Did Mary Die (Part 2)

The Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is drawing to an end now for 2013, and I was just browsing by Beggars All and saw the latest article (as of the publication of this article) from James Swan, who is rehashing an older discussion from at least nearly two years ago.  Here's a link to Swan's latest article: 

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/08/remembering-assumption-of-mary.html

And here are the comments so far there, including my own:

Nick said...The text of Munificenttisimus doesn't give any indication that Mary did not die. The text does however make comments to the effect that She did die:  http://taylormarshall.com/2013/08/did-the-virgin-mary-die.html

Either way though, your overall argument doesn't hold water because the Dormition is secondary to the dogma of the Assumption itself. Even Protestants claim there are such things as non-essential aspects to dogmas.
If you want real confusion, consider the fact Protestants cannot agree on whether Jesus died for everyone or not. Svendsen denied the L in TULIP while White affirms it.

5:20 PM, August 15, 2013

Conhecereis a Verdade said...This dogmatic definition, completely devoid of biblical, patristic and historical support, is extremely curious because Pius XII could define with all certainty that Mary ascended into heaven in body and soul, but can not tell if he really died or not. Hence the obvious ambiguity of the words "having completed the course of her earthly life."
Indeed, an outstanding example of the double discourse typical of the popes.
Hugo

9:10 PM, August 15, 2013

TomiPad said...Often Roman Catholics, under the premise that only infallible statements count, their church has never contradicted itself. Rome defines what a contradiction is and infallibly defines herself as possessing assured infallibility in accordance with her infallibly defined criteria. 

10:23 PM, August 15, 2013

Scott said...
As even this article from Swan points out, there is no definition of death in MD. The closest we come to that is that it DOES define "having completed the course of her earthly life." But again, MD does not seek to define whether she died or not, but that she was taken into Heaven, body and soul, and that IS defined, and infallibly so. Whether or not she died is PURELY a distraction to the TRUE subject at hand in MD.
My initial response to Swan's article from 2011 is here: http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2011/10/did-mary-die.html
Scott<<<

11:08 PM, August 15, 2013 (actual Arizona Time of posting)

In short, what I said to Swan today is a reiteration of what was said nearly two years ago.  Why the continued attempt to distract?  

Now, if Swan wants to discuss or debate "Did Mary Die?" - that's fine!  But attempting to use THAT discussion to derail the infallible definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is, simply, not THAT discussion.

AMDG,

Scott<<<


A couple more comments, as of 11am, August 16, 2013 (Arizona time)...

  Stephen Galanis said...
Firstly, Nick, "doesn't give any indication that Mary did not die" is the argument from ignorance. And you've backed up your view by citing... the infallible magisteirum? No. By citing Taylor Marshall. And he's not infallible. That's his interpretation of the magisterium. Thank you for that demonstration of real-world Catholic authority. You do see the irony of how you responded? You claim an epistemological advantage of Protestants, but if Catholics have to defend the perspicuity of the magisterium, then logically, it has already failed to be perspicuous.

Scott, you're right, there's no definition of death in MD. And you'll have to admit there is some level of confusion about whether Mary died or not. It may be a distraction, but Rome ought to settle the debate if it can. And if Rome wants to make historical claims about the assumption of Mary - and it is an historical claim - surely it knows whether or not she died? How on earth can one begin to defend "Mary definitely was assumed into heaven, but whether it was before or after her death we don't know"? Because whatever source you imagine supports the assumption (there would have been eyewitnesses - family at her deathbed, that sort of thing), that source would also contain the datum of whether Mary had died or not prior to her assumption. It's remarkable that Rome, and you, claim to know one but not the other. And what of those Catholics who died before the assumption was made a required belief? It wasn't necessary for salvation before 1950, so that just looks like Rome dictating terms to God.
6:23 AM, August 16, 2013

 Scott said...
Stephen,
Dr. Marshall doesn't have to be infallible! We're not even discussing a topic under the charism of infallibility! I do find it a bit amusing to see Protestants continue to distract this way though - who do you think you're fooling?

As for your comment to me, whether or not she actually died is not important! What is important is that she "completed her course of her earthly life" and was "assumed, body and soul into Heaven." There is no real "need" for Rome to settle whether or not she experienced physical death - her course of this life was complete, period.

As I said (on the CathApol blog) if you want to discuss or debate whether she actually died, fine - that's another discussion. We can discuss this all you want, but when you get down to it, it's just musings of folks on the Internet positing opinions (ancient and/or new) regarding this.

MY POINT is that if we're "Remembering the Assumption of Mary" (as Swan entitled his article) then let us do that! Why the distraction?

We could discuss further, as you brought up, that prior to the 1950 defining of this dogma not all faithful Catholics held to the dogma - and I concur with that. The point, as you recognized, is that after the definition was promulgated no faithful Catholic can deny it. It becomes a recognition of the authority Jesus Christ empowered His Church with and denial of that authority becomes a denial of Christ - and THAT is more relevant than whether or not one "accepts" the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Scott<<<
1:50 PM, August 16, 2013

 

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Of the Marian holidays (holy days), the Feast of the Assumption is considered the most important.  It is also a holy day of obligation for Catholics - so faithful Catholics must find time to be at Mass this day.  Check with your local parish/diocese for options here.  The feast day is August 15th, which falls on Thursday this year.  

DEFINED DOGMA
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is also defined dogma in the Catholic Church.  No faithful Catholic can deny this event.  The definition is found in MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS (MD), and while that whole document is good, technically the only "infallible" part is the sentence which contains the definition of the Assumption, and that is:

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.

As you can see, in the definition - there is no mention of whether or not she died - only that she "completed the course of her earthly life."  Thus you will find faithful Catholics who disagree on this particular point.  In 2011 I wrote another article on this topic: Did Mary Die?

ORDINAL TIME?
This is also an opportunity, yet another, for me to get on my soapbox about calling this particular season "Ordinary Time."  There are SO MANY very EXTRA-ordinary feasts during this season, to refer to it as "ordinary" - by our modern use of the word, seems to downplay these HUGE feast days!  The traditional reference to this season comes from the same root word - but makes it more clear - and that reference is "Ordinal Time" and "ordinal" means "counting."  Along the same note, there are TWO "ordinal" seasons in the liturgical calendar where we "count days."  The first ordinal season is the season after Epiphany which counts the Sundays after Epiphany up until the beginning of Lent.  The second ordinal season is the season after Pentecost, where we count the Sundays from Pentecost to the end of the liturgical year which starts anew at Advent.  In the modern lectionary these two seasons are combined - which, in my opinion, minimizes the importance of these season all the more.  

Did Mary Die?

Often I have seen Protestants try to "make hay" over the discussion of whether or not the Blessed Virgin Mary actually died or merely went to "sleep" and was taken in her sleep.  They like to point out various Catholics who disagree on this matter.  One such discussion I stumbled across on Beggars All.  On BA, Mr. Swan quotes a Catholic blogger named "Shelly" who quotes from MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS (MD):

"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."

But!  What Mr. Swan appears to be a bit ignorant of is the fact that the definition is NOT the entire document!  That which is protected by the charism of infallibility is NOT the entire document - rather it is ONE SENTENCE within that document!  This is THAT sentence:

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.

The earlier commentary, even though it is from His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, and within the same document as the definition - is just that - Pope Pius' personal commentary on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  All the definition states is that she completed the course of her earthly life.  It does not state whether she died before being bodily assumed into Heaven - only that she was thusly assumed.

Another point worthy of note... the quote "Shelly" uses from MD is actually Pope Pius XII quoting from Sacramentarium Gregorianum - of Adrian I, which he sent to Emperor Charlemagne.  Clearly it can be assumed that Pope Pius XII believed, along with Adrian I, that the Blessed Virgin Mary suffered temporal death - as all humans have and will (saving those who may be "raptured" - but that's a whole 'nother discussion!).  The pope sharing his beliefs in MD does not equate to those beliefs being declared infallible.  Again, the ONLY part of MD which is to be considered infallible is THE DEFINITION - which is ONE SENTENCE from section 44 of that document.

Eastern Icon of the Dormition

Personally, I lean to the side that she indeed died - however - the Eastern Catholic (and Orthodox) tradition for this "feast day" is that the Blessed Virgin Mary "slept" - and in fact, the Eastern title of the feast day is "The Dormition of the Theokotos" (The Falling Asleep of the God Bearer).  That could be a bit misleading (it was for me for a while) for that "sleep" is in reality of their tradition the "sleep of death."  Part of this tradition is that the Blessed Virgin went into this "sleep of death" in the presence of the Apostles and was buried - but St. Thomas was missing.  He, wanting to see her one more time, convinced the others to open her grave and there it was found her grave was empty - she had been taken.

This conversation continues, nearly two years later, as you can see here:
http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2013/08/did-mary-die-part-2.html

Mary, Mother of God is No Doormat--Part Two, Early Church Fathers

"If Jesus is the Door, than Mary must be the doormat..." was the silly, and rather insulting quip.  Mary, the Mother of God Our Savior, Jesus Christ, is certainly no doormat.  Just because many modern protestants want to make sure that they are seen as separate from the mother Church, it does not give them the right to denigrate the mother of Christ the King.  Does anyone really like someone to insult their mother?  I highly doubt Jesus Christ is ever pleased by so-called Christians insulting His mother either.  At the very least, Mary's name should be honored for being the Mother of God the Son.  And, as many protestants lately seem to be trying to, no matter how tenuously, find some kind of commonality between their innovative, individualistic unscriptural 'church' and the early Christian church, it is odd that most don't even understand what the Early Church taught.  (Or is it odd, really?  Most 'Christian' cults have no real understanding of the Scripture, let alone history, in context).

Here is a sampling of just how the early Church felt about Mary:

Mother of God:

  "After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the mother of God in the fullness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead."   Alexander of Alexandria,

Epistle to Alexander, 12 (A.D. 324).

"Many, my beloved, are the true testimonies concerning Christ. The Father bears witness from heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears witness, descending bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: the Virgin Mother of God bears witness: the blessed place of the manger bears witness."   Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, X:19

(c. A.D. 350).

"And the Angel on his appearance, himself confesses that he has been sent by his Lord; as Gabriel confessed in the case of Zacharias, and also in the case of Mary, bearer of God."

Athanasius, Orations III, 14  (A.D. 362).

"To the question: 'Is Mary the bearer of Man, or the bearer of God?' we must answer: 'Of Both.'" Theodore of Mopsuestia, The Incarnation, 15 (ante A.D. 428).

The early Church called Mary "Mother of God" because, despite His becoming a real human, Jesus Christ "suffered no diminution of His Godhead."  As His Church says, Jesus Christ was true God and true man.  Mary was not merely the mother of a human shell, she was the mother of the whole person.  Even if you don't believe she is special in any other way (and obviously Catholics don't agree), she did do something very, very special--She bore GOD in her body.  That deserves some respect, doesn't it?

Mary's Assumption into Heaven:

“If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: 'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world." 
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

"[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones..."
Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles, 1:4 (inter A.D. 575-593).

"It was fitting ...that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory ...should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God."

Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption (ante A.D. 650).

"It was fitting that the she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped when giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father, It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God."
John of Damascene, Dormition of Mary (PG 96,741), (ante A.D. 749).

Obviously the early Church felt that Mary, God's mother, deserved to be bodily assumed into heaven; that is her body was never corrupted by rotting in the ground.  That can't be true, you say, because no one but Christ has gained their bodily 'resurrection' yet.  Ever heard of Elijah?  Although I have heard one silly protestant try to argue that Elijah was taken up in a chariot, according to Scripture, but we don't know where he went.  Really?  Guess she's never read the Gospel account of the Transfiguration.  Elijah and Moses were there standing next to Jesus.  Is Mary any less important in the history of the salvation of the world than Elijah or Moses?  I don't believe so and neither did the early Church.  Christendom was nearly unanimous on this point until well after the 'reformers' started their destruction of the Church Christ built (Many 'reformers' such as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and others continued to honor Mary despite their split from the True Church).  Mary, the Mother of God, was honored by her Son with the assumption (taking up of) her body into Heaven.  Can't one see that he/she is really very presumptuous to insult the Mother of God while God and His Church honor her?

Mary honored by the Church:

"[T]hey blessed her, saying: O God of our fathers, bless this child, and give her an everlasting name to be named in all generations. And all the people said: So be it, so be it, amen. And he brought her to the chief priests; and they blessed her, saying: O God most high, look upon this child, and bless her with the utmost blessing, which shall be for ever." 
Protoevangelium of John, 6:2 (A.D. 150).

"And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity." 

Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 10:17 (A.D. 244).

"And when he had taken her, 'he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word 'till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man."

John Chrysostom, Homily on Matthew, 5:5 (A.D. 370).

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair; for there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother. Of these two fair ones, to whom are my children similar?"

Ephraem, Nisbene Hymns, 27:8 (ante A.D. 373).

The early Church honored the Blessed Virgin Mary.  She is the "utmost" blessed, the "first-fruit" among women, and the "first-fruit of virginity."  For no other reason than she is the Mother of Jesus, God the Son, she at the very least deserves a little respect.  I will conclude with the following quote:

"Whoever honors the Lord also honors the holy [vessel]; who instead dishonors the holy vessel also dishonors his Master.  Mary herself is that holy Virgin, that is, the holy vessel"

Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:21 (A.D. 377).

Quotes from Scripture Catholic.
Classical art with no copyrights.