The Term Dormition

[Vico]

How can Tradition conflict when it is faithfully preserved through the apostle’s successors by the Holy Spirit? (CCC 81)

It just doesn’t make sense to me why there can be different traditions.

Do you mean that it doesn’t make sense to you how different traditions can conflict and still be the true faith?

Because even though the Mystery has been revealed completely, mankind speaks in different languages and has different traditions in various locations. The expression of the true faith will therefore take a different form without denying the true faith. A formula may be proven using different systems of mathematics.

 

[Hesychios]

Does this not seem strange to anybody else? You have your Westerners who in this case are saying “The testimony of Tradition is inconclusive, therefore we will make no definitive statement on whether or not she died before being assumed.”

Tradition is not inconclusive, the people saying that are eager to think so because they have other ideas in the hopper which conflict with tradition.

Then you have your easterners who are arguing “Hey Mary was human, humans die before being resurrected. It’s simple logic to figure out what happened here. She died and then was raised/assumed.”

It may seem like an argument from logic, but it is actually an argument from fact. The historical fact is that she died, and we cannot pretend at this late date that she didn’t, nor pretend that ‘we don’t know’.

It is also an argument from established traditional Christian theology.

Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum, e**t vitam ventúri sæculi

The Holy Theotokos is among the first fruits of the general resurrection. That is the theology. That is the reason for recalling and honoring the Dormition.

Doesn’t this seem a little backwards to anybody?

I would say no. Not backwards.

One opinion is traditional, one is novel.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Do you mean that it doesn’t make sense to you how different traditions can conflict and still be the true faith?

Because even though the Mystery has been revealed completely, mankind speaks in different languages and has different traditions in various locations. The expression of the true faith will therefore take a different form without denying the true faith. A formula may be proven using different systems of mathematics.

But how is the True Faith merely expressed differently when someone can deny the Dormition and someone can accept it? That seems contradictory to me.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But how is the True Faith merely expressed differently when someone can deny the Dormition and someone can accept it? That seems contradictory to me.

There are some matters that are essential to faith and there are some matters that are not. For example, this argument about if St. Joseph was a spry young man seeking a wife to have a family with in Mary, of if he’s an older widower to whom Mary was betrothed to so that her virginity will be preserved (being a consecrated temple virgin). What ever you believe in wouldn’t affect your salvation.

Same with Mary’s dormition. We believe she was pure, immaculate and sinless from conception to the end of her earthly life. And we believe she was assumed body and soul into heaven. Whether she died or not, it doesn’t affect our faith as a whole. It doesn’t change the truth.

 

[Vico]

But how is the True Faith merely expressed differently when someone can deny the Dormition and someone can accept it? That seems contradictory to me.

It is a tradition that the Theotokos died, it is also the majority position of the Catholics at the time of the Assumption dogma definition, yet that dogma does not address her death. The Eastern Orthodox have not formally defined the death of the virgin as a dogma either.

Irmos for the Divine Liturgy on Dormition: The limits of nature are overcome in you, O pure Virgin, for birth giving remains virginal, and death is the prelude to life: a virgin after childbearing and alive after death! You ever save your inheritance, O Theotokos.

You can define dead various ways, no vital functions, appearing to be dead, or leaving this world for the next. I think most use: no vital functions.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

There are some matters that are essential to faith and there are some matters that are not. For example, this argument about if St. Joseph was a spry young man seeking a wife to have a family with in Mary, of if he’s an older widower to whom Mary was betrothed to so that her virginity will be preserved (being a consecrated temple virgin). What ever you believe in wouldn’t affect your salvation.

Same with Mary’s dormition. We believe she was pure, immaculate and sinless from conception to the end of her earthly life. And we believe she was assumed body and soul into heaven. Whether she died or not, it doesn’t affect our faith as a whole. It doesn’t change the truth.

So we only have to believe dogmas? This means that Tradition is essentially dogmas of the faith and how we express this, correct?

A few days ago I thought I had it all down.

But then what about early Christians and the Trinity? It wasn’t defined until 325 or later, so they wouldn’t have to believe that since it wasn’t defined as dogma? Or am I going too in depth about this, when it is really more like how we (must?) believe Mary was a saint, even though she has never officially been canonized?

Sorry if it’s a bit off topic everyone.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So we only have to believe dogmas? This means that Tradition is essentially dogmas of the faith and how we express this, correct?

A few days ago I thought I had it all down.

Yes. But its too much to say that we should only believe in it. Everything that comes in our belief contribute to the entire picture of what we believe in. Not just because its not core to our belief means we disregard it entirely. It just means that some things need not be decided conclusively because some variation wouldn’t change our belief. But in the grand scheme of things in a certain tradition, the little things do contribute.

But then what about early Christians and the Trinity? It wasn’t defined until 325 or later, so they wouldn’t have to believe that since it wasn’t defined as dogma? Or am I going too in depth about this, when it is really more like how we (must?) believe Mary was a saint, even though she has never officially been canonized?

Sorry if it’s a bit off topic everyone.

That doesn’t mean that the belief in a trinuine God did not exist before 325AD. The Apostles do believe it. They believe and accept that Jesus is God, but you know that they also would not accept a belief in polytheism, being Jewish. So they must know and understand that God is a trinity. Not just because something was defined at a later date, it doesn’t mean it was never believed in. It just formalizes the belief into a teaching and how it will be taught is agreed upon. For example the Assumption dogma was only defined in 1950. But you have icons of the Dormition which includes the Assumption from the First Millenium.

 

[Hesychios]

But how is the True Faith merely expressed differently when someone can deny the Dormition and someone can accept it? That seems contradictory to me.

Those who deny that the Holy Theotokos died are inventing, those who feel they are ‘free to believe’ she did not die are also inventing. The reasons are not clear but it is not based on the facts.

There is no western tradition that she did not actually die, there is western modern speculation that she did not die, but it is not traditional. It is just another example of a faction of believers hammering away at the Apostolic Faith, trumpeting their reason over the faith once handed down from the Apostles.

The Feast of the Dormition/Assumption originated in the east as a complete concept: the death and resurrection of the Holy Mother of God. It was imported into the west in this way. Without this historical record the west would not even know that the BVM had been assumed bodily into heaven, it forms a complete whole with the funeral and burial and the Apostolic witness and participation. The dogma of the Assumption depends upon the tradition that she had died and resurrected, Pope Pius XII acknowledges this debt in his bull Munificentissimus Deus.

Some people here are of the opinion that it does not matter, since the knowledge of the fact that she died is not salvific. This is true, the knowledge that Pope JohnXXIII died is also not salvific. The knowledge that Saint Catherine of Sienna died is also not salvific. However, as the community bubbles up new ideas that they would prefer to think, and these ideas spread and it affects the thinking of many other people, we are distorting the truth and twisting understanding.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Those who deny that the Holy Theotokos died are inventing, those who feel they are ‘free to believe’ she did not die are also inventing. The reasons are not clear but it is not based on the facts.

There is no western tradition that she did not actually die, there is western modern speculation that she did not die, but it is not traditional. It is just another example of a faction of believers hammering away at the Apostolic Faith, trumpeting their reason over the faith once handed down from the Apostles.

The Feast of the Dormition/Assumption originated in the east as a complete concept: the death and resurrection of the Holy Mother of God. It was imported into the west in this way. Without this historical record the west would not even know that the BVM had been assumed bodily into heaven, it forms a complete whole with the funeral and burial and the Apostolic witness and participation. The dogma of the Assumption depends upon the tradition that she had died and resurrected, Pope Pius XII acknowledges this debt in his bull Munificentissimus Deus.

Some people here are of the opinion that it does not matter, since the knowledge of the fact that she died is not salvific. This is true, the knowledge that Pope JohnXXIII died is also not salvific. The knowledge that Saint Catherine of Sienna died is also not salvific. However, as the community bubbles up new ideas that they would prefer to think, and these ideas spread and it affects the thinking of many other people, we are distorting the truth and twisting understanding.

Good point

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Yes. But its too much to say that we should only believe in it. Everything that comes in our belief contribute to the entire picture of what we believe in. Not just because its not core to our belief means we disregard it entirely. It just means that some things need not be decided conclusively because some variation wouldn’t change our belief. But in the grand scheme of things in a certain tradition, the little things do contribute.

Thanks for this.

That doesn’t mean that the belief in a trinuine God did not exist before 325AD. The Apostles do believe it. They believe and accept that Jesus is God, but you know that they also would not accept a belief in polytheism, being Jewish. So they must know and understand that God is a trinity. Not just because something was defined at a later date, it doesn’t mean it was never believed in. It just formalizes the belief into a teaching and how it will be taught is agreed upon. For example the Assumption dogma was only defined in 1950. But you have icons of the Dormition which includes the Assumption from the First Millenium.

I know the Trinity is an apostolic belief, but the logic I’m using is that if we aren’t required to believe in the Dormition because it isn’t dogma, then wouldn’t the early Christians not be required to believe in the Trinity?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Those who deny that the Holy Theotokos died are inventing, those who feel they are ‘free to believe’ she did not die are also inventing. The reasons are not clear but it is not based on the facts.

There is no western tradition that she did not actually die, there is western modern speculation that she did not die, but it is not traditional. It is just another example of a faction of believers hammering away at the Apostolic Faith, trumpeting their reason over the faith once handed down from the Apostles.

The Feast of the Dormition/Assumption originated in the east as a complete concept: the death and resurrection of the Holy Mother of God. It was imported into the west in this way. Without this historical record the west would not even know that the BVM had been assumed bodily into heaven, it forms a complete whole with the funeral and burial and the Apostolic witness and participation. The dogma of the Assumption depends upon the tradition that she had died and resurrected, Pope Pius XII acknowledges this debt in his bull Munificentissimus Deus.

Some people here are of the opinion that it does not matter, since the knowledge of the fact that she died is not salvific. This is true, the knowledge that Pope JohnXXIII died is also not salvific. The knowledge that Saint Catherine of Sienna died is also not salvific. However, as the community bubbles up new ideas that they would prefer to think, and these ideas spread and it affects the thinking of many other people, we are distorting the truth and twisting understanding.

So essentially if we know that the Mother of God died, we should believe it or else…

 

[Hesychios]

So essentially if we know that the Mother of God died, we should believe it or else…

No, I should think you would believe it because it is true.

You should not engage in modern fantasy and mix it with religion, or else.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I know the Trinity is an apostolic belief, but the logic I’m using is that if we aren’t required to believe in the Dormition because it isn’t dogma, then wouldn’t the early Christians not be required to believe in the Trinity?

any ideas anyone?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I know the Trinity is an apostolic belief, but the logic I’m using is that if we aren’t required to believe in the Dormition because it isn’t dogma, then wouldn’t the early Christians not be required to believe in the Trinity?

The definitely would have had they been taught properly. I think this is the beef some Eastern Christians have with the Roman Catholic Church, why dogmatically define everything? We’ve been fine believing in those for hundreds of years. Why the need to formalize it? But of course one issue the RC Church is facing is a lot of heresies from the Reformation.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The definitely would have had they been taught properly. I think this is the beef some Eastern Christians have with the Roman Catholic Church, why dogmatically define everything? We’ve been fine believing in those for hundreds of years. Why the need to formalize it? But of course one issue the RC Church is facing is a lot of heresies from the Reformation.

So then belief in the Dormition would be a requirement if the person was taught “properly”, correct?

 

[Vico]

Ad Tuendam Fidem:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html

 

[ConstantineTG]

So then belief in the Dormition would be a requirement if the person was taught “properly”, correct?

Given that the Dormition is one of the 12 Great Feasts of the Byzantine Rite, I don’t know how you can get through a year without coming across it and knowing its required belief. Plus the fact that you have to fast the couple of weeks leading up to it.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Given that the Dormition is one of the 12 Great Feasts of the Byzantine Rite, I don’t know how you can get through a year without coming across it and knowing its required belief. Plus the fact that you have to fast the couple of weeks leading up to it.

Well, the Latin Church doesn’t spend a lot of time on it - more emphasis on the Assumption. I’m not sure my (good) Roman Catholic friend has even heard of the word Dormition. So it must not be talked about much in confirmation around my area at least.

BTW, thanks for giving me a clear-cut answer - Yes it is required.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, the Latin Church doesn’t spend a lot of time on it - more emphasis on the Assumption. I’m not sure my (good) Roman Catholic friend has even heard of the word Dormition. So it must not be talked about much in confirmation around my area at least.

BTW, thanks for giving me a clear-cut answer - Yes it is required.

It did appear in the Latin Church at a much later date. But they still celebrated it for at least 1000 years before The Assumption was dogmatically defined. The important thing about belief is how it impacts the overall faith. The Assumption of Mary points to two things. Mary’s holiness, and also that the Assumption is not something that will be exclusive to her but is what everyone of us will experience at the end of time, should we be in communion with God at that time. So to not believe in the Assumption is to not believe that we will be raised up with Glorified Bodies at the end of time.

 

[Formosus]

I know the Trinity is an apostolic belief, but the logic I’m using is that if we aren’t required to believe in the Dormition because it isn’t dogma, then wouldn’t the early Christians not be required to believe in the Trinity?

The difference between the Dormition, and the Trinity, is that the understanding of what the Trinity is was misunderstood by many people and it led to great divisions and heresies. The Dormition/Assumption is not a belief that has been challenged or misunderstood on the same scale. The Dormition was always just accepted and not an issue. In the west, perhaps it was different since the westerners adopted that feast from the East. I am not really familiar with the reasons behind Pius XII’s actions in declaring it a Dogma of the faith.