Fathers. My point was that we should not regard something as being equally likely one way or the other when Tradition is so tilted in one direction. Unlike the Immaculate Conception, which is a complex theological matter, the Dormition (and Assumption) are historical facts. Either it happened or it didn’t. The only evidence of doubt in the Dormition you have provided is Epiphanius who only said that he was uncertain, which only means that he personally was unfamiliar with the tradition, which is really not very strong evidence at all. I’m sure if you polled his contemporaries, you would find people who were unaware of the Assumption as well. We need not wait for an ex cathedra papal declaration on every little thing to believe it.

Iniquity-Injustice, one of the three understandings, and least favorite is we are guilty of an injustice. There is no personal guilt being the basis of the correct argument. dvdjs hit on the point right above your post.

That’s the thing. It’s not so much a personal guilt as a collective guilt. The notion of guilt might be hard to understand, but it is a matter of faith. If you refer back to Dvdjs’ earlier post, you will see the fuller quotation, “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.” We cannot discard teachings because we are unable to understand them. Why is there evil when God is perfectly good and evil does not absolutely have to exist? We cannot discard the existence of evil (or God) because it is hard for us to understand this rationally.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That is difficult to believe. If so, why are there so many cemeteries?

Ha, I hear you, yes it is difficult to believe, that is the human drama, the contest Augustine speaks of, the race St Paul speaks of, here I will allow QNDNNDQDCE to explain…Death and Suffering …" can be called necessary even if it was not necessary in an absolute sense because “necessary” can signify multiple things."

God created you to exist, you cannot, not exist. He didn’t create you to die, but to exist, and through Grace with Him.

There is never a point, not even a flashing moment when you will not exist. There is only the choice of where you will exist.

Death is defeated at the Cross, the devil is death, that is the Cross, for he is death. That was defeated, but everyone else so too must defeat death.

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you–they are full of the Spirit and life.” John

Amazing, everlasting life and the same words of St Mary…“YES”.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Was it necessary for Mary to die? Not absolutely. Could she have been glorified in some other way? Of course.

Right Mary didn’t have to die, glad you agree now.

I’m don’t understand what your argument is. I agree that penance is a bigger focus in the West than in the East. What is the double standard?..

I’m sorry you don’t get it, I’ll pray for you.

My point isn’t that something is not an important teaching if it is not expressed in extant writings from the First Century and universally accepted by the Fathers. …

Right think IC. But as you agree above the IC isn’t based on historical facts, the Dormition is. And there are none.

My point was that we should not regard something as being equally likely one way or the other when Tradition is so tilted in one direction…

Apply your above quote to this one. I fail to see what you are saying. The IC is DOGMA the Dormition is not. The IC doesn’t need historic validation, the Dormition does for we are talking a historic event.

Read below.

Unlike the Immaculate Conception, which is a complex theological matter, the Dormition (and Assumption) are historical facts…

The fact is the IC is dogma the Dormition is not. The fact is you have no facts before 300-AD thus is it NOT a historical fact.

Either it happened or it didn’t…

This is a circular argument, same with the IC, but as you now are recorded as saying, its a theological matter, and the Dormition is a historical fact of which you have none. The Assumption doesn’t require historic facts as it is a theological matter.

The only evidence of doubt in the Dormition you have provided is Epiphanius who only said that he was uncertain, which only means that he personally was unfamiliar with the tradition

And you have provided NONE because NONE exists pre 300. It is YOUR burden of proof since YOU believe this occurred.

which is really not very strong evidence at all…

.
I agree, you have none because there is none.

That’s the thing. It’s not so much a personal guilt as a collective guilt. The notion of guilt might be hard to understand, but it is a matter of faith. If you refer back to Dvdjs’ earlier post, you will see the fuller quotation, “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.” We cannot discard teachings because we are unable to understand them. Why is there evil when God is perfectly good and evil does not absolutely have to exist? We cannot discard the existence of evil (or God) because it is hard for us to understand this rationally.

What is your point? I posted all this on the other thread personally. What in the world are you talking about? The Dormition is not dogma and as I comprehend, and by reason, there are no historical facts.

 

[GaryTaylor]

QNDNNDQDCE this is what I mean about all this just being covered here. In other words you are repeating the below argument which I have no problem with, but first understand where we are all coming from so not be circular and repetitive.

Encyclopedias - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Iniquity

INIQUITY

in-ik’-wi-ti (`awon; anomia):

In the Old Testament of the 11 words translated “iniquity,” by far the most common and important is awon (about 215 times). Etymologically, it is customary to explain it as meaning literally "crookedness," "perverseness," i.e. evil regarded as that which is not straight or upright, moral distortion (from iwwah, “to bend,” “make crooked,” “pervert”). Driver, however (following Lagarde), maintains that two roots, distinct in Arabic, have been confused in Hebrew, one equals “to bend,” “pervert” (as above), and the other equals “to err,” “go astray”; that `awon is derived from the latter, and consequently expresses the idea of error, deviation from the right path, rather than that of perversion (Driver, Notes on Sam, 135 note) Whichever etymology is adopted, in actual usage it has three meanings which almost imperceptibly pass into each other:

(1) iniquity,

(2) guilt of iniquity,

(3) punishment of iniquity.

Primarily, it denotes “not an action, but the character of an action” (Oehler), and is so distinguished from “sin” (chaTTa’th). Hence, we have the expression “the iniquity of my sin” (Psalms 32:5). Thus the meaning glides into that of “guilt,” which might often take the place of “iniquity” as the translation of `awon (Genesis 15:16; Exodus 34:7; Jeremiah 2:22, etc.). From “guilt” it again passes into the meaning of “punishment of guilt,” just as Latin piaculum may denote both guilt and its punishment. The transition is all the easier in Hebrew because of the Hebrew sense of the intimate relation of sin and suffering, e.g. Genesis 4:13, “My punishment is greater than I can bear”; which is obviously to be preferred to King James Version margin, the Revised Version, margin “Mine iniquity is greater than can be forgiven,” for Cain is not so much expressing sorrow for his sin, as complaining of the severity of his punishment; compare 2 Kings 7:9 (the Revised Version (British and American) “punishment,” the Revised Version margin “iniquity”); Isaiah 5:18 (where for “iniquity” we might have “punishment of iniquity,” as in Leviticus 26:41,43, etc.); Isaiah 40:2 (“iniquity,” the Revised Version margin “punishment”). The phrase “bear iniquity” is a standing expression for bearing its consequences, i.e. its penalty; generally of the sinner bearing the results of his own iniquity (Leviticus 17:16; 20:17,19; Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 44:10, etc.), but sometimes of one bearing the iniquity of another vicariously, and so taking it away (e.g. Ezekiel 4:4; 18:19 f). Of special interest in the latter sense are the sufferings of the Servant of Yahweh, who shall “bear the iniquities” of the people (Isaiah 53:11; compare Isaiah 53:6).

Other words frequently translated “iniquity” are:

'awen, literally, “worthlessness,” “vanity,” hence, “naughtiness,” “mischief” (47 times in the King James Version, especially in the phrase “workers of iniquity,” Job 4:8; Psalms 5:5; 6:8; Proverbs 10:29, etc.); awel and awlah, literally, “perverseness” (Deuteronomy 32:4; Job 6:29 the King James Version, etc.).

In the New Testament “iniquity” stands for anomia equals properly, “the condition of one without law,” “lawlessness” (so translated in 1John 3:4, elsewhere “iniquity,” e.g. Matthew 7:23), a word which frequently stood for `awon in the Septuagint; and adikia, literally, “unrighteousness” (e.g. Luke 13:27).

Page 25 forward, guilt in the context used is elaborated on.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=807532

We are guilty of our own sins. Adams consequence is passed to all humanity and defeated at the Cross and Ascension, death of the body and death of the soul. At baptism we receive the forgiveness and remission of sin, of the state passed to us by Adam.

Then we are left with the corruptible human nature or inclination to sin, this through grace is in progress of the incorruptible, or in reverse death.

Now to further contemplate this Mary was not subject to various aspects as us. For example" Mary is already fully graced (“Kecharitomone”) which mean “perfectly graced” and prior to the Incarnation.

At the “supernatural” birth/Nativity of Jesus, Mary had no birth pains, She remained ever virgin after birth.

Thus we are talking something here, way above our everyday experience of life and death, and for sure this also varies from one individual to the next.

After this supernatural event I find it incomprehensible to suggest what “had” to happen to Mary. From that understanding Mary would have had to have birth pains. Yet that is not true.

Thus it is believed to be most fitting Mary would choose the path of Her Son. We cannot know by the sequence of events what for sure occurred, we have no witness. We are not even positive where this occurred.

We believe, and we think, we do not know. You cannot apply human daily physical mortality and understanding to an obvious supernatural event.

Me saying Mary “had to” live and be assumed body and soul into heaven, is no different than another saying Mary had to die to be assumed body and soul into heaven. We were not there. But with the sequence of supernatural events I fall to see how anyone could argue, Mary had to die.

That said I agree with Misplaced Book above that “sleep” is very good understanding.

St Mary was/is the human example “par excellence”. We know of She and Her sorrows and aspects of humanity by nature. On the other hand there is unprecedented Grace here.

Follow, we are going over and over the same points. In charity I see no sense in that, which is why I was attempting to move on past this.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“The Falling Asleep of the Holy Mother of God” is the earliest extant written document describing the end of Mary’s life, and as we can see, it clearly indicates that Mary died before her body was assumed into Heaven. The earliest Latin versions of the story of the Assumption, written a couple of centuries later, differ in certain details but agree that Mary died, and Christ received her soul; that the apostles entombed her body; and that Mary’s body was taken up into Heaven from the tomb.

That none of these documents bear the weight of Scripture does not matter; what matters is that they tell us what Christians, in both the East and the West, believed had happened to Mary at the end of her life. Unlike the Prophet Elijah, who was caught up by a fiery chariot and taken up into Heaven while still alive, the Virgin Mary (according to these traditions) died naturally, and then her soul was reunited with her body at the Assumption. (Her body, all of the documents agree, remained incorrupt between her death and her Assumption.)

catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/f/Did-The-Virgin-Mary-Die.htm

died naturally, and “then” her soul was reunited with her body at the Assumption.

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 heronly begotten Son, Jesus Christ . . .

Still, the dogma, as Pius XII defined it, leaves the question of whether the Virgin Mary died open. What Catholics must believe is

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.

assumed body “and” soul into heavenly glory.

“Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death,”

Matthew 27:52-53

New International Version (NIV)

52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[a] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

scripture that deal with this are found in Ephesians 4 and 1 Peter 3.

Eph. 4:8, “When He ascended on high, he led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men.”

1 Pet. 3:18-19, “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison.”

Theologians suppose that the particular judgment will be instantaneous, that in the moment of death the separated soul is internally illuminated as to its own guilt or innocence and of its own initiation takes its course either to hell, or to purgatory, or to heaven (Summa Theologica Supplement 69:2, 88:2).

The common opinion is that the particular judgment will occur at the place of death (Suarez in III, Q, lix. a. 6, disp. 52).

catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=9008

The Catholic doctrine of the particular judgment is this: that immediately after death the eternal destiny of each separated soul is decided by the just judgment of God. Although there has been no formal definition on this point, the dogma is clearly implied in the Union Decree of Eugene IV (1439), which declares that souls leaving their bodies in a state of grace, but in need of purification are cleansed in Purgatory, whereas souls that are perfectly pure are at once admitted to the beatific vision of the Godhead (ipsum Deum unum et trinum) and those who depart in actual mortal sin, or merely with original sin, are at once consigned to eternal punishment, the quality of which corresponds to their sin (paenis tamen disparibus). The doctrine is also in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus in 1274, in the Bull “Benedictus Deus” of Benedict XII, in 1336, and in the professions of faith of Gregory XIII and Benedict XIV.

newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

Conclusion
It has been seen that we have no absolute certainty as to the place in which Mary lived after the day of Pentecost. Though it is more probable that she remained uninterruptedly in or near Jerusalem, she may have resided for a while in the vicinity of Ephesus, and this may have given rise to the tradition of her Ephesian death and burial. There is still less historical information concerning the particular incidents of her life.

Aside from this, the particular judgement with Mary, body and soul, who will tell us about this? I just don’t see much in this regard, there’s wrong conclusions drawn as above, there’s speculation, and there is perfectly graced Mother of the Incarnate Word of God. If I was forced to say, I don’t believe her body and soul were ever separated. I believe she did fall asleep also as mention above and agree with the conclusion as why. The separation of body and soul I don’t see the need, unprecedented.

There is obvious value to the tradition of the Dormition and Assumption, not hard to see. There are also unanswered mysteries.