C
CatholicZ09
Guest
Can someone please elaborate for me?
What is the difference between the Assumption and the Dormition of Mary?
- Status
C
Cluny
Guest
In effect none–just the emphasis.
The Byzantine texts for the Feast of the Dormition on 15 August emphasize the falling asleep of the Theotokos in the presence of the Apostles, and their burying her in Gethsemane. Texts of the Post-Feast mention her Bodily Assumption, which traditionally was discovered three dayslater.
The Latin Feast emphasized her Bodily Assumption. Contrary to what some people think, the official Latin teaching does not deny her physical death. Pope John Paul II said in a teaching on this subject that it wasn’t even heard of until the 17th century.
Both East and West agree on the central point: that the Theotokos has passed beyond death and judgement. The Resurrection of the Body has in her case been anticipated and is an accomplished fact, and she lives totally in the Age to Come.
But is this not the destiny of all Christians?
The Byzantine texts for the Feast of the Dormition on 15 August emphasize the falling asleep of the Theotokos in the presence of the Apostles, and their burying her in Gethsemane. Texts of the Post-Feast mention her Bodily Assumption, which traditionally was discovered three dayslater.
The Latin Feast emphasized her Bodily Assumption. Contrary to what some people think, the official Latin teaching does not deny her physical death. Pope John Paul II said in a teaching on this subject that it wasn’t even heard of until the 17th century.
Both East and West agree on the central point: that the Theotokos has passed beyond death and judgement. The Resurrection of the Body has in her case been anticipated and is an accomplished fact, and she lives totally in the Age to Come.
But is this not the destiny of all Christians?
T
twf
Guest
Cluny: not only does the Latin doctrine not deny her death, our Tradition fully supports the idea that she fell asleep prior to Her assumption. Anyone who visits Rome will tell you there are countless Western depictions of her falling asleep. Even St Mary’s Major, the greatest Latin church dedicated to Her depicts her dormition! As a Latin I laugh when people suggest Mary didn’t die. It annoys me too sometimes - how dare they deprive her the glory of sharing in the resurrection!
D
Deacon_Lance
Guest
She will not as she has already undergone the resurrection and resides in glory with her Son. That is the whole point of celebrating the Dormition and Assumption.Wait a minute. How will she be resurrected with the rest of us who have died if she was assumed body and soul in to Heaven? I’m confused.
Fr. Deacon Lance
C
Cluny
Guest
<<Wait a minute. How will she be resurrected with the rest of us who have died if she was assumed body and soul in to Heaven? I’m confused.>>
As I (and Met. Kallistos Ware) have already said, the Resurrection of the Body has been anticipated in her case.
She lives fully in the Age to Come and forever beholds the face of her Divine Son in the mystery of the Beatific Vision of the Most Holy Trinity.
What further crown can she be given?
As I (and Met. Kallistos Ware) have already said, the Resurrection of the Body has been anticipated in her case.
She lives fully in the Age to Come and forever beholds the face of her Divine Son in the mystery of the Beatific Vision of the Most Holy Trinity.
What further crown can she be given?
M
mardukm
Guest
Just wanted to point out that the Oriental Orthodox Churches, specifically, celebrate the Feast of the Assumption, not the Feast of the Dormition (though, of course, they both ultimately have the same object). In the Coptic Church, it is known as the Feast of the Assumption of the Body of Mary and is celebrated on August 22.
Blessings
Blessings
M
malphono
Guest
Well … almost. I seem to think I said this once before a while ago, but anyway, in the Syriac Churches, (West Syriac, at least: I don’t know the East Syriac tradition on this), the feast goes by two names: the the older of the two names is the equivalent of the Dormition and the newer to the Assumption. These days, the latter is more common, (even in the liturgical books), but there are some (including yours truly) who hold to the more ancient name. Either way it’s 15 August.
J
John_Larocque
Guest
There’s a previous thread on this forum where someone provided a link to the early Syriac texts underlying the Dormition tradition. These predate the Dormition approcryphon that is attributed to St. John the Evangelist.
I recently purchased a book from St. Vladimir’s Press, it’s a collection of early Patristic Sermons on the Dormition. Turns out the editor/translator is a Jesuit, Fr. Brian Daley. In his introduction, he cited a source that suggested that the Dormition was first litugically celebrated in the non-Chalcedonian East, and then, Emperor Justinian helped popularize it on the Chalcedonian side of the divide. It’s an interesting theory. If you think about it, it’s part of the shared heritage of both the Latin West, the Orthodox East and the Orientals. I’ll look over the book later and seeif there’s additional details I could provide here.
S
stephraim
Guest
Although this is private revelation and is therefore not required to be believed, I find this vision of the Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich profound and mystical. Her vision entails both the Dormition and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, and is a testament to the fact that, despite different emphases, the tradition is held in tact by the Apostolic churches.
jesus-passion.com/VirginMary%27sDeath.htm
jesus-passion.com/VirginMary%27sDeath.htm
J
John_Larocque
Guest
The writings of that seer are racist and anti-Semitic. I really don’t think they belong here.
S
stephraim
Guest
My apologies if I offended.
M
misterdasher
Guest
I might point out that her vision linked above contains anachronistic elements and is missing parts of the story of the Dormition, but that is characteristic of spiritual visions, where people are shown things in ways that they will understand. I didn’t, however, notice anything racist or anti-Semitic in it. Were you referring to other of her writings? Or did I overlook something?
J
John_Larocque
Guest
Oh, I was referring to other writings which have been ascribed to her, not this particular one.
L
LadyLily47
Guest
Forgive me as I am obviously 3 YEARS behind you all in answering this, but there is one point that is argued between the Latin and Orthodox Churches to my understanding. Of course correct me if I am wrong, but to my knowledge one church believes that Mary did indeed DIE but before her body began to decay is when it was Assumed into heaven. The other church believed that Mary was at a point right before death, but only fell asleep and THAT is when she was Assumed into heaven, thus dormition. Either way as one of you stated before, the outcome is still the same, Our Blessed Mother is still totally IN HEAVEN body and soul…
E
Evan
Guest
Which believes which?
In the Latin Church I was always taught that the assumptions was the raising of the dead as we shall be on the last day. She is the exemplar of our final end. So in this we see our final victory. She is the example in life and in death and in the resurrection of how we all will be someday.
So are you saying the Eastern Churches do not teach the death, only the falling asleep and assumption? Or the other way around?
For what I hear, it is not taught one way or the other by the Church as a whole, but from individual to individual and the Church has no clear agreement and sees no purpose in that the revealed point is the Assumption. How she ended her life is not revealed.
L
LadyLily47
Guest
Forgive me for not being clear about that Evan, you are actually quite right. I am learning this subject myself and in fact it will be the subject of my final paper in my class on Mariology at CDU. It is not specifically mentioned in the declaration that His Holiness Pope Pius XII made back on November 1, 1950, but from what I found there has been a bit of a debate amongst some of the more noted Theologians through the ages. I apologize I cannot quote any right this moment, but there are some individuals who believed that yes she did die and was resurected body and soul as her son was, but there were also those who believed that she had only fell asleep before she was Assumed into heaven. His Holiness Pope Pius though does not mention this specifically at all, he makes it a point to talk about the fact that what is important is that she is fully in Heaven body and soul together. So to correct myself in fact, it seems that between the two churches there might not be as much of a difference, just among some of the Theologians through the ages in the Latin Church, not the Orthodox Church.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Read the dogmatic definition of the Assumption. Whoever said that the Latin Church believes that Mary did not die is wrong. The Church officially does not teach that. If you read the entire dogmatic definition, the references point to Eastern and Western Fathers and scholars both of whom taught that Mary did die.
So there is no difference really. Here is a blog post that went into the details of the Roman Catholic dogma and how it is clearly stated in the document that Mary did pass from this life:
ercf.blogspot.ca/2012/01/immaculate-misconception.html
So there is no difference really. Here is a blog post that went into the details of the Roman Catholic dogma and how it is clearly stated in the document that Mary did pass from this life:
ercf.blogspot.ca/2012/01/immaculate-misconception.html
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
I remember a very matter of fact answer on this subject given by a Roman Catholic priest in an adult catechesis program.
Basically (paraphrased), he responded by asking the group a question: if Christ was both human and divine, and he died before rising from the dead, why would we think that his mother, a mortal, would be spared physical death?
Basically (paraphrased), he responded by asking the group a question: if Christ was both human and divine, and he died before rising from the dead, why would we think that his mother, a mortal, would be spared physical death?
H
Hesychios
Guest
There are some people (mostly among the Latin Catholics) who believe she did not die before her assumption.
I am not sure why Pope Pius XII chose to declare a dogma on the assumption, but it appears there must have been some modern Roman Catholics who were doubting it. This was just after the Second World War, when V2 rockets had penetrated the skies, weather balloons soared to great heights and powerful telescopes were already in use. Space exploration was already being suggested and discussed seriously.
The Biblical firmament of heaven was clearly not quite so firm, the source of rain was determined to be condensed vapor (not a firm barrier), the vacuum of space would very likely explode any human body passing into it and so the ancient conception of what really had happened after the Dormition was likely being questioned and challenged by modern educated people.
It would not be surprising then, that a Pope of 1950 might speak on the subject.
In his bull, Pope Pius XII clearly nods to the early tradition of Saint Mary of Nazareth having died. By this time however, many Latin Catholics had developed some ideas of their own. Since Latin Catholics had come to see that corporal death was a consequence of Original Sin, and an earlier Pope had (nearly 100 years before) declared that Saint Mary was born free of this sin, many people probably assumed (advancing logic) that this would mean she did not actually taste physical death.
This idea that the Holy Theotokos did not decease was never actually declared a formal teaching by a sitting Pope, but it was a widespread belief that many priests and probably many bishops personally held. Some believe it to this day.
The idea that the BVM did not die before her assumption is a folk belief, based more on logic than revelation.
- Status