And as for the Dormition, according to Bishop Kallistos Ware it was only redefined by the Orthodox when the Catholics decided to make it dogma.
Either +Kallistos is being misrepresented, or he is quite wrong. The hymnography for the Dormition feast dates from no later than the 8th century, and clearly proclaims the Mother of God dying, before the translation of her body and soul to heaven. Never has the Orthodox Church taught that she was bodily assumed into heaven without dying first.
Orthodox iconography of the Dormition is also completely consistent in portraying the death of the Mother of God.
The only reason the Catholics call it the Assumption is to distinguish it from the Ascension.
The Theotokos was taken into heaven while Jesus Ascended under his own power.
That is the only reason for the term. A third of the dogmatic constitution on the Assumption talks about the long tradition of the Church concerning the death of the Mother of God. It AFFIRMS her death.
This whole discussion about that issue is silly after a while.
And yet your "magisterium" allows your Immortalists to prattle on. The critical part of Munficentissimus Deus, the only part that at least your Latin coreligionists are agreed is "infallible" leaves it an open question. Now if you want to argue that the whole papal bull is infallible, that's fine. Just apply the same criteria to Unam Sanctam and a whole host of others.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2012, 12:49:25 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
and both come out of your mouth